This is a paid article which your subscription is allowing you to read.

Elliott Management has used a private investor letter to frame the United States (US)-Israeli campaign against Iran as a moral necessity, drawing a direct parallel to the Allied fight against Nazi Germany and warning of “potentially apocalyptic” consequences if the Iranian nuclear threat is left unchecked.

One of the world’s largest hedge funds, Elliott Management is led by Paul Singer, who has built a five-decade reputation as one of Wall Street’s smartest and toughest money managers. Singer once had an Argentine naval vessel impounded in a Ghanaian port to force Buenos Aires to pay its debts.

The letter, unsigned but historically written by Singer, argues that a nuclear Iran would pose a "threat to the whole world" and that the obligation of pre-emptive action against a "hostile power" is "absolute".

It then takes direct aim at two arguments commonly made against the war: that ideologies cannot be defeated by force, and that wars are futile. "Both claims are just plain wrong. Think of the war against German National Socialism and Japanese imperialism," the letter says, pointing to the post-World War II order which produced some of the world's "most stable democracies".

The full sense of the argument is this: when a hostile power, such as Tehran, is on the path to a nuclear weapon, the obligation to strike first is absolute. Not conditional, not negotiable, not subject to a diplomatic timetable. Singer is rejecting the standard liberal framework that weighs pre-emption against international law, alliance politics, public opinion, and the preferences of the United Nations. He is saying none of that applies once the regime is close enough to the bomb. At that point the calculation collapses. You strike, or you wait to be struck. There is no third option.

World War II remains the one modern conflict widely regarded in the Western tradition as morally clear-cut. There is no respectable position that says the Allied forces should have left Hitler unchallenged. Singer’s claim is that the confrontation with Iran belongs in that same category, not as a routine strategic dispute, but as a civilisational test. Which means the question of where one stands is not a policy question, it is a moral question. And on a moral question of that magnitude, neutrality is not available. You are either on the side that recognises the threat or you are on the side that enables it.

The Common Sense has consistently argued that the war on Iran is justified, necessary, and overdue. The case rests on the very point Singer now makes: this is existential.

This newspaper has reported that allowing Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities to mature would without a doubt pose an existential threat to the whole of the Western liberal world order. We know that because Iran openly says so. The chant from Tehran to London to New York to Sydney is, "First Saturday, and then Sunday."

Diplomacy with Tehran was tried for over forty years. It failed. President Trump was the only Western leader willing to stop pretending the next round of talks would produce a different result. The US may now move to bomb Iranian infrastructure back "into the Stone Age". The thinking is that this will set Iran's economy back so far that it will not again present an offensive threat to the West or to America's Gulf partners for a very long time.

Singer's argument forces a choice. Either Iran is a threat that has to be stopped, or it is not. There is no comfortable middle ground.

A Reminder of Where South Africa Stands

Earlier this year a senior spokesperson for South Africa's foreign ministry agreed on social media that South Africa should re-arm with nuclear weapons to counter the foreign policy of the US. The post was deleted with the excuse that it had been misunderstood. It was not misunderstood. This was a serious and telling moment, and it leaves this newspaper in little doubt that if South Africa still had its nuclear arsenal today, Pretoria would already be using it as leverage against Washington.

Pretoria has, in parallel, repeatedly condemned the American military campaign against Iran as imperialist and as a violation of Iranian sovereignty. The two positions, taken together, make South Africa the test case for Singer's argument almost too conveniently.

Singer's claim is that the obligation to prevent a hostile power from acquiring nuclear weapons is absolute, because such weapons in the wrong hands cannot be managed, only used. The horror of the weapon is what makes the obligation total. Pretoria's behaviour reveals that Pretoria does not feel that horror. For South Africa's foreign ministry, the weapon is just another rhetorical chess piece. Something to threaten with. Something to fantasise about. Something to invoke when expressing displeasure with Washington.

This is the same disposition that makes the Iranian nuclear programme so dangerous. It is exactly why, behind closed doors, the international community insisted that South Africa surrender its nuclear weapons as a condition of the 1994 transition. The judgement then was that the political movement about to take power could not be trusted with the bomb. Three decades later, with a foreign ministry casually fantasising about nuclear coercion of the US, that judgement looks vindicated.