Dialogue Is Better Than War

By Rupert Johnson

Last week’s brief dialogue between President Obama of the United States and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran was the only bright spot that seemed to have dispelled the gloom and doom attitude on the international stage.

After 34 years of non-presidential face to face contact and dialogue, the current Presidents of these countries have decided that it is time to engage each other in a meaningful way.

Notwithstanding, many cynical naysayers in the U.S. were quick to denounce this type of high level dialogue as nothing more than a reward for  Iran’s recalcitrant and bellicose behaviour. These naysayers fail to see that three decades of overt avoidance and hostility have been fruitless. They are hell-bent on continuing this insane threadbare policy with the hope that the result will be different.

These pessimists should heed the warning of Albert Einstein, the noted nuclear physicist, who said: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Nowhere is this definition more applicable than America’s hostility towards Iran and vice versa.

It should now be quite obvious to every sane and rational individual that a preponderance of military muscle by both countries will never settle bitter disputes.

America and the Middle East would have been in a much better position today if the ideas of a bipartisan Iraq Study Group were put into effect over 6 years ago. The Iraq Study Group (headed by James Baker, a staunch Republican and former Secretary of State; and Lee Hamilton, a long-time Congressman and noted Democrat) advocated a drastic shift from a purely military strategy to a predominantly diplomatic and political approach.

All members of the Study Group endorsed the idea that the U.S. should reach out and engage Iran and Syria in a concerted effort to solve the problems in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East.

“In the Middle East, you don’t pick and choose who you talk with,” said Lee Hamilton. James Baker concurred by saying: “You talk to your enemies, not just your friends.”

Baker backed up his statement by referring to the fact that the U.S. held constant talks with the Soviet Union for 40 years during which time the Soviets threatened to wipe America off the face of the earth.

It should be remembered that in spite of these threats, the dialogue between the two Superpowers eventually led to the thawing of the Cold War.

Of course there are other precedent-setting productive talks between avowed enemies. For example, under the careful diplomatic guidance of Jimmy Carter, a former U.S. President, the belligerent Egyptian and Israeli leaders, Muhammed Anwar Sadat and Menchem Begin respectively, confronted each other and arrived at a historic diplomatic agreement commonly referred to as the Camp David Accord.

Similarly, another U.S. President, Richard Nixon, had the courage and foresight to reach out and engage Communist China, thus bringing that giant of a nation out of isolation.

It should also be noted that Moshe Dayan, the famous Israeli Defence Minister during the legendary six-day war in the Middle East, stated unequivocally: “If you want peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”

And finally, the Presidents of both America and Iran have realized that it is prudent to heed the voice of Sir Winston Churchill, a hawkish British Prime Minister, who said: “To jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.” This means that dialogue or talking is better than belligerent military confrontation.

Rupert Johnson can be contacted at: r.b.johnson@sympatico.ca.