TJP

The West should Evaluate its Aggressive Behavior

Byron A. Ellis – July 10, 2008

It is difficult to understand why contemplating military action against Iran which will possible kill and injure many Iranians is good, while Iranian missile test which does not involve loss of life is bad. When the West talks about Iran, it is often an unbalanced conversation; the Iranians are bad and the West is good.

Thus, the definition of “good” and “bad” is not the same in the West and the Middle East. However, for both regions to have good relationships terminologies must have the same meaning; that is the essence of communication.

For instance when Israel tested long-rage flights, practicing for a potential attack on Iran. The West did not view such aggressive behavior as bad. However, they should have evaluated the behavior from Iran’s point of view.

It is this inability to empathize and to communicate, whether deliberate or not, that prevents relationship building. Lack empathy and communication leads to building barriers, military defenses, and the potential for detrimental choices.

It would be prudent for the West to stop the saber rattling about attacking Iran and for Iran to also lower its rhetoric. Clearly, neither the long-range military flights by Israel nor Iran’s response by testing missiles are helpful. Both can lead to unintended consequences.

Another choice war would be the height of stupidity and cause further economic turmoil. Nonetheless, politicians in Israel, the United States, and Iran continue ratchet up their rhetoric in an effort to appear tough to their constituencies. But, the appearance of toughness is not leadership. Leadership embodies the interest of all parties.

The current Western approach to Iran is one-sided and counterproductive. As a result, it has not achieved its goals. The approach is akin to bully diplomacy, which worked well in the past when information was not widely disseminated.

The political brouhaha about testing missiles is simplistic and one-sided. Israel tested its long-range flight capability and Western politicians did not object.

It is, therefore, rational for Iran to signal that any attack on their country will involve retaliatory consequences. Iran, however, has not signaled that it would pre-emptively destroy facilities in other countries. But, they are aware of Israel’s propensity to attack facilities in other countries. Israel recently attacked Syria and the West did object. Had Iran attacked Syria, the West would have called the attack terrorism.

Thus, we ought to be baffled when Iran is viewed as an aggressor nation, when history proves otherwise. It appears that the West is saying if you are our ally and militarily strong you can be the aggressors and we will not labeled you as terrorist. If, however, you are not an ally and merely test a weapon you’re out of bound.

Thus, the procedures used by the West to deal with adversaries are not just. It is impossible to build relationships when procedural justice does exist. The procedures that the West uses to label nations as terrorist are not consistent. 

For instance, when aggressor nations invade other countries their missiles are often tested on civilians, but not all aggressor nations are labeled terrorist. Thus, the definition of a terrorist nation is variable; it depends on the aggressor. However, consistency should require that every attacking nation should be labeled as terrorist and dealt with by the international community. 

Certainly, warring aggressor nations must be contained. The irony, however, it is that the warring aggressor nations are the ones attempting to contain nations without an aggressive history.

In Matt 7:3 Jesus asks "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

It is always prudent to examine our behavior before we examine the behavior of others.

[ Home | Comments | Search | Post ]

POST COMMENT

SAVE DARFUR