Follow us on social


There Are No Winners in a War With Iran

President Kennedy once said that, “Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.”

Analysis | Middle East

As we find ourselves on the brink of another unnecessary war in the Middle East, I am reminded of the night the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. At the time I was taking an international studies course titled, “Islam and the West.” Beyond teaching about the historical context that informed our contemporary politics, our professor’s objective was to give us the needed tools in order to “bridge the gap” between these erroneously divided worlds. Then a wide-eyed undergraduate student, my fellow classmates and I embodied the characteristic idealism of youth, the belief that with our convictions and our humanity we could change the course of events.

Then came the night of March 19, 2003, which was during our week of final exams, the university was open 24 hours a day so students could study. I will never forget the feeling of sitting in a study hall with so many students huddled around a television watching the news. You could hear a pin drop as we sat pensive and deflated. With little sleep and even less hopefulness, the next morning we walked into the final exam. I raised my hand and posed a simple question, what was the purpose of what we had learned, if we were powerless to prevent continuous conflict?

Our professor did something incredible in that moment. She reminded us that she herself had lived through the Lebanese Civil War and understood our dejection, but that things would only change if we continued the path, educated ourselves, and engaged in honest discussion with others. Despite the very real fear and feeling of despair I have now, I remind myself of her wisdom at a time when her young students were seeking inspiration.

Now, as an adult with the bitter experience of the Iraq war, we are on the precipice of a more disastrous conflict. We are a generation defined by those experiences, 9/11, the “war on terror,” Afghanistan, and Iraq. But in that class, all those years ago, my peers and I learned how every conflict we were facing had roots in the past, a cycle of violence that people in power explained away with less convincing arguments every day.

East and West are not clean divisions of “clashing civilizations,” they are historical constructs meant to divide human beings against each other. When the President of the United States threatens to destroy Iran’s cultural sites, it is not only an assault on Iran, but an attack on human history and civilization. Though on its surface the current conflict is between Iran and the United States, a war would reverberate through the world. As such, the international community should intervene and mediate an end to this escalation before it is truly too late.

Some will say those lines have already been crossed, but we always have choices, a cease-fire, a period of calm, a true negotiation, in short, diplomacy. Seventeen years ago, when we invaded Iraq, young and naive, I tried to appeal to people’s emotions. Now as an adult, I am still moved to tears as I write these words, but I have learned to appeal to logic. There is no hope in the foreseeable future to shed the mutual enmities of Iran and the U.S., a painful truth for an Iranian-American, but there is a way to reverse course and save the world from more futile destruction.

Though adversaries, our two countries — along with the international community — have already gone through arduous diplomacy, resulting in the nuclear deal. It is now weak but not dead, as seen by Iran’s most recent decision not to abandon the deal entirely. The framework of the deal exists, and Iran has specified that if sanctions are lifted and it obtains the benefits promised in the deal, that it will return to full compliance. The first step is to end the destructive cycle of violent escalation. But hitting the breaks is not enough, we must reverse course entirely, a reset to the last point in which we remember not being in tense conflict. That is the nuclear deal.

President Kennedy once said that, “Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.” The negotiations that facilitated the nuclear deal are precisely the sum of small acts that Kennedy envisioned — not a perfect peace, not one where all are friends, but a peace among adversaries. A model for cooperation, which can be replicated to address the ever-growing challenges that we face as a planet.

Upon reflection, I may still hold the hopeful idealism of the student I was before March 19, 2003. You may think I’m naive to believe war can be averted now — as it looks like it may have for the moment — and a fool for advocating still for a deal many call dead. But, one may argue it is naive to believe such a war will have a “winner” and even more foolish to think the human cost can be justified. Now more than ever, anti-war voices are crucial to end the madness of our ineffective policies. No matter the coming days, weeks or even years, I will continue to move irresistibly towards peace, the alternative is unbearable to imagine.

Analysis | Middle East
The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers

KYIV, UKRAINE - July 12, 2023: Destroyed and burned Russian military tanks and parts of equipment are exhibited at the Mykhailivska square in Kyiv city centre. (Oleksandr Popenko/Shutterstock)

The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers


Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city.

Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.

keep readingShow less
Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

A woman lays flowers at the monument to the victims of political repressions following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2024. REUTERS/Stringer

Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin


President Biden was entirely correct in the first part of his judgment on the death of Alexei Navalny: “Putin is responsible, whether he ordered it, or he is responsible for the circumstances he put that man in.” Even if Navalny eventually died of “natural causes,” his previous poisoning, and the circumstances of his imprisonment, must obviously be considered as critical factors in his death.

For his tremendous courage in returning to Russia after his medical treatment in the West — knowing well the dangers that he faced — the memory of Navalny should be held in great honor. He joins the immense list of Russians who have died for their beliefs at the hands of the state. Public expressions of anger and disgust at the manner of his death are justified and correct.

keep readingShow less
Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

ProStockStudio via

Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

Military Industrial Complex

Nuclear weapons aren’t just a threat to human survival, they’re a multi-billion-dollar business supported by some of the biggest institutional investors in the U.S. according to new data released today by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands.

For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis