Intercultural dialogue and the Iran war

Wars that could have been avoided

This is precisely what we are witnessing today in the aftermath of the American and Israeli wars against Iran: the first conflict in 2025, known as the 12-day war, and the second in 2026, known as the 30-day war, whose repercussions we are still experiencing.

Both wars could have been avoided. The United States could have maintained economic pressure on Iran while indirectly supporting domestic uprisings, potentially encouraging changes in the Iranian regime's nature and conduct. The prospects for such change appeared greater with the emergence of a new generation that no longer genuinely identifies with the slogans of the 1979 revolution and has developed different aspirations for its future. A new class of politicians has also emerged who believe that Iran must come first and that the country needs to rethink its foreign policy, particularly its approach to neighbouring states.

Benjamin Netanyahu's relentless pressure on President Trump to declare war has instead driven Iranians to unite behind their current leadership. Although many disagree with that leadership, they have come to believe that Iran itself is under attack. This is evident, for example, in the position taken by Hamid Dabashi, a dissident political thinker and professor at Columbia University in the United States, among others.

As a consequence, Iran's current leadership has moved to expand the geographical scope of its attacks, a position recently reaffirmed by Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei in his latest message to the Iranian people just a few days ago.

Such a move would have profoundly negative consequences for the wider region and could lead to a major catastrophe if carried out. It must therefore be rejected unequivocally. Such actions constitute direct aggression and inevitably prompt those targeted to retaliate, thereby widening the war. This escalation is driven not by civilisational or cultural differences, but by political and religious interests that lack any legitimate foundation or justification.

Culture as resistance

In this context, civilisation and culture can themselves become a source of strength and resilience. Yet they can also, at a certain point, become a means of attacking the other side. This is reflected in the hostile language that surfaces in the rhetoric of politicians who stoke war, often dressed in cultural, civilisational or religious terms.

Whatever form this takes, civilisation itself, in both its material and intangible dimensions, bears no responsibility for the hostility being stirred up in its name. Its essence lies in peace, which enables peoples to know one another and to live together in harmony.

Finally, I would like to recall a traditional tale that captures the essence of this argument. A man was walking through the desert when he spotted a figure in the distance. At first, he thought it was a monster. As he drew closer, he began to recognise human features. As he drew closer, he discovered the figure was his own brother.

So it is with us today. Distance shapes how we see one another, while drawing closer allows us to recognise how much we share. We will then realise that what unites us is greater than what divides us, and that, despite our differences in colour and ethnicity, we all share a common human origin. With that understanding, extremist religious rhetoric will lose its power and influence, whether it is Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or comes from any other religious tradition.