I count myself among those who oppose not only military action against Iran but also economic sanctions and any other form of punishment of Iran and even propaganda-based approaches to attempting to reshape Iran in the image and likeness of the United States and Israel.
Economic sanctions -- warfare by other means, have been approved by the US Congress in HR 1400. Orange County, California Republican Representative Ed Royce explained in an appearance on C-Span that the goal of HR 1400 is to completely destabilize the Iranian economy so that the Iranian people will riot and overthrow their government.
Against the pleas of Iranian scholar Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Iranian Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, among others, propaganda-based approaches to destabilizing Iran were once again funded by action of the US Congress.
These are actions that a growing number of Americans are demanding NOT be taken against Iran.
What actions should the US be taking regarding Iran?
Many have been urging "unconditional negotiations" with Iran. Talk to Iran, America's leaders are urged. Small groups in small towns throughout the nation are trying to conduct their own "Track 2 Diplomacy" by reaching out to the Iranian people.
Some of these small groups have found themselves under withering attack by our neighbors and co-religionists. When the Center for Justice and Reconciliation at Washington National Episcopal Cathedral hosted former Iranian President and Islamic cleric Mohammad Khatami, Mark Tooley, director of the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy, blistered the Episcopal church in an article prepared for Front Page magazine and posted, as well, on the Anglicans for Israel web site.
Tooley quoted
Reverend Canon John L. Peterson, who directs the cathedral’s Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation at the Cathedral. "The Cathedral is a place of reconciliation that opens its doors to people of all faiths, and we have a special commitment to embracing the children of Abraham," said Canon Peterson. "We have found that the Cathedral is an important platform for dialogue and open discussion." According to the Canon, Khatami’s visit is "wholly appropriate" at this time of increasing global tensions, since he will talk about the role of the "three Abrahamic faiths" in shaping peace throughout the world.
But Tooley held Canon Peterson's mission statement in disdain:
Liberal Christian clerics like Canon Peterson and Dean Lloyd would be roasted on a spit and flayed until crispy brown if they lived under the reign of the Iranian mullahs, few of whom have much time for "dialogue" and "open discussion." Indeed, Christian clerics have been murdered in Iran, and Christians there, along with other religious minorities, stick to the shadows, lest they gain the unwanted attention of Iran’s religious police. But the National Cathedral has rarely if ever expressed interest in the plight of Christians living under Islamic regimes, in Iran or elsewhere, even though there are even fellow Anglicans struggling to survive under President Khatami’s friends and successors.
In fact, Canon Peterson HAS travelled to Iran, HAS led "Track 2 Peace Delegations" to Iran, and HAS returned alive. The rest of Tooley colorful, and hateful, language will have to stand with only Tooley's fingerprints to claim ownership; this writer will not touch Tooley's barbecue.
Similarly, Yehuda Shuel, organizer of "Breaking the Silence," the movement by some Israeli soldiers to perform an examination of the IDF and Israeli conscience with regard to IDF treatment of Palestinians, has encountered powerful resistance from Israelis and Israeli advocates in the US.
The question that emerges is, are we naive? Are those of us who urge our government to engage in unconditional dialogue with Iran asking our government to something that we, ourselves, are unwilling to do? And IF we do summon up our courage to attempt to open 'dialogue' -- or even a conversation, rather than a confrontation-- with those whose political position we oppose, is our attempt doomed to fail by its very nature, as Joseph Phelps cautions in this essay that the brave spirit at Dissident Veteran brought to our attention:
"When Dialogue is NOT our Hope" by Joseph Phelps in the Mennonite Conciliation Service's Conciliation Quarterly (Spring 1996. p. 8).
I hesitate to discuss the limitations of dialogue because of the danger that people will use them as escape hatches whenever the work become too demanding or too threatening. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that there are occasions when dialogue is not the appropriate action for people of faith. There are times to talk, and time to be silent. We cannot dialogue when:
Either side refuses to talk.
To continue to pursue dialogue in the face of an absolute rejection by the other side may be a counterproductive strategy.
There may be, however, a few folks on the other side who are willing to be in dialogue; you may be able to ask them to convey your positions to those on the extreme edges of their side--it may well be that persons on both extremes will only be able to dialogue with others on their particular side of the Divide but who are closer to the middle of the spectrum, instead of dialoguing with persons from the other side .
When the conversation is co-opted by persons in power. This happens when dialogue is used by a group that is being oppressive with their power as a way to appease the group with the grievance. In this case, dialogue is no longer a genuine exchange, but simply a way to neutralize the cry to be heard by those without power. In this scenario, dialogue is converted from a tool for mutual understanding and transformations, into a salve to soothe the feelings of the grieved ones by giving them the illusion of being heard and taken seriously. This perversion of dialogue will eventually be exposed, as the offending party comes to recognize that, indeed, this "talk is cheap."
It's difficult not to see the Annapolis conference as anything other than a prime example of a very elaborately constructed exercise in the neutralization of the powerless -- Palestinian Arabs -- by the powerful -- the US and Israel, with neighboring Arab states co-opted into choosing to cast their fates with the powerful.
When an issue of justice is involved.
This is the most complex reason for halting dialogue. Some conflicts are more than a difference of perspectives. As Martin Luther King reminded us, sometimes there are reasons "why we can't wait." People of God cannot be content to engage in dialogue with perpetrators of evil and injustice. We must be hesitant and cautious to place such strong labels on an individual or group, but sometimes we must.
There are times when action must take precedence over talk, when conflict should be pursued in place of a false peace. This what Jeremiah (6:14) accused the prophets of Jerusalem of doing: "They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying, 'Peace, Peace,' when there is no peace." A dialogue between Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus company which tried to force her to give up her seat in the 1950s was not in order (MCS Training Manual, p 134). Clearly, the time for talking had passed. An act of resistance, a shifting of sentiment, and a redefinition of power was necessary before honest dialogue could resume.
Jesus reminded us that there would be issues worth (non-violently) fighting over: "Do you suppose that I am here to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather dissension" (Luke 12:51). His stance for justice and true holiness put Him in constant conflict with those who preferred the status quo. The conflict the need for radical change. To have quelled the conflict through dialogue would have been to neglect the work for which He was sent. (Could this be why Jesus stood silent before Pilate when asked, "What is truth?"?) Jesus had real enemies; his command for us to love our enemies acknowledges their reality and requires a tough love that stands up to them, and through transforming initiatives, turns them into friends.
Thus for Jesus, there needed to be a transforming fight. Having said this, let us also remember that Jesus form of fighting differed the tactics of the world. And despite their vast differences, Jesus kept talking with His adversaries throughout His Ministry. He never gave up.
Phelps reformulates the question: What would Jesus do about Iran? Fight? Or Bitch?