Why dialogue as a peace tool must be sharpened

NUKE ISSUE: Direct talks between Washington and Tehran could indeed be the most advisable option available to defuse what is being seen as a growing confrontation between the US and Iran on the nuclear issue.

Hopefully, US Republican Senator Richard Lugar, who has spoken out in favour of a dialogue process between the states in preference to the use of sanctions by the US, would win more and more converts to his view particularly among those manning the policy and decision-making machinery in Washington.

Reports have quoted President George Bush as dismissing rumours over a possible US, military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities as "wild speculation", but if the US misadventure in Iraq is anything to go by, some military extravagance on the part of Washington on this issue cannot be entirely ruled out.

However, hopefully, wise counsel would prevail in Washington and the military option would indeed be perceived as a costly initiative which would plunge South-West Asia and the Persian Gulf region into greater politico-military turmoil.

Special note should be made of a comment made by a militant source in a news agency report recently that some 200 persons were opting for "martyrdom" in the guise of suicide bombers targeting US cities, if Washington went ahead with military action against Iran. The massive carnage caused by suicide bombers in the West in the past, should caution the Western powers against dismissing these comments as idle threats.

However, the military quagmire the US has brought on itself in Iraq should compel Washington to consider very closely the options at hand in regard to the Iran nuclear crisis. Accentuating the case for dialogue and other peaceful options is the continuing blood-letting in the Middle East.

At the time of writing, Israel has suffered its worst suicide bombing since its Gaza withdrawal in the middle of last year, with nine Israelis losing their lives and nearly 50 others suffering injuries at a Tel Aviv Fast Food restaurant.

It should be plain to see that non-military, peaceful options should be seriously considered on ending conflicts of this kind where ideological and religious polarities are playing a crucial role.

There is no need to labour the point that the Iranian issue is inseparable from the Middle East, Iraqi and Afghan conflicts on account of their strongly identity-based nature. The essential truth about these conflicts is that Western military, economic and cultural hegemony is being seen as a threat to cultural and religious systems indigenous to the regions concerned.

Perceived Western hegemony could be expected to be staunchly and bloodily resisted, as is happening in Iraq. The Middle East conflict is greatly complicated by the fact that Israel is being seen as an incursive instrument of the West.

Accordingly, perceptions and deep-seated emotions are proving to be vital in these trouble spots and it is difficult to see how these barriers could be overcome by the force of arms. The West needs to seriously consider dialoguing with its perceived opponents in these regions on their differences for the purpose of laying the basis for effective conflict-containment.

However, if hegemonic control of the world is high on the US agenda, it would need to brace for stiff opposition.

As for making the nuclear option less appealing among power contenders, the West needs to come to terms with the fact that it cannot enjoy monopoly control over nuclear power and expect the rest of the world to remain content with non-nuclear options.

However, if there is total nuclear disarmament, those eager to possess nuclear weapons could be persuaded into giving up their dangerous dream. Besides, the West would be justified in imposing controls on them.