It's surprising and can even be transformational when we look outside the tunnel often imposed on how we see the world. Our over-reliance on mainstream media is not only limiting but it may sometimes create more distortion than clarity. Nowhere is this more apparent or important than when it comes to the Middle East and the misunderstandings between the West and the Muslim world. In this installment I would like to turn our attention to the conflict with Iran.
An alternative way forward with Iran
John Bryson Chane, the Episcopal Bishop for the diocese of Washington, D.C. wrote about his recent discussions in Iran with Iranian academic and religious leaders "who are very concerned about the possibility of a US military incursion against their homeland." Given the failure of traditional diplomacy, the Bishop makes a plea for a new creative parallel path of diplomacy:
An alternative way forward with Iran
John Bryson Chane, the Episcopal Bishop for the diocese of Washington, D.C. wrote about his recent discussions in Iran with Iranian academic and religious leaders "who are very concerned about the possibility of a US military incursion against their homeland." Given the failure of traditional diplomacy, the Bishop makes a plea for a new creative parallel path of diplomacy:
"A new 21st century understanding of Track II diplomacy, initiated through theological diplomacy, must go hand-in-hand with the formal diplomatic search for the peace that has always been at the centre of the Holy Books of both Christianity and Islam."He believes
such an approach can bear fruit based on the common ground he found with those he spoke to:
Given our one-sided view of Iran, propagated by most of our own leaders and sustained by our limited media consumption, we would never know if there was an alternative or supplemental way forward in this very dangerous conflict, would we? In this case, being limited by what we know, and not easily having or taking the opportunity to broaden our knowledge, could have catastrophic consequences in this particular conflict with Iran.
"While in Tehran and Qom, one of the holiest cities in Iran, we spent a great deal of time discussing the common religious values and themes shared by both Christianity and Islam. Our commonalities centred on issues of peace as well as the moral prohibition of developing and using weapons of mass destruction. In addition to agreeing that politicians have been behaving childishly, my Iranian colleagues and I also think that the level of ignorance by Christians and Muslims about each other's religions has been extremely unhelpful in extending positive dialogue between these two great monotheistic religions and our two nations."He further writes that the Iranians use the nuclear problem as a deliberate "wedge issue" in their relations with the US and that their more than provocative statements about the Holocaust and Israel grow out of "deflected anger at America" for decades of perceived wrongs:
"Iran can also look to the history of unwelcome involvement by the United States in its internal affairs. The covert overthrow of popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq in 1953, the propping up and support of the unpopular Shah, the US government's military support of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq's war with Iran, and the failure of the Clinton Administration to embrace the emerging moderate leadership of President Khatami (eventually leading to Khatami's isolation by hardliners in his government)..."The Bishop's article got no mainstream coverage in the USA. It only appeared in limited 'alternative' sources: commongroundnews.org, Daily News Egypt, Pakistan Christian Chronicle, Al Jazeera, a website catering to the American Iranian community and Middle East Online. Suppose the Bishop is correct. Imagine there is common ground to be found based on shared religious values if we can get past the many misunderstandings on both sides.
Given our one-sided view of Iran, propagated by most of our own leaders and sustained by our limited media consumption, we would never know if there was an alternative or supplemental way forward in this very dangerous conflict, would we? In this case, being limited by what we know, and not easily having or taking the opportunity to broaden our knowledge, could have catastrophic consequences in this particular conflict with Iran.
Comments