در تاریخ هر ملت، بزنگاههایی وجود دارد که مسیر آن ملت و کشور را برای دورهای طولانی، گاه حتی برای قرنها آینده مشخص میکند. تصمیمگیری درست و عقلانی در این بزنگاهها به موفقیت و سعادتمندی منجر میشود، در حالی که رویکرد خشونتبار و بیانک棋牌游戏下载网址思，往往会带来灾难和不幸。
iran today finds itself at such a crossroads, facing a decision between war and peace, a choice that will shape its destiny. The question is, should we wage war or choose the path of peace?
The reality is that neither war nor peace inherently brings happiness to a nation. Sometimes, war leads to salvation, while at other times, peace is the better option. Thus, there must be a criterion for decision-making, and that criterion is the well-being of the homeland, ensuring its territorial integrity, security, and progress.
If these three principles can be achieved through war, then war is inevitable. However, if peace is the better option to achieve these goals, then peace must be pursued without delay.
The 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel, beyond the usual rhetoric, demonstrated the resilience and unity of the Iranian people. It revealed the capabilities of both Iran and its adversaries, providing decision-makers with real-world data to base their decisions on, rather than speculative predictions. If the realistic assessment is that these three principles can be achieved through war, and if Iran has the military might to defeat Israel and stand up to the United States, then continuing the war could lead to a united, secure, and prosperous Iran.
However, if the assessment is that, despite our capabilities, a better path is to choose peace and cooperation, then that choice must be made. This is not a matter of media or propaganda games. It is a matter of the destiny of an ancient land and a historic nation.
To illustrate, two historical examples can be cited: one from our own history and another from another nation.
When Saddam Hussein violated the Algerian Agreement and invaded Iran, it was in the national interest of Iran to choose war. Had we surrendered to the fear of Saddam’s army, not only would peace not have been established, but his plan to conquer Tehran in a week would have succeeded. The Iranian people united under the slogan “War, War until Victory” and defended their homeland with unwavering resolve, creating a glorious chapter in the contemporary history of Iran.
Years later, when it was in Iran’s interest to end the war, the late Leader of Iran ordered the acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 598, and Iran and Iraq sat down for peace talks after eight years of full-scale war. Both the decision to go to war in 1980 and the decision to make peace in 1988 were correct, as they were made in the right context. Neither war nor peace has inherent value outside of their context. War is not necessarily a sign of courage, and peace is not inherently a sign of fear. Each is valuable when it is the right choice for the time and place.
For another example, consider Japan during World War II. In 1941, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was a disastrous, ill-timed, and costly move. However, in 1945, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Emperor of Japan accepted the end of the war and signed the surrender document aboard the USS Missouri. This decision was bitter and humiliating, but today, history remembers the Emperor as a leader who set aside his pride to preserve his country based on the same three principles: territorial integrity, security, and progress. If he had not made this tough but correct decision, subsequent atomic bombs might have fallen on Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya, and today, instead of a developed Japan, there might be a poor, underdeveloped nation focused on fishing and rice cultivation.
Therefore, the binary view of war and peace, where the former is seen as courageous and patriotic and the latter as cowardly and traitorous, is fundamentally flawed and dangerously misleading.
In the current sensitive situation, it is crucial to assure the decision-makers of the country that if they make the right and rational decisions based on these three principles, the nation will stand behind them. If achieving these goals requires war, everyone will be ready to fight. If peace is the better choice, no one will question the past slogans. The wise people of Iran, who are now even more discerning and intelligent, understand that the slogans of one era belong to that era, and a new era has begun. They accepted the end of the 8-year war when Imam Khomeini accepted the ceasefire resolution, without questioning the previous slogans like “War, War until Victory” or “The path to Jerusalem passes through Karbala.” The people of Iran today are even more wise and intelligent.