Although the sudden and incalculable clash between Afghan and Iranian border guards has stalled, fear of another conflict still looms in other areas of the Iranian border. As retired Iranian Foreign Ministry diplomat Syed Mahmoud Sadri discussed bilateral relations between the two countries and the reasons for their arrival at that dangerous juncture, he laid out broad lines for dealing with the file, embodied by nine points or viable solutions to emerging from the crisis.
The electronic newspaper Nama News (namehnews.com) reported on what Sadri wrote in this regard, as follows:
Why did it come to an exchange of fire between border forces?
There are various reasons for the outbreak of armed clashes, and regardless of which explanation will, the question remains: Why do some border problems between the two countries develop directly into an armed conflict and an immediate clash? This shows the lack of Afghan education and the lack of a positive view of the governance of the security system, as well as their hard-line thinking and fighting spirit.
Given the culture of the Afghan individual or leader, any positive change in dealing with such files seems unlikely; hence, moving away from any armed conflict appears Muslim and inevitable for the Iranian side. In case of tension or border disagreement, the parties concerned and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must sit at the negotiating table—and have in-depth discussions to reach a future consensus formula to whistle border problems.
Although the Iranian regime made a strategic mistake by deliberately providing the opportunity for the Taliban to return and take control, which in turn provided the atmosphere conducive to creating an armed confrontational climate by exerting political and psychological pressure and widening the dispute with Iran, Iran managed the crisis positively and away from military solutions.
The wrong thinking of the ruling community is that the best way to solve all problems in Afghanistan is through war and power. Indeed, the Taliban are not inclined towards ideal civilizational solutions or international laws and standards, but it must be borne in mind that the counterparty is a ruler and a reality and must be dealt with accordingly; in this case, constructive dialogue will be dominant, and the language of war and escalation has no place in this equation
The electronic newspaper Nama News (namehnews.com) reported on what Sadri wrote in this regard, as follows:
Why did it come to an exchange of fire between border forces?
There are various reasons for the outbreak of armed clashes, and regardless of which explanation will, the question remains: Why do some border problems between the two countries develop directly into an armed conflict and an immediate clash? This shows the lack of Afghan education and the lack of a positive view of the governance of the security system, as well as their hard-line thinking and fighting spirit.
Given the culture of the Afghan individual or leader, any positive change in dealing with such files seems unlikely; hence, moving away from any armed conflict appears Muslim and inevitable for the Iranian side. In case of tension or border disagreement, the parties concerned and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must sit at the negotiating table—and have in-depth discussions to reach a future consensus formula to whistle border problems.
Although the Iranian regime made a strategic mistake by deliberately providing the opportunity for the Taliban to return and take control, which in turn provided the atmosphere conducive to creating an armed confrontational climate by exerting political and psychological pressure and widening the dispute with Iran, Iran managed the crisis positively and away from military solutions.
The wrong thinking of the ruling community is that the best way to solve all problems in Afghanistan is through war and power. Indeed, the Taliban are not inclined towards ideal civilizational solutions or international laws and standards, but it must be borne in mind that the counterparty is a ruler and a reality and must be dealt with accordingly; in this case, constructive dialogue will be dominant, and the language of war and escalation has no place in this equation
