Iranian religious leaders, who perhaps were not aware of the Nobel Peace Prize conversation, announced a fatwa, and a bounty appeared online.

The following article describes preceding events.

Russia said in 2025 that they want to help the U.S. to substantially improve relations with Iran. President Trump responded that Russia should first make peace with Ukraine before leading on peace with Iran.

Tel Aviv and Tehran were both under threat of military bombardment for quite some time. Iran’s media organization was reportedly demolished by an Israeli strike mid-broadcast. (The Tehran Times is online again after extended downtime.)

According to President Trump, the United States military got directly involved with Israel afterward to bomb the Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear power facilities deep inside Iran.

While the confrontation developed, President Trump simultaneously expressed a desire for peace. “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” he told his own newspaper’s reporter on June 21, 2025. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

As President Masoud Pezeshkian historically explained at the United Nations in 2025 that nations should treat each other with much more dignity. He said you should do onto others as you would have them do onto you, citing the Holy Qu’ran. That overlap he surfaced between Catholicism and Islam is right, and may explain to Americans why there are crosses on mosques in Iran. Muslim Iranians and Christian Americans share many beliefs in common. Perhaps religious views on all sides can incline our leaders to feel peaceful. After all, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all similarly Abrhamic religions, and consequently all insist on peace. It’s a commandment in the Torah. Islam contains the word “peace” in the name. And Jesus prays throughout the Bible for peace, including on the cross in the New Testament.

President Trump called on the Supreme Leader of Iran to “surrender.” Although only President Trump knows for sure, perhaps he used that word because “Islam” means surrender, and Iran is an “Islamic Republic.” The Supreme Leader responded that Iran would never do that, perhaps reflecting a distinction religious clerics make in surrendering to G-d, instead of to the other side.

In the Bible, Jesus surrendered to the Roman Empire, which ruled Jerusalem, and to soldiers, in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus also surrendered on the cross, when he prayed for peaceful treatment of his persecutors. He set a divine example of surrender.

Iranian media said all of the nuclear personnel in Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan survived. While the United States may or may not have been intending for everyone to remain safe, that was very important. The facilities were fully evacuated before they were completely obliterated according to Iranian newspapers. All of the Iranian people were reportedly perfectly fine. (It’s not surprising that Iran was careful with their personnel in context of preceding news events in May and June.) Iran responded by launching missiles towards U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq a day later, where non-essential Americans had similarly been evacuated. All Americans survived. Military on all sides are probably frightened but still living.

The Supreme Leader of Iran took international threats so seriously that he said he would select possible successors, according to the New York Times, which cited three Iranian sources. There wasn’t anything recently published in Iranian English language media that confirms or denies that. President Trump is not allowed under U.S. law - or the U.N. charter - to target foreign heads of state without prior congressional approval. Israel is not similarly constrained. But Israeli leadership said there are no plans to target the Supreme Leader, according to Newsmax and Ynet. Governments have publicly supporting peace and survival, which is consistent with continuity.

Iran believed there was a serious threat towards the Supreme Leader from Washington anyway. The Tehran Times explained, (quote in italics),

Evidence suggests that the primary goal of Israel and Washington in attacking Iran was "regime change." They likely assumed that the attacks would prompt the Iranian population, already struggling with economic and societal challenges, to rise up against the government and overthrow the Islamic Republic.

Americans and Israelis even presented the deposed Shah's son as an alternative, staging a press conference for him with international media to unveil his "day after" plans.

This does not seem true in light of the public comments from the other side and the extraordinary peace efforts for Iranian alliances such as the late 2025 peace accord achieved at the Mideast Peace Conference in Egypt.

A future Iranian Supreme Leader might not be more peaceful. A new Syrian leader made peace with Israel and the United States recently. But the Iranian media and population are disillusioned with the other side, and might not choose a leader the same way. There’s no way to know how that process would develop.

Iranian religious clerics responded protectively of the Iranian government. They issued a “fatwa” towards President Trump and Bibi Netanyahu on June 29, 2025, which has very threatening connotations in rhetoric. It literally means a religious clerical ruling regarding non-compliance with Sharia law. The ruling was made by non-state religious leaders. So from the Iranian government’s perspective, it falls short of published order from the Iranian government. But there is a risk that it may become viewed as declaratory from the U.S. side.

It’s important to remember that the Holy Quran is exceedingly peaceful. However, some Muslims like some Catholics read the holy book to tolerate physical confrontation in exceedingly unusual circumstances (Qur’an 5:33). For instance, a formal religious ruling can be issued when too many innocent lives have been taken. Wide-scale disorder is also not tolerated under some interpretations of Sharia law. However, the Holy Qu’ran is so peaceful that mercy is suggested for anyone who repents (Qur’an 5:34).

So far President Trump hasn’t harmed anyone in Iran. He organized a Mideast Peace Conference attended by over a dozen heads of state and foreign ministers, including from the region. He publicly called for Israel not to harm anyone. His only unkind order inside of Iran seems from media releases to have been to eliminate dangerous weapons (so forceful that they’re only useful against populations). And he said he wanted the peace truce to last forever. The fatwa seems surprisingly inconsistent with the effort for peace from the other side.

According to the Internet, Israel is a major non-NATO ally for the United States. So the country’s military and intelligence units cannot be directed by the United States. Israel is not part of the NATO command and control structure, and consequently only takes action on its own initiative. The United States does not have a congressionally approved treaty to defend Israel - just to share intelligence and to train with Israelis, according to internet research. But the United States does have a ten year commitment to supply arms that ends in 2028.

Probably the Iranian religious clerics responded to articles that said Israel targeted Iranian Leadership.

Iran’s leadership was clearly hoping the President of the United States would stop Israel from behaving that way. Israeli operations clearly seemed unfair to the Iranian side. President Trump initially did what Iran asked. He told Israel publicly not to target anyone inside of Iran. He only very eventually publicly acquiesced to Israel, and announced the U.S. incursion into Iran to eliminate WMD there.

Anyone who patterns “peace” feels cognitive dissonance when encountering incitement. Incitement is uncomfortable to people who pattern “peace” every day. Many Muslims pattern “peace” in Arabic the same way this peace maker uniquely does in English, by greeting each other with “peace” throughout every day. This writer therefore understands how American attitudes and actions can seem outlandish - even unimaginable - to Arabic speaking people in the Persian gulf, because he is patterned the same way as the population and governments there. Incited attitudes from the U.S. side seem unimaginable to average Muslims. On the other hand, the United States has tolerated tens of thousands of real lost lives in the Middle East in previous years and decades. So Muslim patterning has not meant that Arabic speaking people won’t defend themselves.

There may be a different tolerance for conflict between American and Persian people. At least, that’s the way it seems to this writer in his travels to the region. Americans feel comfortable with conflict in a way that some Muslims do not because of a difference in word frequency. Confrontations can seem more like natural behavior to people patterned with incitement. But it’s important for Iran to remember that the United States and NATO have a history of sincerely resolving differences in spite of this patterning. President Trump historically made peace with North Korea, and even became friends with the Supreme Leader of North Korea, with love letters. Their public peace developed after there was nearly an exchange of “fire and fury.” President Trump may someday be open to friendship with the Supreme Leader of Iran. There seemed from the U.S. President’s comments to reporters earlier this year to be a genuine commitment to that possibility with Iranian leadership at that time.

Congressional approval is necessary for President Trump to expand upon U.S. involvement in Iran. There is currently no declaration of war approved by Congress, and there would have to be for a much larger conflict.

When a country declares war against the United States, the U.S. President has immediate authority by law to launch strikes and mobilize troops without congressional approval. He gains leeway to use the military to defend and even respond. So rhetoric from foreign leaders and news producers can be important. When such a declaration is made, President Trump only needs subsequent congressional approval for a much more sustained large-scale incursion after limited initial ones. And leading Democrats so far have spoken out against that possibility. Words of foreign leaders and media matter a lot.

Prior to aforementioned events, Iranian leadership said on May 24, 2025 that, while they did not feel hopeful for a great attitude from the U.S. side, that they were cautiously giving nuclear negotiations one more chance. This writer hopes an agreement might still be achievable without further military confrontation.

U.S. President Donald Trump signaled readiness for improving relations at the start of his administration by saying that he wanted a basic agreement with Iran in place by the middle of May 2025. He publicly gave everyone four months to reach a deal. Perhaps from his perspective, an agreement did not even close to being accepted by the Iranian side within that timeframe. It probably looked to the White House like American lives were lost to Iranian proxies in Yemen, and Israeli lives were in danger from Iranian missiles. Iran seemed to the United States to choose a confrontational path. Iran’s recent statement that they may block the Strait of Hormuz and prevent 20% of the world’s oil shipments is real world example of a rhetorical challenge the Trump administration has received from Iran that has implications for countries globally.

Iran perhaps wasn’t initially eagerly receptive to overtures for peace because of destructive events from the U.S. and Israeli side in Yemen and Gaza. Perhaps Iran was forced to endure a genuine confrontation in response to merely very frightening military deterrence? That’s the way this writer analyzed news reports.

There were news reports about sunken vessels near the Houthi rebels. This writer doesn’t think any NATO vessels sunk based on his reading of the news articles. But he acknowledges that military deterrence can make it challenging to know for sure, and it may have seemed that way to the U.S. side.

There were obvious indications that the U.S. really hoped for progress, and that sanctions relief was genuinely on the table for Iran. One was that sanctions were historically lifted on Syria on May 14, 2025 prior to the end of the timeline told to Iran. This writer believes passionately that the decision to lift sanctions on Syria was the right thing to do. The Syrian population that took up residency in Turkey couldn’t be a more sensitive, compassionate, wonderful people who have deserved much better than they have received for decades. Strained U.S. - Iranian relations are not helpful to U.S. relations with the region.

Only President Trump knows for sure whether sanctions relief for Iran is possible. He said recently that it’s not possible.

The decision to lift sanctions on Syria was stunningly good sign for peace, in this writer’s view. But security competitors such as Iran didn’t respond in hoped-for ways, and enter into Abraham Accords, preferring deterrence instead. Instead, Iranian proxies hoped and strategized to increase the cost of global oil supplies. That could increase the price for the entire population in NATO and even many non-NATO countries.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei brought up the U.S. and Israeli involvement in Yemen and Gaza to explain on May 15, 2025 that he did not believe in President Trump’s sincerity about peace. The U.S. alliance with Israel, he said, included arming Israel with very forceful weapons that have been used throughout the region. Even though Israel is obviously an independent actor from the United States—not even a member of NATO, Palestinian-Israeli exchanges earlier this year were portrayed in the Iranian media as too harmful to civilians for Iran to overlook. Israel has regularly been taking action against the government within the borders of Iran.

Prior to lifting sanctions on traditionally Iranian aligned-Syria, President Trump offered to enter into an Abraham Accord with Iran, and said that the U.S. and alliances would build for free and give away a beautiful brand new modern city to the Palestinians immediately. He was at that time and remains believed by this peace maker. He seemed genuinely interested in this possibility during several media events. He did not seem to be believed by the other side. He explained in multiple public appearances that Palestinians could occupy a vast number of newly built Trump-quality buildings in an Arabic speaking country. The location, he seemed to insinuate, could be Gaza, if the area became peaceful enough from all sides. And President Trump said that, if peace didn’t develop there, the U.S. would give away a fantastic city immediately anyway. He promised to work with allies on financing to build virtually immediately in Jordan, Egypt or somewhere else agreeable without preconditions. Although only President Trump knows for sure, millions of homes may have been contemplated given the scale of the destruction in Gaza.

President Trump also said (including in this Truth Social post on February 5, 2025) that, “I would much prefer a Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper. We should start working on it immediately, and have a big Middle East Celebration when it is signed and completed. God Bless the Middle East!” The media and public were therefore prepped almost immediately upon his return for a second term in the White House for the possibility of resolution. Did subsequent events convince him otherwise?

This writer believes that a U.S. - Iranian nuclear agreement should barely be necessary because Islamic states are supposed to be peaceful for religious reasons, and the entire region is obviously advanced already. But optics matter, and an agreement is important to giving the Trump administration an excuse to the American people for resolution with Iran. President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio perhaps used to hope that Iran would play along, and easily negotiate and conclude one?

Iran made positive comments about peace but clearly did not agree to peace by the time limit President Trump initially published upon taking office. Iran’s chief diplomat Araghchi told the Tehran Times in February 2025, “It is [easy] to reach practical assurances that Iran will not have nuclear weapons, provided that objective guarantees are also provided that… measures against Iran—including economic pressures … will be [alleviated].” But nothing was accomplished in that regard before the end of May 2025. Iran, for instance, could easily have signed an Abraham Accord immediately after Syrian sanctions were lifted and did not.

There was a great attitude from President Masoud Pezeshkian immediately upon his taking office. He patterned peace at the United Nations in 2024. Perhaps there can be a great attitude towards the White House today. He won Iran’s election to replace President Ebrahim Raisi shortly after the former leader’s helicopter was destroyed accidentally (in the middle of his second term in severe fog). President Pezeshkian encouraged NATO to have peaceful improving relations with Iran. (Former President Raisi’s steady leadership style and calming influence are already missed by more than just his Iranian constituency. He is remembered fondly by world leaders globally. And current President Pezeshkian is presenting himself even more peacefully.) President Pezeshkian started his presidency with the following statement about Iran playing a unifying peace-making role in the region:

”As nations endowed with abundant resources and shared traditions rooted in peaceful Islamic teachings, we must unite and rely on the power of logic rather than the logic of power. By leveraging our normative influence, we can play a crucial role in the emerging post-polar global order by promoting peace, creating a calm environment conducive to sustainable development, fostering dialogue, and dispelling Islamophobia. Iran is prepared to play its fair share in this regard.”

The rest of this article is historical context to explain U.S. - Iranian relations during former U.S. and Iranian administrations.

Iran didn’t and doesn’t have a challenge deterring. A half century of incited patterning in NATO and non-NATO news ensured Iran’s credibility as a formidable adversary.

The United States started to improve relations with Iran until events in Israel surprised all sides in the United States. The Biden-Harris administration said they were ready for a comprehensive peace deal - as shown in the image below. And then-former President Trump said nearly the same thing. He appeared on Fox News (on March 17, 2024) and said he wanted Iran to sign the Abraham peace accord, too.

There was an Israeli plan around that time announced to rebuild Palestinian neighborhoods into a modern Gaza city that to be given to Palestinians under the control of Islamic countries friendly to all sides.

Sanctions relief probably wasn’t as important to Iran as NATO governments seemed to believe, because the U.S. didn’t use to seem to Iran to keep its word from U.S. administration to administration. And the United States has an unfortunate reputation with other countries in the region for taking accounts of ordinary people through sanctions during decades of interventions there. Iran also didn’t need permission to trade because Iran traded freely with a majority of the world’s population already. Iran became very successful without integrating the population with Europe and the United States. The country also prioritized other values far before economic ones. So NATO shouldn’t perhaps shouldn’t have expected to influence Iran with promises of financial gain. The Iranian government viewed itself as a protector of impoverished people throughout the Middle East and Asia. But new free trading opportunities and generosity from Europe and the United States were still symbolically important - and therefore an important way NATO and Iran could have achieved improving relations. Many people in western countries believed sanctions relief was the right attitude for everyone to have towards a population that deserved the most opportunities possible and government that was a genuinely potential partner in peace.

Europe clearly didn’t want more disgruntled immigration from the region, and preferred for people to have opportunities in all home countries instead. Europe was overwhelmed already.

(The Iranian government had benefitted a lot from an exclusionary attitude from NATO, because it forced the Iranian people to innovate independently. Iran has quietly/humbly advanced far further and faster than western governments seem to believe. Iran advanced fast enough to be one of the most desirable alliances at the United Nations. NATO perhaps underestimated the possible benefit to NATO of improving relations. NATO also perhaps underestimated the benefit of encouraging competing countries such as Iran to rely upon western innovation. It’s still a tremendous missed opportunity.)

Iranians have always been deeply ethical and always generously helped less fortunate states, sometimes including ones that weren’t giving the same treatment in return. Israel, Europe and the United States seemed to this writer to have all been deterred by a country that would have loved to be able to openly help everyone.

There was significant economic progress in Iranian-U.S. relations in 2023 that didn’t result in a peace accord. This writer understood from media statements that the United States returned $6 billion to Iran that was held by the United States. There was a $10 billion sanctions waiver benefitting Iran in Iraq as well. And this writer understood that a neutral intermediary country aligned with Iran was to continue to use all of those funds for the benefit of the Iranian population. If true, that was a genuine economic decision for peace.

This was perhaps the right thing for President Biden to do for peace. The release of six Americans was created as a rationale. And they were safely returned home. This writer hoped that this was the much needed breakthrough in U.S.A.-Iran relations. Further peaceful normalization seems to be in the interest of the populations involved.

Iran knows how to deter better than most countries because Iran was forced to by NATO because NATO seemed to incorrectly attribute public safety incidences to other countries that had no involvement in creating them. Iran had to look fierce and perhaps felt had to become that way to some extent to avoid foreign intervention. Iran became a completely credible competitor. But the truth is that Iran was guided by a peaceful religion. All countries came to view Iran as formidable and unpredictable - and consequently desirable security alliance. But Iran also made a phenomenal consistent effort for peace. The sensitive and compassionate side to the Iranian government and people was often visible in the government's communication strategy. Iran couldn’t resist revealing the integrity of people involved from time to time including in communication. Iran cared deeply about peace with ALL other countries.

Iran strived for great relations globally for decades with diplomatic outreach throughout the region and beyond. Iran used government media appearances to successfully improve relations with rival Saudi Arabia with U.S. help, for instance, which brought peace and calm to Yemen recently. Iranian officials also participated in perhaps a hundred peace talks regionally. For instance, Iran orchestrated a real and lasting peace between Iran's friendly neighbor Syria and their "rival" country Turkey. (This represented a tremendous diplomatic accomplishment for the entire region, because Iran and NATO were essentially negotiating peace with each other through intermediary countries.) Iran was well known to keep promises to other governments (even when other countries weren’t as reliable). Iran also developed a favorable reputation at the United Nations for reliable diplomacy.

The Supreme Leader of Iran Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei created a peaceful burgeoning liberal democracy within his country. It's modeled after the ones in Europe and the United States to some extent. A parliamentary voting system developed there very similar to the British one. Although he has always maintained final say, the democracy became an excellent system that Iran used to select the entire rest of the government. It gave and gives the population the opportunity to choose all of their own public servants and policies. The democratic system has also taught the population how to integrate into and work well in other democratic ones.

Although the Iranian and United States governments remained far from forming an alliance, the truth is that they easily could have. They have always shared the same fundamental values and have an always shown a similar desire for peace. The Iranian government repeatedly said that it cared about "peace, freedom and justice." Those were m precisely the same values the Biden-Harris administration extolled in public presentations. And the Iranian government created the same peace, freedom and justice that's enjoyed throughout the United States. There seems to this writer to consequently have been a tremendous opportunity for mutual understanding and lasting peace between the great nations.

The Iranian government also fully supported minority rights, which were important to the Biden administration in evaluating U.S. - Iranian relations. Iran enjoyed more progressive on minority rights than any other country in the region. Women became permitted to wear whatever they wanted compared to elsewhere. And people of various ethnicities started to enjoy full and equal rights, and to participate equally in industry and government. A Jewish member of congress was elected m, for instance who supported the burgeoning Jewish population in Tehran.

Islam has long been the official religion in Iran. The Iranian government therefore convinces the population there to participate in democracy by calling it "Islamic." (Otherwise they would not.) This raised eyebrows in Israel, which considers itself a Jewish democracy, but perhaps shouldn't have because Islam is a religion named for "peace." The Iranian government encouraged peaceful participation in democracy by describing it this way. (Some Iranians were also Zoroastrians, and consequently believe in “good words, good thoughts and good deeds,” which all reflect exemplary integrity as well.)

Most democratically elected governments described democracy theologically. Iran was far from alone in this regard. The United States did the same thing in distinguishing church from state but welcoming each new leader with a hand on a Christian Bible anyway. There is even a Christian religious motto in the United States to this day found equivalently in Islamic religious texts and governments. The Israeli government of course declared that it was Jewish. The tradition of democracy being theological essentially became the same in the United States, Israel and Iran (though the predominating religion has always varied between them).

President Obama understood that Iranians may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of September 2001, and was open to peace with all peaceful Islamic nations. The Obama-Biden administration's peace deal with Iran was called The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It was agreed to by Iran. The peace agreement gave the Obama-Biden administration visibility into Iran's energy production. Iran promised to limit certain aspects of their behavior. President Obama lifted sanctions as a result. President Obama probably felt that Iran would quickly develop successful diplomatic relations with all other countries once given the opportunity. He probably expected this to include improving relations between Iran and Israel. But Iran didn't improve relations with Israel. And the arrangement was vehemently objected to by the Israeli government and population instead.

JCPOA probably would have been permanently successful if Israel had supported the arrangement. But it was only successful for a short time during the Obama-Biden years. Israel was able to undermine the deal during the subsequent Trump-Pence U.S. presidential administration. JCPOA was met with tremendous enthusiasm in Iran and the United States, when it was an active arrangement. People in both countries looked forward to the Iranian population participating openly and freely in the global economy. However, the deal eventually fell apart without Israel's support.

This is because the Trump-Pence administration only developed respect and appreciation for Muslim countries during their time in office. Initially they implemented a Muslim travel ban - without public explanation or an obvious reason to do so - that was only several years later replaced with a very sensitive and thoughtful approach to Islam and the region. The Trump administration ultimately demonstrated exemplary integrity and courage for peace in the Middle East. But President Trump didn’t make hoped for progress beyond the region with Iran.

The Trump-Pence administration had a different perspective on U.S. relations with Iran than the Obama-Biden administration had. They preferred the Jewish-Israeli perspective, because the United States was (and remains) fully persuaded by Iran's deterrence. The U.S. government hoped that Iran might make everyone feel safe and sign an improved peace deal with Israel. The Trump-Pence administration therefore worked with Israel to renegotiate JCPOA with Iran. Both the United States and Iran were tolerating public safety incidences that they were incorrectly attributing to the other. The Trump-Biden government abruptly halted U.S. participation in JCPOA in response to innocent public safety incidences, and as a negotiating tactic, hoping Iran, the United States and Israel would all achieve a public peace with one another. But Iran felt that the prior negotiations should remain sacrosanct, and that any subsequent negotiations be held under an additional agreement. Iran wanted the United States to honor JCPOA regardless of its continued deterrent relationship towards Israel.

Iran stayed entirely true to their word and fully respected JCPOA. Iran has a perfect record of reliability in peace negotiations and deals. The Iranian government keeps its word even when other countries don't do the same. But the United States didn't keep its word to Iran. Iran expressed disdain for the entire matter, and started refusing to even interact with the Trump-Pence administration (as far as the public is aware). The Trump-Pence administration's efforts to create additional terms for the peace agreement were therefore unsuccessful. Iran wouldn't hear them out, and simply insisted that the United States stay true to its prior commitments. Now the Biden-Harris administration is considering honoring the original commitment, and returning the United States to the peace treaty once again.

President Joe Biden was Vice President when the original JCPOA agreement was reached. When he became President, he seemed initially inclined to return his own peace deal. The Biden-Harris administration ultimately hesitated to return to it. But the possibility existed then and today. To make any deal last longer, U.S. Congressionals support can be sought this time around, which would make a deal much more durable, because it wouldn’t be subject to renegotiation by each subsequent presidential administration. (This writer believed at that time that the U.S. media might have encouraged bi-partisan support for better U.S. - Iran relations.) Presidential and congressional support would obviously have been seen as important to the Iranian government. However, Israel continued to have significant influence. Jewish Americans who supported Israel had wealthy government lobbying organizations. Jews have also directly participated in the U.S. government for years. Israel was therefore able to intervene a perpetuate a cautious attitude.

Iran may secure U.S. Presidential and majority U.S. congressional support for sanctions relief in coming years. Countries that are generous towards one another are far more successful than ones that are not. And both the U.S. and Iranian governments understand that positive attitudes are more than just the right thing to do. They're potentially in the interest of the populations of both countries.

This writer believed it was high time for the United States to stop attributing internals issues to countries that had nothing to do with them. The Iranian community had always been at peace within the United States. The United States hoped Iran would soften its stance in the region and rhetoric towards Israel, and make the Abraham Declaration. Iran and Israel did not pattern enough "peace" and "love" to each other - something that started happening in global communication only more recently. Palestinians and Jews were therefore not on the verge of a lasting peace agreement. But it occasionally seemed like a potentially very exciting time in their diplomacy anyway. This writer wished Iran would take credit for improving relations by hosting successful peace talks in Tehran. That would have created tremendous credibility for Iran globally.

The Palestinian people cared deeply about peace and wanted integration with all other populations including within Israel. They seemed to want to be around more great people like themselves. Palestinians requested that all other countries sign the same Abraham declaration with them. This can still be done at any time with a simple press release.

The United States media used to deter Americans from improving relations with Iran, and the Iranian government seemed to intentionally play along. Consequently, the extraordinary compassion and exemplary ethics of many Iranian leaders and people wasn’t understood among NATO states. The Iranian government was far more ethical than was broadly believed in the west. Iran helped Israel and NATO. And there was some thawing in relations. But Iran arguably deserved much more rapidly improving relations with all countries at the United Nations than they received.

Islam was named for “peace." (“Slam” is “peace” and “Islam” literally implies mutual “surrender.” It’s possibly the most peaceful religion on earth.) Peace was deeply desired by the Iranian government and people. Any opportunity for peace between all countries should have been more than just joyously welcomed. It should have been celebrated and cherished globally.