Current Events

Iran - Straits of Hormuz

   Rather than rely on military conflict to resolve the Straits of Hormuz situation (where Iran wishes to impose a passage toll), perhaps, it would be better if the international community discussed the following to convince Iran to change their mind on the matter.

   The first to discuss is simply to remind Iran of the merchant-customer relationship. For example, if a merchant in a marketplace charges more than the other vendors, they will lose some of their customers as a result. If the merchant becomes violent and is harmful towards others, they'll end up losing even more of their customers. So, Iran needs to consider other aspects than just the short-term benefits of enforcing a passage toll upon others, since it may cost their country important relationships in the long run.

   Another factor that should be discussed is diversification. Countries should consider diversifying their purchases of natural resources with other suppliers around the world. By doing so, they would be protected against possible issues that may endanger acquiring their natural resources.

   Since the Middle Eastern people are mainly religious, another aspect that should be discussed is the possible consequences of Iran's actions in a spiritual sense. In other words, are the Iranian officials following God's advice on how we should handle certain situations and interact with each other?

   In general, shouldn't we be more appreciative and grateful for the blessings that God has given us in life? In that the Iranians should be grateful for the benefits that God has provided them through the land's natural resources of oil and gas (compared to other countries who don't have that extra income). For to behave in a manner that is unappreciative of what God has provided, while desiring more, as well as forcing others to pay a toll against their will, may be unwise and against God's ways.

   Besides, if it were so righteous to charge a passage fee through the Straits of Hormuz, wouldn't Muhammad have done so during his time? Back then, they didn't have the extra income from oil as they do today, and they still didn't charge a toll. So, if it is so correct to charge a passage toll through the Straits of Hormuz, wouldn't Muhammad have done the same?

   Another point to discuss with Iran is their violence towards others (by destroying ships, attacking neighboring facilities, and other civilian targets). God was clear in His message to all of us to not to hurt others.

   However, if Iran launched strikes and grievously harmed others, such may be against God's ways. What matters is that we live according to God's guidance at all times. It is irrelevant what others do (if they wish to harm the innocent, the sin is theirs). What matters is that we continue to live by God's instruction, and in a humane manner with each other.

   Not only is such violence against others a spiritual-related problem, it is also a secular matter as well. The international community should be more proactive in preventing such hostility and rectify those who wish to harm civilian targets. What is needed is for the United Nations to have the proper policies and procedures in place to resolve such hostile acts (c.f. Victims Compensation).


Iran - Nuclear Weapons

   The possible development of nuclear weapons by Iran is another concern for the international community. Discussion with Iran to persuade them otherwise from this endeavor is preferable compared to a military conflict.

   In truth, Iran's desire for nuclear weapons over the years has been a "poison" for them. They had to endure years of economic sanctions that negatively affected the quality of life, experienced repeated military strikes from Israel (and recently America), faced a multitude of countries that allied against them with multilateral agreements, and endured the loss of important personnel (ayatollah, heads of state, ordinary citizens). All due to the desire for a nuclear weapon.

   Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't be able to use it. The weapon couldn't be used against Israel since it would damage the Holy Land. It couldn't be used against America that can inflict greater harm upon them with their vast nuclear arsenal (e.g., Mutual Assured Destruction). So, what does Iran gain with the development of a nuclear weapon? So far, it has only caused negative consequences for their country.

   When considering the spiritual or religious aspect, scripture mentions that if something causes you to sin, remove it (e.g., pluck out your eye), so that it doesn't further ruin your life. Which is similar to advising a drug addict to stop using drugs so that their life may improve from being clean. Or, in this case, the desire for a nuclear weapon has been poison for Iran, which has caused them so much dismay and hardship, that it may be better for them to stop pursuing such an activity. For to follow God's advice would be worthwhile and wise in this situation.

   If the Iranians agree then their situation would improve dramatically. Sanctions would be lifted, they would be no longer subjected to military strikes from other countries (who are only trying to protect themselves from a possible threat), and Iran's political standing in the world would become more favorable for them.

   The military engagement between the three nations of Iran, Israel, and America for handling this situation, is completely unnecessary if they followed God's advice. All three are monotheistic religions that worship the same God, so all three should be helping each other rather than hurting one another. We should be following God's advice rather than turn our backs on Him.


Taiwan

   To possibly prevent China's interest in conquering Taiwan, what may be better than resort to a military conflict would be if the international community convinced Taiwan to become less of a target. In other words, if China's primary interest in Taiwan is to become the world leader in the semiconductor industry, Taiwan should simply relocate their chip manufacturing plants to other countries.

   Currently, Taiwan is the dominate factor in the global semiconductor business, producing over 60% of the world's chips, and over 90% if the world's most advanced chips. So, to discourage China's interest, Taiwan should simply relocate their chip plants to other countries.

   Not only would this help their situation more than probably anything else that Taiwan may do, but also, nations may have to relocate businesses into other countries to resolve other economic concerns (c.f. World Trade).


Ukraine

   The impact of Russia's invasion into Ukraine is terrible and the international community should convince both of them to stop their aggression towards each other.

   Regardless who is at fault for the situation, either Ukraine for antagonizing their neighbor, or Russia for overreacting to a minor threat (of Ukraine attempting to join the NATO alliance), both need to settle the situation to avoid the further loss of life. Since combined between them, nearly 1.5 million casualties have resulted over such an insignificant matter.

   Since it doesn't seem that the Russian leader will end the conflict, Ukraine has to be the adult in the situation and end it themselves. The reason is that the Russian leader is so callous that nothing will change his mind, no matter how many people lose their lives on either side. So, Ukraine along with NATO should reevaluate the situation and come to the understanding that the Russian leader is similar to being autistic that can't be reasoned with. For the Russian leader to say that Nazis are living next door, or for his military to attack unarmed civilians extensively, or for being inhumane regarding the number of deaths caused by his decision, all of these factors indicate that age has addled his mind.

   So, for this conflict to end, Ukraine has to do so themselves. If they refuse, the conflict may continue for years without end, and it would be for naught since the conflict is an unnecessary and preventable war.

   In return, Ukraine would have to take a loss regarding their territory as a compromise, which is due to the Ukrainian leader's responsibility for causing the situation. In other words, if being friendly and diplomatic with their neighbor was asking too much for the Ukraine leader, all he had to do was to simply keep his mouth shut and not say anything to antagonize his neighbor (who should be considered to be autistic). If that had happened of where the Ukrainian leader didn't mention to join NATO at all, this conflict would never have occurred, and no one would have lost their lives for this unnecessary war.

   In truth, both leaders are callous and appalling in their mishandling of the situation. What is needed is for the entire nation of Ukraine to vote on the proposed agreement as a pure democracy (that bypasses their failed leadership), and this conflict would come to an end. For the sake of saving lives on both sides.

   By doing so, the people of Russia would be grateful for Ukraine to end this situation with the temporary sacrifice of their territory, of which will be returned when the Russian leader passes away and another Glasnost event will occur in Russia.