By joshua Opinion: Whose War? Araghchi’s Sharp Rebuttal and the Battle over History
By Abdulkarim Abdulmalik
In international politics, wars are fought not only with missiles and military power but also with words. Diplomatic language is another battlefield where nations compete to shape global opinion, rationalize their policies and legitimatize military actions. This was illustrated in the recent altercation between the United States Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth and Iran’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Abbas Araghchi.
The American defense chief had argued that the conflict between Washington and Tehran did not begin recently but dates back 47 years, claiming that “Iran started this war against us.” It was a statement intended to frame Iran as the long-standing aggressor and the United States as a country responding to decades of hostility.
Araghchi’s response was swift, pointed, and uncompromising. It was instructional!
Instead of responding with corresponding broad historical accusations, he brilliantly employed rhetorical questions to challenge the American narrative.
“How many missiles have we launched at American soil in the past 47 years? Zero. How many of your leaders have been killed or wounded by Iran? Zero.”
The carefully chosen questions shifted the discussion from ideology to measurable facts. Whether one agrees with Iran’s broader political position or not, the Foreign Minister pointedly redefined what constitutes aggression by focusing on direct military attacks against American territory and leadership.
Araghchi broadened his argument with utmost clarity.
The conflict did not begin in 1979 with Iran’s Islamic Revolution, he said, arguing that it began when the United States embarked on military interventions across the Middle East, bombed regional countries, influenced domestic politics, and exploited the region’s resources. He cited Iraq as the most visible example of what he described as American interventionism.
Araghchi’s conclusion was no less forceful. He described the United States as “the greatest evil in the entire world.”
Such language might have sounded inflammatory and unlikely to create diplomatic openings, but analyzing it beyond the emotional blaze lies an important lesson about international relations: every conflict has competing historical narratives.
For Washington, the story often begins with the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, the hostage crisis, support for armed groups hostile to American interests, and attacks attributed to Iran or its regional allies. However, the U.S. would, characteristically evade going into the remote causes of the hostility. From this perspective, Iran has consistently challenged American security and its gargantuan appetite for regional domination in the Middle East.
For Tehran, however, history stretches much further back.
Iranian leaders frequently point to the 1953 coup that removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh with American and British involvement, decades of Western support for authoritarian rule, assistance provided to Iraq during the 8-year long Iran-Iraq War, crippling economic sanctions, and repeated military threats. Against the backdrop of this narrative, Iran sees itself as responding to foreign domination rather than initiating hostility.
These two historical memories rarely intersect. Instead, they exist side by side, reinforcing mutual distrust.
This is one of the reasons why negotiations between Washington and Tehran have repeatedly collapsed despite occasional diplomatic breakthroughs such as the 2015 nuclear agreement. Each side approaches the negotiating table carrying decades of unresolved grievances.
Araghchi’s remarks also reveal another important trend in modern diplomacy.
Increasingly, governments are speaking not merely to each other but directly to global audiences through television, social media, and digital platforms. Diplomatic statements are crafted not only to influence governments but also to win global sympathy.
His reference to Iraq was particularly significant because the 2003 invasion remains one of the most controversial foreign policy decisions of the twenty-first century. The failure to find the alleged weapons of mass destruction, the prolonged instability that followed, and the enormous humanitarian cost continue to shape international perceptions of American intervention.
Thus, Araghchi’s invocation of Iraq, was an appeal to a wider audience that remains skeptical about military intervention as a tool of foreign policy.
It is also important to recognize that public diplomacy is not the same as objective history. They are poles apart.
Both Washington and Tehran selectively emphasize episodes that support their respective positions while minimizing those that complicate their narratives. This selective remembrance is not uncommon in international politics; where historical interpretation often becomes an instrument of statecraft.
The danger is that, tenacious cling to competing narratives could gradually graduate into political absolutes. This is because, when each side to the conflict becomes convinced that it is the victim, opportunities for dialogue diminish. Diplomacy becomes increasingly difficult because compromise begins to appear as surrender rather than statesmanship.
History demonstrates that prolonged rivalries rarely end through rhetorical victories alone. Whether one considers the Cold War, the reconciliation between France and Germany after World War II, or the gradual normalization of relations between former adversaries elsewhere, lasting peace usually begins when both sides acknowledge that history is more complex than subjective national voyage of superiority complex.
The exchange between the Pentagon chief and Iran’s Foreign Minister therefore represents far more than a disagreement over historical facts. It reflects a deeper struggle over legitimacy, responsibility, international influence, and military domination.
It also illustrates the growing importance of narrative power in the contemporary geopolitics and also owning up to the reality that no Empire last forever.
Military strength undoubtedly remains central to global affairs, but the ability to persuade international audiences is herculean as much as battlefield success. Nations now compete to control not only territory but also public perception.
For countries in the Global South, including Nigeria, these exchanges offer valuable lessons. Policymakers, scholars, and citizens should endeavor to examine competing claims with evidence, historical context, and intellectual independence. They should avoid accepting any great power’s narrative uncritically. In an era of information warfare, discernment is as essential as diplomacy. The future of the Middle East should therefore be shaped by diplomacy rather than perpetual hostility. And the US has to accept this reality.
*Lessons from the War*
The US-Israel imposed war on Iran has reinforced one of history’s enduring lessons: modern wars rarely produce fast and decisive political outcomes anticipated by their architects. The US-Iran conflict has demonstrated that military superiority does not automatically translate into strategic or political success.
For the world’s militarily powerful nations, humility is the first lesson. Advanced fighter jets, precision-guided missiles, cyber capabilities, and intelligence dominance remain formidable assets, but they cannot by themselves extinguish national resolve or erase decades of ideological conviction. A determined nation with resilient institutions and a population willing to endure hardship can continue to resist even under immense military pressure.
The second lesson is that, deterrence is no longer defined solely by the size of an army or the sophistication of weapons. Economic resilience, domestic unity, strategic alliances, technological innovation, and public morale have become strong pillars of national security. Modern conflicts unfold simultaneously on battlefields, financial markets, diplomatic forums, cyberspace, and the social media.
Third, the war illustrates the enormous costs of escalation. Regional instability, disruptions to global energy supplies, economic uncertainty, humanitarian suffering, and diplomatic polarization affect countries far beyond the immediate combat zone. These consequences remind governments that military action should remain the last, not the first, instrument of statecraft.
Ultimately, the enduring lesson is that lasting peace cannot be imposed by force alone. Nations may win battles, but sustainable security is built through diplomacy, credible deterrence, dialogue, and respect for international law. The greatest powers of the twenty-first century will not be remembered merely for the wars they fought, but for the crises they successfully prevented.
– Abdulkarim Abdulmalik is an Abuja-based Journalist and Chairman Governing Board of the Guild of Interfaith Media Practitioners Nigeria (GIMP-Nigeria). Email: interfaithmediaguild@gmail.com; nowmalik@gmail.com