The Dead End of the “World of Dialogue” Thesis
WANA (Feb 15) – In 2016, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran’s former president, delivered remarks that later became controversial, describing the future of the world as a “world of dialogue” rather than a “world of missiles.” Referring to the post–World War II experiences of Japan and Germany, he argued that the military restrictions imposed on these countries freed substantial financial resources, allowing them to invest in scientific advancement, technology, and knowledge-based economic growth instead of defense expenditures.
Within this framework, military spending was portrayed not as an inevitable necessity for a modern nation-state, but rather as an excessive burden on development.
This perspective, however, was met with a firm response from Seyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, who warned that portraying the future world as one defined solely by negotiation rather than military power reflected either lack of strategic awareness or a serious misjudgment. Drawing on Iran’s early post-revolutionary experience, he emphasized that defensive capabilities become indispensable precisely when international conditions turn unstable and unpredictable.
Ayatollah Khamenei / WANA News Agency
Less than a decade later, developments in Europe appeared to validate this cautionary view. Friedrich Merz, the Chancellor of Germany, declared in the opening speech of the 62nd Munich Security Conference that “the old global order no longer exists” and that the world has entered a new era defined once again by power politics and great-power competition.
He noted that the post–World War II order—largely shaped under U.S. security dominance—had allowed Europe to enjoy decades of relative peace and strategic complacency. According to Merz, that era has now come to an end. In response, Berlin has announced plans to transform the Bundeswehr into the strongest military force in Europe and to significantly reinforce the eastern flank of NATO, supported by hundreds of billions of euros in defense investment.
This dramatic shift has been described by political observers as a “break with Germany’s post-1945 strategic identity.” For decades, Germany had defined itself as a civilian power, grounding its foreign policy in trade, economic diplomacy, and restraint in the use of hard power. Today, that self-definition is undergoing a fundamental reassessment.
Historical experience suggests that disarmament is only meaningful when a stable international order exists—one capable of guaranteeing the security of all actors. When such an order collapses, or when unchecked powers act aggressively, even the most peace-oriented states are compelled to reconsider their security priorities and move toward rearmament.
The broader lesson of these developments is that foreign policy and national security strategies cannot be built solely on optimism or idealistic assumptions. The international system remains an arena of competing actors, each seeking to maximize its own interests—interests that often collide directly with those of others.
What was once considered an unnecessary military burden for a country like Germany has now become a perceived prerequisite for survival. Whether a nation is located in the heart of Europe or in a strategically sensitive region such as Southwest Asia, the conclusion appears increasingly similar: dialogue is effective only when it is backed by credible power. In an environment where national survival is persistently at risk, development-focused doctrines detached from hard security realities risk being interpreted not as moral leadership, but as strategic vulnerability.
Iran Enters Talks From Position of Strength, Araghchi Says
WANA (Feb 10) – Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi hosted senior commanders of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army on Tuesday, stressing that Iran is entering diplomatic negotiations from a position of strength backed by the readiness and power of its armed forces. The meeting, held at the Foreign Ministry, coincided with the […]
