Most
people assume Iran’s nuclear story started as something dark and secretive.
It didn’t.
It
actually began in the 1950s, openly, and with encouragement from the United
States and other Western powers. Under the “Atoms for Peace” initiative, Iran
was helped to develop a civilian nuclear programme. Iranian students and
engineers were sent to study in the US and Europe. Hundreds were trained in
nuclear physics, reactor engineering, nuclear medicine, and related fields.
This wasn’t underground knowledge. It was taught, funded, and supported.
Back
then, nobody raised alarms. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Inspections were allowed. Western companies signed contracts to build nuclear
power plants. The narrative was simple: this was about energy, development, and
modernisation.
So what
changed?
After the
1979 revolution, the science did not disappear. The engineers didn’t forget
what they learned. The technology didn’t suddenly become magical or mysterious.
But the story about it changed - almost overnight. Same country. Same people.
Same scientific foundations. Different narrative. That alone should make us
pause and ask: when did the concern become about capability - and when did it
become about politics?
And
here’s something else worth thinking about, calmly and without emotion.
It is
also smart to be more thoughtful. Because narratives are not fixed. They
move with alliances. Today, a country can be framed as a threat. Tomorrow, if
it becomes an ally, the language softens, the tone shifts, and suddenly the
“problem” doesn’t sound quite so dangerous anymore. If one day Iran becomes a
strategic partner again, do we really think the narrative will stay exactly the
same?
That’s
why thinking deeply isn’t just moral - it’s practical. Otherwise, we end up
feeling like a political football, kicked around by bigger powers, reacting to
headlines written elsewhere, for interests that may not be ours.
There’s
another part of Iran’s history that rarely gets mentioned with the same
intensity.
During
the Iran–Iraq War, Iranian soldiers and civilians were hit by chemical weapons.
They suffered badly. Iran had the ability to retaliate. It chose not to. No
chemical weapons programme. No chemical response. Why would a country under
that kind of pressure hold back?
Iran
later signed international conventions banning chemical weapons and often
points to that war as the reason. The lesson, they say, was clear: some weapons
cross a line that cannot be uncrossed. Whether one agrees or disagrees with
Iran today, that choice complicates the neat, black-and-white narratives we are
often fed.
This is
not about defending Iran.
It’s about understanding history in full, not in fragments.
So what
can we learn from this Iranian episode when we look at politics back home?
Quite a
lot, actually. Because the cycle is the same.
Today,
one side paints the other as racists, bigots, extremists, corrupt, or
dangerous. The language is strong. The moral certainty is loud. Everything
feels urgent. We are told THIS is the truth, THAT side is the
enemy, and YOU must choose.
Then
tomorrow - when it becomes convenient - positions shift. Old enemies become
useful allies. Old accusations are quietly forgotten. Principles are adjusted.
Narratives are rewritten. Almost as easily as changing underpants.
And who
is left standing there feeling a little stupid?
Us. The
rakyat. Feeling like we’ve been had again.
This is
why it’s not just about international affairs. It applies very much to local
politics too. It is in our interest - perhaps even our survival - to rise above
partisan storytelling. Real change doesn’t happen when the masses are easily
triggered. It happens when people become harder to manipulate.
When we
slow down.
When we verify.
When we compare narratives over time.
When we ask, who benefits from me believing this today?
Every
major tradition urges us to do exactly this. The Bible reminds us to test what
we hear. The Buddha warned against blind belief and encouraged careful
examination. Chinese wisdom tells us that learning without thinking is shallow,
and thinking without learning is dangerous. The Tirukkural cautions against
accepting claims without discernment. And the Qur’an tells believers plainly:
if news comes to you, verify it.
Truth
rarely shouts.
It usually whispers.
And it
waits for those willing to think - before reacting.
Maybe, the real test is this: are we Malaysians ready to
pause, think, and not be played?
Peace, anas
No comments:
Post a Comment