Gouya Roshan From Darkness to Light

Selective Morality: When Politics Determines the Value of Life A country can drop food from helicopters to save animals from starvation; yet that same country remains silent in the face of massacres, the destruction of families, and the violation of Muslims’ rights. This contradiction is no longer merely a humanitarian issue; it is a political and moral issue. The question is not why food is given to animals. On the contrary, animal welfare is a sign of respect for life, and there is nothing wrong with that. The real question is why this respect for life is not applied equally to all people in the foreign policies of many governments. If the life of an animal is valuable, how can the life of a human being be valued based on their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or political affiliation? This raises the issue of human rights; a concept that, in principle, should transcend political borders and national interests. Yet in practice, human rights have become a tool that is defended loudly...

A war imposed on Iran will not end in the United States.   A war imposed on Iran will not remain limited to the borders of this country; it will also reach U.S. territory. Although Trump initiated this confrontation, its outcome is no longer in his hands, because Washington has neither been able to force Iran to surrender nor conceal this failure through media propaganda. Political will alone is not enough to resolve this crisis, and Washington effectively has no leverage to control the final outcome of the war; because the key to the matter lies not in military details, but in the gap between “real power” and “perceived power.” Trump now faces a challenge beyond his calculations: if Iran does not accept Washington’s terms—which is almost certain—the United States has no more than two options: either retreat or continue an attritional war. Choosing either path would mean formally accepting U.S. defeat. Therefore, the issue is not how much Trump is interested in or opposed to war; ...

Britain; How Long Can Silence Continue in the Face of Pressure on Canada? Amid growing tensions between Canada and the United States, a serious political question arises regarding Britain’s position: how much more transparent should London be when faced with pressure from Washington on one of its closest partners? This does not mean asking Britain to confront the United States. The relationship between London and Washington is strategically important to Britain, and cooperation between the two countries in the areas of defence and security is deep and extensive. But foreign policy is not limited to a set of security and economic considerations; political credibility and adherence to principles are also part of it. Canada and Britain are not simply two countries with diplomatic relations. Economic, political, security and humanitarian ties between the two countries remain extensive, and as of September 1, 2026, the implementation of the protocol concerning Britain’s accession to the CP...

The Islamic Republic of Iran Is a Source of Pride First and foremost, I must acknowledge that politics cannot be judged solely by slogans; its true value becomes apparent only when a country is under pressure and is forced to choose between surrender and resistance. The true value of a nation is revealed precisely at those moments when external pressure is exerted on national decision-making and its leadership is forced to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of independence against surrender. A country that refuses to give up its political independence under any circumstances deserves respect and admiration. Faced with immense pressure, the Iranian government has chosen resistance over surrender. This is no longer merely a political position; it is a matter of the dignity, independence, and right to self-determination of our beloved homeland, Iran. In a world where a superpower seeks to impose its will on other nations, resilience is extremely valuable. Despite years of political, e...

What Is the Difference Between a Madman and Donald Trump? If an ordinary citizen claimed to own the Moon, no one would take him seriously. People would laugh and say that he was crazy. But when the president of a powerful country makes such a claim, it is by no means funny. Of course, this is only a small example of Donald Trump’s understanding of power; under this understanding, the boundaries between reality and personal desire, political authority and ownership, power and justice have become blurred and even dangerous. Therefore, we should not ignore this small problem, because given the direction in which things are moving, we must be prepared to confront his unreasonable demands: today the Moon, tomorrow the Sun, the day after that, the territories of other countries, and then all of humanity! At first glance, this may seem like an exaggeration, but the real problem lies precisely in society’s contemptuous laughter at this absurdity, rather than asking, “Where does this demand com...

The War Initiated by the United States Against Iran The war initiated by the United States against Iran has created a crisis that has put the international order to the test. This crisis is the result of decades of political disputes, economic sanctions, and security pressure on Iran. Naturally, the current war should be examined within a broader framework. This framework encompasses not only the war itself, but also how the international community approaches the concepts of sovereignty, the right to self-defense, and the responsibility of states for the consequences of military decisions. Given the important questions raised by this crisis and the long history of economic sanctions, their consequences go beyond the political structure and affect people's lives. Therefore, claims concerning support for human rights only gain credibility when their standards are consistently applied in diverse situations. If human rights are a universal principle, they should not be invoked only wh...

Erdoğan; A Skilled Player in the Middle East How can someone who is fluent in only one language—not the academic and diplomatic language of Turkish, but the language of the streets and everyday life—be so shrewd and calculating in Turkey’s domestic politics and the complex game of the Middle East? He truly deserves a gold medal! Not for his linguistics, nor for his classical diplomacy; but because he has managed to play politics so skillfully in this simple, conversational language that many educated and multilingual politicians still do not understand the rules of his game. Erdoğan cannot be considered a simple politician. For years, he has shown that in politics, rather than remaining loyal to fixed principles, he looks at opportunities, interests, and the balance of power. Today he shakes hands with one side, tomorrow he negotiates with another, and if necessary, the day after tomorrow he may set those same two sides against each other—without necessarily abandoning either one fore...