From Ali Bin Abi Talib to the Modern World: Ethical Governance in the U.S.–Iran Conflict

For more than four decades, the relationship between the United States and Iran has been defined by cycles of mistrust, escalation, and missed opportunities. While analysts often frame this conflict through geopolitical or strategic lenses, there is another framework—older, deeper, and profoundly ethical—that offers a different way of evaluating state behavior.

Imam ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s Letter to Mālik al‑Ashtar, written in the 7th century as guidance for just governance, remains one of the most cited documents in Islamic political ethics. Its principles are universal: honor agreements, avoid oppression, protect the vulnerable, restrain arrogance, and pursue peace with vigilance.

When placed alongside the history of U.S.–Iran relations, these principles illuminate where ethical governance has faltered and why mistrust has deepened.

1. Honoring Agreements and Pledges

The Principle: Imam ʿAlī instructs:

“If you conclude an agreement… then fulfill your agreement and discharge your pledge faithfully. There should be no deceit, cunning, or duplicity in it.” He warns against exploiting vague wording or shifting interpretations after a pact is confirmed.

The Modern Parallel: Critics frequently cite the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as a violation of this principle. International inspectors had verified Iran’s compliance, yet the agreement was abandoned unilaterally. From ʿAlī’s perspective, breaking a pledge erodes the “security and asylum” that agreements are meant to guarantee. The result was predictable: trust collapsed, and escalation followed.

2. Avoiding “Strength Built on Blood”

The Principle: ʿAlī warns rulers:

“Do not wish to build the strength of your state on blood, for it is this blood that ultimately weakens the state.”

The Modern Parallel: The U.S. has repeatedly relied on military force—targeted strikes, covert operations, and retaliatory attacks—as a primary tool of leverage. The 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani and subsequent escalations are often cited as examples. According to ʿAlī’s framework, such actions create long-term enmity, entrench instability, and weaken moral authority. Strength built on violence rarely endures.

3. Economic Warfare and Human Destitution

The Principle: ʿAlī emphasizes that the prosperity of a land depends on the well-being of its people:

“The ruin of a land comes from the destitution of its inhabitants.” He prioritizes cultivation and livelihood over revenue extraction.

The Modern Parallel: The U.S. “Maximum Pressure” sanctions campaign severely restricted Iran’s economy, contributing to widespread poverty, inflation, and medical shortages. Critics argue that policies designed to impoverish a population to pressure its government contradict ʿAlī’s warning against oppression and hasten the “reversal of bounty” he describes.

4. Arrogance and the “I Am the Ruler” Mindset

The Principle: ʿAlī cautions leaders against authoritarian self-importance:

“Do not say: ‘I have been given authority, I should be obeyed.’ This engenders confusion in the heart and leads one toward ruin.”

The Modern Parallel: U.S. foreign policy toward Iran is often described as unilateral and interventionist. Reports of regional allies being “blindsided” by sudden military decisions illustrate the kind of haughtiness ʿAlī warns against. Acting from a position of unquestioned authority—rather than consultation—creates instability and weakens alliances.

5. Seeking Peace and Avoiding Haste

The Principle: ʿAlī advises:

“Do not reject peace to which your enemy may call you… but after peace, be cautious and do not act by wishfulness.”

He advocates for sincere diplomacy paired with vigilance.

The Modern Parallel: Observers note that diplomatic openings between the U.S. and Iran have repeatedly been disrupted by sudden escalations. Reports suggest that negotiations were progressing at several points—only to be derailed by military actions or political pressure. ʿAlī’s guidance warns against haste, impulsive decisions, and the abandonment of peace when it is within reach.

Negotiating While Killing the Negotiator: What the Letter to Malik al‑Ashtar Reveals

Imam ʿAlī’s letter, when you read it closely, it becomes clear that certain actions are not just politically contradictory; they are ethically incoherent. The letter provides a framework for understanding why.

Below is how the letter helps us interpret the paradox of calling for negotiation while simultaneously eliminating the person empowered to negotiate.

Negotiation Requires Trust — and Trust Cannot Survive Treachery

Imam ʿAlī warns explicitly:

“If you conclude an agreement… fulfill it faithfully. There should be no deceit, cunning, or duplicity in it.”

Negotiation is built on the assumption that both sides recognize the other’s representative as legitimate and protected. Removing the negotiator — physically or politically — collapses the very foundation of trust the letter insists upon.

From ʿAlī’s perspective, this is not merely a tactical contradiction. It is a moral breach that renders the negotiation void in spirit.

Killing the Negotiator Violates the Principle of “Security and Asylum”

The letter emphasizes that agreements create a kind of amān — a moral safety zone:

“Pledges provide security and asylum.”

If the person tasked with diplomacy is harmed, the message is unmistakable: the pledge of safety has been broken before the negotiation even begins.

This is why, in classical Islamic governance, envoys and negotiators were considered inviolable. Their safety was part of the ethical infrastructure of diplomacy.

It Signals That the Goal Is Not Peace, but Leverage

Imam ʿAlī warns rulers:

“Do not wish to build the strength of your state on blood.”

Eliminating a negotiator while calling for talks suggests that the negotiation is not meant to resolve conflict, but to extract advantage. It becomes a performance rather than a sincere pursuit of peace.

In ʿAlī’s framework, this is a form of moral short‑circuiting — using violence to shape the negotiation rather than using negotiation to end violence.

It Creates the “Haughtiness of Authority.” He Condemns

The letter cautions:

“Do not say: ‘I have been given authority, I should be obeyed.’”

Negotiating while killing the negotiator reflects a mindset that sees diplomacy not as mutual engagement, but as a demonstration of dominance. It is the very “haughtiness” ʿAlī warns leads rulers toward ruin.

In this view, negotiation becomes a stage for asserting superiority, not a space for resolving grievances.

It Violates the Principle of Not Rejecting Peace

ʿAlī writes:

“Do not reject peace to which your enemy may call you… but be cautious and do not act by wishfulness.”

Negotiation requires a willingness to sincerely explore peace. Eliminating the negotiator signals that peace is not being approached with sincerity, caution, or clarity — but with wishfulness, force, or unilateral calculation.

It is the opposite of the “piercing eye” ʿAlī demands of leaders.

So, How Do We Understand It?

Through the lens of the letter, negotiating while killing the negotiator is:

• a breach of trust,
• a violation of moral asylum,
• a signal of insincerity,
• an act of dominance rather than diplomacy,
• and a rejection of the ethical foundations of peace.

In Imam ʿAlī’s framework, such an action is not just strategically contradictory — it is ethically incoherent. It collapses the moral architecture that makes negotiation meaningful in the first place.

Conclusion: A Timeless Ethical Mirror

Imam ʿAlī’s letter is not a geopolitical blueprint; it is a moral compass. When applied to the U.S.–Iran conflict, it highlights patterns that have deepened mistrust and prolonged hostility:

• agreements broken,
• violence used as leverage,
• populations harmed through economic pressure,
• unilateral decisions made without consultation,
• and diplomatic opportunities lost to haste.

These are not merely strategic missteps—they are ethical failures according to one of the most respected documents in Islamic political thought.

The letter to Mālik al‑Ashtar reminds us that governance is not only about power but about responsibility. It challenges nations—ancient or modern—to act with integrity, restraint, and foresight. And it suggests that lasting peace requires more than negotiations; it requires a commitment to principles that transcend politics.