Like several wars, the US-Iran war has been an ill wind that has forced multinationals to count their losses, and it will take years to rebuild what has been destroyed. At the same time, we continue to mourn the deaths of several innocent victims: children, women, and the elderly. This tragedy reinforces a central lesson: war brings destruction, but dialogue remains the only path to lasting peace.
In my earlier article, I cited the African proverb, ‘when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers’. Although it is old, the proverb remains relevant because it captures a reality that has remained unchanged by today’s technological advances and military campaigns. Political leaders may declare war; military commanders may plan its operations; while defense industries may profit from arms sales, but the heaviest burden invariably falls on ordinary citizens who neither declared the conflict nor controlled its outcome. This reality has been witnessed repeatedly across Africa. Since April 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a devastating conflict between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, widely known as Hemedti. Millions have been displaced, hundreds of cities have been damaged, and economic activity has collapsed across large areas of the country. Yet despite the suffering, all meaningful efforts toward resolution continue to revolve around negotiations, mediation, and political dialogue. Similarly, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, decades of conflict involving government forces, rebel movements, and external interests have produced one of the world’s most persistent humanitarian crises, with violence consuming countless lives. These examples show that military campaigns alone have never delivered lasting peace.
ALSO READ US-Iran war: Bloodshed, dialogue, and accentuated lessons, BY Prof. M.K. Othman
Nigeria has also had its fair share of war and armed conflict. On July 6, 1967, the country descended into a civil war following Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu’s declaration of the Republic of Biafra. The Federal Military Government under General Yakubu Gowon responded with military action, beginning a conflict that lasted until January 15, 1970. At the end of the war, nearly 3 million people had died, many from starvation and disease. Images of malnourished children from Biafra shocked the world and remain among the most enduring symbols of war’s cruelty today. When the conflict finally came to an end, Nigeria turned toward the negotiation table. Gowon’s declaration of “No Victor, No Vanquished” acknowledged an important truth: military victory could end a fight, but rebuilding the nation requires political negotiation, accommodation, and healing.
Since Boko Haram’s emergence in 2009, Nigeria has invested enormous resources in combating insurgency. Successive governments have combined military operations with deradicalization programs, community engagement initiatives, and regional cooperation efforts. While force has often been necessary to contain violence, experience has repeatedly shown that sustainable peace depends on addressing the underlying conditions that allow conflicts to flourish. A Nigerian proverb warns that ‘the person who throws a stone into a crowded market cannot predict whose head it will strike’. The same principle applies to nations that choose war over peaceful negotiation, because conflicts rarely unfold as intended. They create consequences that extend across borders, generations, and economies. That is why the most important question arising from the Islamabad agreement is not who won.
Did Washington achieve all its objectives? Did Tehran emerge stronger? Did Israel improve its security position? Historians and analysts will debate these questions for years to come. A more important question, however, concerns what was lost: How many lives could have been saved if diplomacy had prevailed earlier? How many schools could have been built with the money spent on missiles? How many hospitals could have been equipped? How many jobs could have been created? How many families could have been spared grief? These and many more questions matter because they force us to examine war not through the lens of strategy but through the lens of humanity and the urgent value of dialogue.
The Islamabad Memorandum may have brought one dangerous chapter to a close. Still, it also serves as a reminder of an enduring truth: wars may demonstrate power, alter borders, or change political calculations, but they rarely provide the lasting answers their architects promised. More often, they leave behind debt, trauma, bitterness, and rebuilding costs that endure for generations. From WW1 through the US-Vietnam War, the Russian-Ukrainian War, and the Nigerian Civil War discussed above, the same destination keeps appearing: Dialogue! The tragedy, therefore, is not that those nations negotiate, but that they often wait until thousands have died before doing so. As we continue to reflect on the Islamabad Agreement, perhaps the lesson is not merely about the United States, Iran, or Israel, but much more about humanity itself. Having evolved with remarkable skill at inventing new ways to wage wars, we also need to learn how to prevent them.
Preventing wars requires analyzing avoidable factors and the bitter lessons that trigger them. The U.S.–Iran conflict stems from decades of political, military, and strategic tensions rather than a single event. Key factors include Iran’s nuclear program, competition for regional influence, U.S. military support for Israel, and Iran’s backing of proxy armed groups. U.S. economic sanctions against Iran, repeated military confrontations, the collapse of diplomatic agreements, and immediate military strikes and retaliation have escalated into open conflict. All these actions would have been avoidable had the two countries and the United Nations protected the diplomatic agreement—dialogue—that could have prevented the collapse.
The U.S.–Iran war offers several important—and often bitter—lessons for governments, militaries, and the international community. The first lesson is that it is easier to start a conflict than to end it. Ceasefires can be fragile, and unresolved issues can quickly reignite conflict. Once unleashed, war rarely follows a predictable path and often leaves behind a legacy of suffering long after the fighting ceases. Second, military superiority does not guarantee strategic success. A country may win battles or destroy military targets yet still struggle to achieve its long-term political objectives. Lasting peace depends on both diplomacy and military capability. Regional conflicts have global consequences: fighting involving Iran affected shipping routes, energy supplies, insurance costs, and global oil prices, demonstrating how a regional war can have worldwide economic effects.
For Nigeria, the crisis had immediate and severe effects. As the conflict escalated in late February, petrol prices were already a major concern, ranging between ₦730 and ₦880 per liter. Within weeks, those prices skyrocketed, reaching between ₦1,270 and ₦1,400 per liter in different regions. These price increases left many commuters stranded and transport operators struggling to adjust fares. The impacts were significant, with higher transportation costs pushing up food prices. Average Nigerians now find that their salaries buy much less than they did just a few weeks earlier. This stark reality highlights Nigeria’s vulnerability, even as an oil-producing country, to global price shocks stemming from its reliance on imported refined products. It is high time to shift from import dependence to local production, thanks to the Dangote Refinery.
Nigeria is blessed with people like Dangote, who invested billions of dollars to build a refinery for Nigeria and other African countries. We must give the refinery all the support it needs, especially a reliable supply of crude oil, to lower pump prices for oil, the bedrock of the modern economy, which can galvanize productivity gains and support the nation’s development.
As we pray for the departed souls to rest in eternal peace, we must champion a review of the UN structures to enable it to acquire the necessary strength for global regulation and to serve as a diplomatic tool for resolving conflicts among nations without resorting to war. All member nations should support this fundamental review to help the world live in harmony. May God guide our leaders toward a peaceful and progressive world. Amen.
