Leaders of destruction do not think about their country's interest
A useful summary
A head of state in any country who views matters from a broader and larger perspective is like a person climbing a tall tower or mountain; there is no doubt that they will see more than the person standing at the base of the tower or mountain. The person at the bottom sees only a few things, such as some cars and the street, whereas the head of state sees many things beneath them and on the distant horizon.
Furthermore, a head of state should not be driven by emotion. Take, for example, the leader of North Korea, a man who has harmed his own country. He lacks understanding of political and economic science. The entire world has benefited from the capitalist system and progressed; even communist Cuba has opened up to America. In contrast, North Korea remains hungry and backward, with its leader preoccupied with manufacturing missiles that threaten others. At one point, he declared that he would drown Japan and turn America into ashes. These are dangerous and reckless statements.
Any country should be led by a skilled leader who remains calm and thinks deeply, focusing on the interests of their nation. Some heads of state cause severe harm to their countries, whereas there is always room for negotiation, which is the art of reaching a settlement or solution. Relations between states should not be based on the idea of "I win and you lose," but rather on the principle of "I win and you also win."
In negotiations, each side must make concessions regarding some of its demands. A negotiator might say that one party has conceded on points "A," "B," and "C," but gained "S," "K," and "A." These concessions are based on the principle of "give and take," yet they benefit the state. Had Iran adopted a negotiating approach and opened a new page with its adversaries by encouraging investments—Arab, American, European, and others—within Iran, it would have advanced in all fields, achieved significant economic growth, and improved the living standards of the Iranian people. However, it did not do so; its situation deteriorated severely, and the Iranian people suffered hardship, poverty, and poor living conditions, leading to street protests against the state. Similarly, Lebanon’s Hezbollah refused to negotiate the disarmament of its weapons on Lebanese soil. This party has destroyed Lebanon and harmed its interests. Do its followers not feel the interest of Lebanon, and should not the Lebanese Army alone be responsible for military affairs?
As for the Houthis in Yemen, we have previously stated that they are a rebel group that emerged amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring in 2011. They took up arms against the government, tore Yemen apart, inflicted losses on international navigation ships in the Red Sea, caused losses to Egypt, and became an ally of Iran. Does this foolish group not consider negotiating for the sake of its country and laying down its weapons to help Yemen rise again?
We have previously offered this advice to Iran and Yemen, but they did not heed the voice of reason and wisdom.
Iran and Yemen possess vast natural resources, but they fail to utilize them properly, instead destroying their own countries. There is a world of difference between good leadership and bad leadership.
