The United States just voided an agreement with Iran, a flawed agreement, yet an agreement that for all intents and purposes seemed to make the whole world a much safer place.
But then again, Iran is an important destabilizing force in the Middle East. Left unchecked, threat posed by Iran’s destabilizing actions can threaten whatever fragile peace subsists in the Middle East, resulting eventually in some destabilization to peace in rest of the world.
One path to slowing of Iran down? Reimposition of sanctions by the United States and European allies. But reimposition of sanctions required voiding of an existing agreement, breaching of an existing trust. The United States and European allies diverged on the matter, with the United States choosing to breach trust implicit in an existing agreement.
Is the United States right on this one or wrong? Voiding of an existing multiparty agreement raises questions about trustworthiness. But then again, combination of destabilization of a region, and ‘promise’ not to build weapons of mass destruction cannot be construed to be evidence of trustworthiness. The promise not to build weapons of mass destruction could be a delay tactic until the region is well destabilized and Iran is in position of strength as principal ‘power broker’ in the Middle East. In light of untrustworthiness signaled by Iran’s destabilizing actions, voiding of the agreement must be left in the ‘gray area’ of life, the area in which we domicile actions, which taken in context cannot be construed to be right or wrong.
Life is filled with gray areas — marriage decisions, work decisions, work-life balance decisions, decisions in regard of legitimate ennobling recreation, number of kids decisions, where to live decisions etc. Sometimes people give others advice in respect of gray areas of life. Sometimes advice given is well intentioned, sometimes all givers of advice seek is opportunity for manipulation and control of others.
How then do you know when advice in respect of gray areas is well intentioned, as opposed to rooted in manipulation and control?
If advice in respect of gray areas of life is rooted in good intentions, givers of advice do not become less friendly whenever recipients of their advice do not act on their advice.
Whenever givers of advice become less friendly because their advice is not acted upon, all they seek from their advice is either of manipulation or control. People who love others, as such proffer advice, give advice out of love, remain friendly whenever their advice is not considered the best path forward, offer help whenever the path taken by those they advice does not turn out quite as well as expected.
If you seek to build trust in your relationships, be the giver of advice who, regardless of another’s decision to act or not act upon your advice, continues to love. If you seek to build trust in your relationships, be a person willing to listen to advice, yet still the person who reiterates his or her independence at picking of paths to traverse in respect of gray areas of life.
Will your attempts at building of trust generate many friendships? Perhaps not. But then again, which is more important, to have friends, or to be considered to be trustworthy?