Ahmad Gumi, a prominent Nigerian Islamic scholar, has described ongoing peace negotiations between the United States and Iran as discussions between bitter enemies, highlighting the deep ideological divide between the two nations. Gumi pointed out that Iran refers to the United States as the "Biggest Devil," while the U.S. government has long labeled Iran part of the "Axis of Evil," a term popularized by former President George W. Bush in 2002. Despite these hostile characterizations, Gumi noted that both countries continue to engage in diplomatic talks, underscoring the complexity of international relations. He referenced the apparent contradiction in global diplomacy, where nations that label each other as terrorist-supporting or evil still sit across the negotiating table. "All parties see the other as terrorists. Yet they are over a round table. So don't tell me the crap: 'we don't dialogue with terrorists'," Gumi stated.
His comments were made while analyzing U.S.-Iran relations, which have been marked by decades of tension, including sanctions, proxy conflicts, and nuclear disputes. The U.S. designated Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002, citing concerns over its nuclear program and support for militant groups. Iran, in turn, has consistently referred to the United States as the "Great Satan" or "Biggest Devil" in official and religious discourse. Despite these labels, intermittent negotiations have taken place over the years, including talks over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and recent indirect discussions mediated by European powers. Gumi's remarks reflect broader skepticism about the sincerity and effectiveness of such diplomatic efforts when foundational hostility remains. The current round of talks aims to address nuclear proliferation concerns and possible sanctions relief. No official Nigerian or African involvement in these talks was mentioned.
The most revealing aspect of Gumi's observation is not the animosity between the U.S. and Iran, but the hypocrisy he exposes in how global powers define and negotiate with "terrorists." While Western governments often refuse to engage armed groups on moral grounds, the U.S. continues dialogue with a state it officially brands as part of an "Axis of Evil," revealing that strategic interest routinely overrides ideological labels. This contradiction undermines the consistency of foreign policy rhetoric, especially when such principles are used to justify isolation of other nations or movements.
This pattern fits into a long history of realpolitik in international diplomacy, where existential threats or geopolitical gains outweigh declared moral stances. The U.S. has previously engaged with adversaries like North Korea and the Taliban, despite similar or worse designations. Iran, despite being vilified, has been part of negotiations on Afghanistan, Iraq, and nuclear non-proliferation, showing that dialogue is never truly off the table when interests align. The "Biggest Devil" and "Axis of Evil" are not barriers to talks—they are rhetorical tools.
For African and developing nations, this underscores how global power dynamics are shaped by leverage, not ethics. Countries without strategic resources or regional influence rarely receive such diplomatic flexibility, even when seeking peaceful resolutions to conflicts. The implication is clear: moral posturing in international relations is reserved for those without power, while real dialogue happens behind closed doors, regardless of public labels.
The next development to watch is whether these U.S.-Iran talks lead to tangible concessions, particularly on sanctions or nuclear inspections, which could signal a shift in how deeply adversarial relationships are managed in the future.
