The Iran Deal: The Elephant in the Room

www.americanthinker.com

Much of the celebration surrounding the latest agreement with Iran pigeonholes a fundamental issue -- one that, if left unaddressed, will ultimately render any agreement temporary at best and meaningless at worst.

The problem is not simply Iran's nuclear capabilities. Nor is it the wording of any diplomatic arrangement. The problem is the belief system that guides the ruling clerical regime itself.

Before proceeding, it is worth acknowledging what has already been accomplished. President Trump deserves considerable credit for applying pressure on Iran, weakening its ability to fund proxy organizations such as Hezb'allah and Hamas, reducing attacks against Israel and Gulf Arab states, and severely degrading Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Those are significant achievements that enhance regional and global security.

Yet these successes address symptoms rather than the underlying disease.

Western policymakers often approach Iran as though they are dealing with a conventional nation-state pursuing conventional interests. They assume that economic incentives, military deterrence, and diplomatic negotiations can alter Tehran's long-term behavior. That assumption may be flawed because it overlooks the ideological framework through which Iran's rulers view the world. So far, Iran has complied not out of agreement, but to avoid further pain. Which is not a long-term solution.

Iran is governed by a Shia Islamist regime. More specifically, its ruling clerics largely adhere to the Twelver branch of Shiite Islam. Twelvers believe in the eventual return of the Twelfth Imam, known as the Mahdi, who is expected to establish justice and righteousness before the end of history. This is not a criticism of the Muslim faith but to point out an important factor in these negotiations.

There is considerable debate among scholars regarding the political implications of Twelver theology. However, it is undeniable that many within Iran's revolutionary leadership have framed global conflict and upheaval in religious and apocalyptic terms. For decades, elements of the regime have portrayed their struggle against the West not merely as a geopolitical contest but as part of a larger spiritual, historical, and eschatological mission.

This matters because ideology influences behavior.

Western negotiators tend to view agreements through a secular lens. They assume all parties share a common objective: stability, prosperity, and the avoidance of conflict. But if one side views history through a religious framework that places transcendent goals above material considerations, then traditional diplomatic assumptions become less reliable.

This does not mean Iranian leaders are irrational. Far from it. Their commitment to their beliefs is commendable. They have often demonstrated remarkable strategic patience and political sophistication. But it does mean that their priorities may differ significantly from those of Western governments.

That is the elephant in the room.

History provides numerous examples of negotiations that failed because one side misunderstood the motivations of the other. (Munich Agreement, anyone?). Agreements endure when they are supported by compatible long-term interests. They collapse when those interests diverge.

Iran possesses a rich and ancient civilization stretching back thousands of years. Its people are heirs to one of the world's great cultures. The issue is not Persian history, Persian identity, or the Iranian people themselves. The issue is whether a revolutionary theocracy built on ideological confrontation can ever fully reconcile itself with the international order it routinely condemns.

If it cannot, then no agreement -- regardless of its technical details -- will permanently resolve the challenge. In other words, we continue to ‘kick the can’ down the road for future generations to deal with.

Supporters of diplomacy argue that engagement can moderate the regime over time. Skeptics argue that negotiations merely buy Tehran time while leaving its fundamental ambitions intact. That debate will continue.

What should not be debated is the importance of understanding the ideological motivations of those in power. Any policy toward Iran that focuses solely on weapons, sanctions, and inspections while ignoring the beliefs that drive the regime risks misunderstanding the nature of the challenge. It cannot change the worldview of those who sign it, especially if signed under duress. If the governing ideology remains fundamentally hostile to the political order that the agreement seeks to preserve, then any accord risks becoming little more than a temporary pause in a longer struggle.

A durable peace in the Middle East will require more than negotiated limits on uranium enrichment. It will require confronting the deeper question of whether the governing ideology of the Islamic Republic is compatible with peaceful global coexistence.

The central question, therefore, is not whether Iran can be contained for a few years. The question is whether the current regime's objectives are ultimately compatible with lasting peace and stability in the Middle East.

Those who answer "no" inevitably arrive at a controversial conclusion: that the problem is not Iran as a nation, but the nature of the regime that governs it. Any deal is just a temporary arrangement subject to the ambitions of the regime that signed it.

Regime change becomes a natural conclusion. Return it to the Persian people who have ruled it for over 2,500 years. How they decide to rule and what form of government they select is up to them. They have tasted the domination of totalitarianism, and one would believe they yearn for the taste of freedom that only a democracy or republic can provide.

This change will not come easily for the Iranians. As in all totalitarian systems, “you can vote it in, but you have to shoot your way out,” as demonstrated by the current regime’s slaughter of 40,000 unarmed protesters just this year. And ‘shooting your way out’ becomes more difficult if the government has confiscated your guns.

That change must come from the Iranian people with the encouragement, moral, and materiel support of the West. Until then, we have bupkis.

Lewis Dovland is a passionate observer of America’s future direction with a focus on exposing the “Big Picture” end goals of the progressive Marxist movement and administrative state and how we can prevail. Email at [email protected]