Iran’s challenges are frequently attributed to its leadership, yet this view neglects the complex web of international relations and widespread misconceptions that profoundly influence the narrative. It’s essential to explore the interplay between Iran’s governance and global perceptions, as it reveals that the problems go well beyond simply blaming figures like Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
This analysis aims to dissect these complexities and demonstrate how external influences and internal politics merge to shape Iran’s current socio-political landscape.
Khamenei, Iran’s reviled and aggressive dictator, played three key cards: missiles and drones, Islamic terrorism, and nuclear weapons. Following the breakdown of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and the chaos within Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, PKK, Popular Mobilization Forces, and others, the complex network of Islamic terrorism linked to Iran’s regime has notably weakened.
Additionally, Israel’s assaults have critically impaired Iran’s military defense and deterrence capabilities, with reports suggesting that Israel has completely neutralized the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s defense systems, facilitating attacks on nuclear sites.
Verification of these claims should be sought from Mossad, the Israeli Defense Ministry, and the IDF. Nonetheless, Israel’s efforts to decisively embarrass the Islamic Republic and dismantle Khamenei’s illusory stronghold are noteworthy and should be lauded.
In recent speeches, Khamenei has labeled US President Donald Trump a bully while seemingly capitulating to Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. This raises the question of whether a conflict involving Iran, America, and Israel is both inevitable and serious.
The unpredictability of Iran’s theocratic mafia regime, steeped in destructive Khomeinist ideology, complicates predictions. Khamenei shows no interest in negotiating with Trump, as he clings to his constructed and sanctimonious persona, bolstered by regime propaganda. His reluctance stems from a desire to preserve his anti-American image and his perceived status.
Both critics and supporters of Trump in Western media suggest that Khamenei is gearing up for war, adopting a combative posture. However, the Iranian people see through his facade, understanding that Khamenei is merely indulging in his own delusions. Known for his unreliability, he is perceived as weak, blustering, cowardly, irresponsible, and destructive.
Indeed, Khamenei is reviled and condemned by his own people. They view him as the primary barrier to Iran’s progress, a foolish, regressive, and reactionary dictator who hinders the nation’s peace and stability.
YET THE REAL issue isn’t Khamenei; it’s the White House in Washington. It must be stated unequivocally that American presidents, both Republican and Democrat, since the Iranian upheaval of 1979, have shown no desire to eradicate Islamic terrorism.
While past US presidents have taken decisive action against apartheid, communism, ISIS, and al-Qaeda, they have shown less willingness to confront the specific strain of Islamic terrorism linked to the Shi’ite Islamic caliphate in Iran.
Trump’s misunderstanding lies in his belief that Khamenei and the Islamic Republic represent the interests of Iran, despite the regime essentially occupying the nation. Khamenei himself admits that Iran is ensnared by the Islamic Republic and that Iran is caught in the clutches of the criminal ayatollahs.
Nevertheless, Trump deserves recognition for eliminating one of the most dangerous Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, Qasem Soleimani, following the likes of Imad Mughniyeh and Osama bin Laden. In the same White House, president Barack Obama respected Khamenei’s fatwa.
Yet, does the opinion of an ordinary human, masked in false sanctity, truly matter? Obama, a well-educated and globally aware individual, understood that it was all baseless; he recognized that no divine representative exists on earth.
Former president Joe Biden even took private lessons to understand and recognize the 12th Imam of Shi’ite, though the veteran Democratic politician was aware that the core issue is the fabricated myths and superstitions propagated by the mullahs in Iran.
Similarly, Bill Clinton showed respect at the Vatican funeral for Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s fifth president, hopeful that the corrupt reformist faction might counteract the conservatives of the regime.
Then there’s George Bush, who led a war in which thousands of American soldiers died, only to concede, ultimately, both Iraq and Afghanistan to the Islamic Republic. And Ronald Reagan, who dealt in arms.
These examples highlight that the White House, along with the CIA and the American intelligence community and military institutions, currently have no vested interest in altering the regime in Iran or regime change in Tehran.
A PERVASIVE and incurable malady also afflicts the White House: engagement with the world’s foremost terrorist leader. Who truly understands the benefit of legitimizing a murderous fool? Why do both Republicans and Democrats, in their respective ways, hinder the nationwide uprising of the Iranian people against the world’s most despised, corrupt, and oppressive religious regime?
Does anyone in the White House question the benefits of signing an agreement with a Shi’ite terrorist mullah? What guarantees are there in such a document? The credibility of any agreement with an Islamic terrorist is nonexistent.
For years, the people of Iran have consistently challenged the Islamic Republic regime. Since 1979, they have revolted 18 times against religious oppression and tyranny of mullahs, realizing over time that America and Europe lack genuine commitment to regime change.
Indeed, if Iranian society feels it will not be betrayed once more, they are prepared to resolve the unfinished matters and alter the status quo. However, they recognize that in the political halls of Washington, discussions can span any topic – except for regime change in Iran.
It appears that the late, patriotic shah of Iran, a staunch ally of America, was unfortunate, as Washington seemed to prefer a savage, anti-Western mullah to ascend to power in Iran.
How must the Iranian people express to the West that Khamenei’s slogans and speeches are mere theatrics, bluffs, and empty rhetoric designed solely for domestic audiences? He lacks the resolve to be earnest even when posturing for war.
On the brink of collapse
Yet, the true fear provoked by Iran’s crisis-ridden, aggressive regime stems from two sources: first, the Iranian people’s uprising against religious tyranny, and second, the regime’s faltering grip on maintaining its religious authority.
In actuality, the regime of terrorist-loving ayatollahs is on the brink of collapse and facing ruin, a reality that should serve as a stark reminder of the perils of engaging with or fearing such discredited figures.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that this regime, now seen as nothing more than a desperate and disgraced scarecrow, is melting away – a sobering wake-up call for 21st-century states still willing to shake hands with or cower before these criminals.
The writer is a counterterrorism analyst and Middle East studies researcher based in Washington, with a particular focus on Iran and ethnic conflicts in the region. His latest book, The Black Shabbat, was published in the US. You can follow him at erfanfard.com and on X @EQFARD