While authoring the official memoirs of Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq post-Saddam Hussein's downfall in 2003, I had the distinct opportunity to spend an evening at the Presidential Palace. That night, which featured a dinner attended by US officials from President George W. Bush's administration, offered me profound insights into the dynamics of international diplomacy. During this event, Dr. Latif Rashid, who now serves as Iraq's President, introduced me to one of America's most esteemed military generals.
Our conversation took an intriguing turn when he discovered I was a Kurdish Iranian studying in the United States. Intrigued by my background, he asked, "Why is the Islamic Republic our adversary?" Responding with youthful enthusiasm, I asserted that despite political tensions, the Iranian people hold a deep affection for America.
This question has lingered in my thoughts for over two decades, echoing within the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. It remains a topic of intense debate among the nation's elite political, military, and security circles. Reflecting on the era when Iran, under the leadership of King Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was a staunch US ally during the height of the Cold War, it becomes painfully clear that the gratitude typically expected from such alliances was conspicuously absent from the White House.
Today, nearly half a century after the tumultuous events of 1979, the United States continues to grapple with the complex challenge of "Islamic terrorism." Despite the enduring efforts of America's distinguished statesmen and military leaders who opposed totalitarian regimes and later staunchly defended the global fight against terrorism post-September 11 – a conflict that claimed the lives of thousands of American servicemen and women –the threat of Islamic extremism remains alarmingly potent.
This ongoing challenge is exacerbated by the current administration's diplomatic engagement with regimes that support terrorism, apparently disregarding the ideological underpinnings of the Wilayat al-Faqih – a Shiite theocracy fundamentally opposed to democratic values. This pattern of engagement underscores a persistent misunderstanding within US foreign policy, highlighted by a significant oversight when, as of 1979, no CIA Middle East specialist had fully engaged with the writings of Khomeini.
Adding to these strategic errors, the Defense Intelligence Agency once optimistically predicted that the Shah of Iran would remain in power for another decade – an assertion not just incorrect but indicative of a broader pattern of miscalculations that continue to influence US policy in the Middle East today.
The doctrine of Khomeinism, founded on Islamic terrorism, anarchism, and a profound antipathy towards Western civilization, starkly contrasts with the principles upheld by US presidents, who do not claim divine authority. In contrast, Iran's theocratic leaders, including Khomeini and his successor Khamenei, portray themselves as divine emissaries, wielding religious authority to legitimize their autocratic rule.
This governance model starkly contrasts with US democratic principles, where presidents are elected and operate under the rule of law. Iran's leaders, self-styled as Ayatollahs or 'Signs of God,' perpetuate a grand deception, presenting themselves as religious authorities while committing widespread human rights abuses under the guise of religious mandate.
Iran's current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has continued this pattern of antagonism, directing threats and insults at international figures, including ordering assassination attempts against President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while dismissing international diplomacy as mere bluster. Khamenei, a translator of works by Sayyid Qutb – considered the father of radical Islam into Persian – champions the legacy of Navab Safavi, a noted terrorist of the Fada'iyan-e Islam, viewing him as a guide and a vanguard of their resistance. His regime's interpretation of 'Islam,' 'resistance,' and 'jihad' as justifications for terrorism and violence against Western interests and allies highlights a severe misalignment with global peace efforts.
Since 1979, the pattern of US leaders writing to Iran's dictators has often stemmed from misguided attempts to influence through liberal ideology, sometimes leading to significant diplomatic blunders, such as Reagan's infamous Iran-Contra affair. More recently, engaging with a regime that has supported numerous terrorist groups and seeks the destruction of Israel with the help of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, PKK, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and the Popular Mobilization Forces, serves no constructive purpose. Such overtures fail to advance the interests of the US or its allies and instead underscore a dangerous lack of strategic clarity.
As history continues to unfold, it is crucial for US policymakers to choose wisely, balancing strategic interests with ethical considerations, to support the right side of history for the benefit of future generations. Whether Democrat or Republican, the next steps taken by US leadership could redefine the Middle East's geopolitical landscape, potentially ushering in an era of genuine peace and cooperation.
