OPINION: Iran is not a normal nation you can make deals with. It’s a national security threat
This is an excerpt from an opinion article by counterterrorism analyst Erfan Fard.
For nearly half a century, American policymakers have debated how to negotiate with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The real question is whether Washington is still misdiagnosing the problem. Iran is not simply a diplomatic adversary but a regime whose strategy is built on terrorism, proxy warfare and hostility toward the United States.
Why does Washington continue to treat the regime as a negotiating partner when decades of evidence suggest it is a national security threat? The answer lies in a misunderstanding of its nature. Successive administrations have often analyzed Tehran as a conventional state pursuing national interests. It is not. The regime was born as an ideological project built on hostility toward America, Israel and the Western order.
The conflict did not begin with the nuclear issue, sanctions or regional expansion. It began in 1979, when Iran was transformed from a key American ally into a revolutionary headquarters. The seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was more than a diplomatic crisis; it signaled that the new regime would derive legitimacy through permanent confrontation.
Washington’s misperception of the regime dates back to the revolution itself. Many American policymakers viewed the upheaval through the lens of anti-monarchical politics rather than Khomeinist ideology. The result was the greatest strategic loss of the Cold War: America lost a key ally and gained a radical state aligned with anti-Western forces across the Middle East.
The rebellious coalition surrounding Iran’s then-leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini extended beyond traditional clerics and included Islamic terrorist actors aligned with broader anti-Western movements. What emerged was not merely a new government but a transnational ideological project. Washington underestimated that transformation then and has often underestimated it since.
Khomeinism became the ideological engine of the regime, combining religious absolutism, anti-Westernism and political violence. This is why Washington has repeatedly misunderstood Tehran. The Islamic Republic is not merely a regime with whom America has policy disagreements. It views survival and confrontation as inseparable, while anti-Americanism, hostility toward Israel and the export of revolution remain central to its identity.
Read the full article here