As the conflict with Iran continues, many elements of an ultimate deal have been explored. Issues such as nuclear weapons development, missile production, uranium divestiture and enrichment, foreign proxy financing, as well as activities in the region by Israel and Arab nations, have been scrutinized. In the meantime, it is well recognized that any deal with the Iranian regime is suspect; compliance has always been questionable, and efficient monitoring creates an even greater set of problems.
From the beginning, the notion of “regime change” has received much attention. For some, it means the termination of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For others, it entails the complete elimination of all who have led and participated in the Iranian Revolution for decades. For others, it can be satisfied with a mere leadership change on the assumption, as with the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, that new leaders may emerge who will lead the nation to greater cooperation with the U.S., turn away from fueling terror through proxies in other nations, and, because of an improved economy, be open to granting the general population greater individual freedoms.
One focus that has been completely absent from the public discussion concerns the regime’s own constitution and whether amendments, if not a full overhaul, should be on the table. Of course, a change in a document does not guarantee a meaningful change in behavior. Nonetheless, the failure to agree to specified amendments, if not a totally new framework, demonstrates that true change of the type much of the world would appreciate is unlikely.
MICHAEL OREN: IRAN HAS WAGED WAR ON AMERICA FOR 47 YEARS — TIME TO END IT
The existing constitution, formed in 1979 and subsequently amended in 1989, outlines a vision that is fully incompatible with Western principles and that has guided and given reason to all the regime has sought throughout its forty-seven-year existence. It also gives meaning to what has often been mistaken for mere hyperbolic cheerleading: “Death to America.”
While America was built on notions of liberty, individual freedoms and limited government control, the Islamic Republic is based upon a global totalitarian vision. Essentially, it seeks a one-world Islamic government derived from Koranic principles and Sharia law. It sets out to help all similar revolutionary efforts across the world, justifying its support for its proxies and other activities abroad. In addition, it was hoped that this vision would be realized by the end of the 20th century, which certainly explains the unquenchable appetite for nuclear weapons as the optimum, most accelerated pathway toward overtaking all other forms of rule.
Here are just a few passages from the preamble and the articles themselves (italics added):
AMB. GORDON SONDLAND: THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAN’S ‘IMMINENT THREAT’ THAT POLITICIANS HATE TO ADMIT
“The Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse ‘This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me’ [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world.”
The constitution was framed “with all the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others.”
The army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards “will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way, that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world…”
“With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad.”
“…framing the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support for the freedom fighters of the world.”
The constitution dictates not only activities within the territory; it is offensive as well as defensive. Again, its reach is worldwide, not limited to the Middle East, as many in the media seek to posture. The Little and Great Satans are the prime enemies precisely because they represent the greatest obstacles. It was Iran that declared war on America decades ago; it has been the U.S., until the current administration, that has minimized its importance while hoping to peaceably negotiate Iran away from its mission. For those who question how Iran is a threat to the U.S., its prime goal requires the “downfall” of the U.S.
THE IRANIAN REGIME WAS BUILT ON ‘VICIOUS ANTISEMITISM’ FOLLOWING THE 1979 ISLAMIC REVOLUTION
The constitution is based on the belief, in part, in “the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God.” The official religion is the Twelver Ja’fari Shiite school, which is to “remain eternally immutable.” This school, generally speaking, awaits the return of its Mahdi, similar to the Messiah, and encourages global chaos, which is necessary to hasten his appearance. It is this very global chaos that underlies much of what the regime has consistently fostered.
Negotiations are difficult and, generally, only those directly involved have a full view of all the concerns, issues, relative leverage, and risks at hand. Consequently, the public is often unaware of many true constraints and opportunities the parties hold. Consequently, many necessary tradeoffs are often not understood by those outside the central negotiators.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Nonetheless, the last century, as well as the beginning of this one, has taught us the necessity of trusting how the enemy describes itself. From Hitler and Stalin to all Western communists, Mao to the CCP, and the Islamists, we have learned it is important to believe what they tell us. The Iranian Constitution does just that, telling us exactly who the regime is and what it seeks, and meaningful public discourse must be fully informed by it.
Any deal with this regime is suspect given its history and its adherence to the Prophet Mohammad’s treatment of truces; nothing ensures compliance. Yet, more importantly, the failure of Iran to agree to address many provisions in the constitution will make clear exactly what kind of “regime change,” if any, will result.
Failure to adequately address the constitution will ultimately be perceived as acceptance and ratification of the extreme principles underlying all of its terms. And should it be determined that the best path forward is an agreement with expiration dates, the constitution, unchanged, tells us exactly what will be faced once those expiration dates have passed.
Again, changes to the constitution are no guarantee of true change, but the failure to make changes will likely guarantee no true change. It is therefore imperative that public attention be so focused before any final agreement is reached.
