When President Trump cancelled his Memorial Day plans and called many of the key national security players in his administration back to Washington, DC it looked like something big was about to happen in our war to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The result, after a week of ceasefire breaches, threats and counter-threats, so-called negotiations, strikes and counter-strikes has been the release of a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) proposed by… we’re not sure who.
The MOU bears many of the hallmarks of past comments by the Islamic Republic’s fellow Muslim states, and contradicts many of President Trump’s statements about the war aims of the United States, but it is apparently getting serious consideration by the President, but perhaps not the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Axios, not exactly a pro-Trump source, is reporting the US and Iran are close to signing the proposed 60-day MOU to extend the existing “ceasefire” and define a framework for a broader deal.
The President has YET to sign off, according to multiple sources.
Key elements per Axios:
Little about how the “negotiations” with Iran have been conducted makes sense in the context of past American negotiations with totalitarian adversaries, such as President Reagan’s negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, or the defeated Iraqi government post-the Gulf Wars.
In those cases, there was transparency on the American side about our aims and direct, face-to-face, communication between our decision-makers and theirs.
However, in this “negotiation” those elements seem to be lacking, in some measure because it is unclear who the real decision-makers on the Iranian side might be.
Nour News, affiliated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, acknowledged what it described as a growing “chronic disorder of governance” inside Iran, arguing that the country suffers not from a lack of information or resources, but from an inability to make “timely, decisive, and rapid decisions.”
In other words, there is no one in the Islamic Republic of Iran who can make a final call and make it stick, especially if it involves capitulating to American demands to surrender its nuclear stockpile, give up its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and withdraw from its attempts to exercise sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
What’s more, despite breathless reporting by the western media, the Islamic Republic’s leaders show no signs of surrendering. Indeed, they are portraying the current conflict with the United States and Israel as part of a continuous “hybrid war” waged by the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution—and using it as an excuse to repress domestic dissent and intimidate its neighbors.
And the “intimidate its neighbors” part of the Islamic Republic’s negotiating strategy seems to be working since they appear to be the loudest voices calling on the United States to reduce its demands to something far short of the total capitulation that our military success would allow us to impose on the Ayatollahs if we chose to do so.
So, what’s the bottom line?
From our perspective of 50-years of studying Iran’s Shia Twelver revolutionary government and working on national security matters one thing is quite clear to us; no Iranian Twelver is ever going to surrender on our terms.
To do so would involve not only violating the Islamic Republic’s political values, as expressed in their constitution and the governing principles of Khomeinism, or “Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih” (Guardianship of the Jurist), it would also violate the core religious principles of Shia Islam, namely that by spreading war and chaos the return of the hidden Twelfth Imam will be hastened and an Armageddon-like conflict will bring about the worldwide rule of Shia Islam.
Killing General Qasem Soleimani, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh, Army Chief of Staff Abdul Rahim Mousavi, Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib, commander of Iran's Basij paramilitary force Gholamreza Soleimani, and others, does not defeat the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ideology of Wilayat al-Faqih.
This ideology, based on Shia “Twelver” Islam, is the motivating force behind Iran’s drive to acquire a nuclear weapon and to sow terror and chaos across the world. Killing Iran’s leaders does not defeat this ideology because another adherent of Wilayat al-Faqih will step up to take their place.
It is obvious to us, but maybe not to the President’s team, that a 60-day ceasefire is merely a hiatus in the “hybrid war” waged against us by the Islamic Republic ever since the 1979 revolution. In the near term the Ayatollahs will give up only the minimum necessary for the regime to survive, in the long term, they have every intention of continuing their war against the United States and Israel, because it is the entire reason for the existence of the Islamic Republic.
Failing to defeat the Taliban’s ideology of Sharia-supremacism is why Afghanistan’s former government was quickly defeated after Joe Biden precipitously withdrew our forces. So, we can kill Iranian leaders down to the point that sergeants are running the army and the clerks are running the government and they are not going to change their goal of acquiring nuclear weapons and their stated policy of death to the two Satans, the United States and Israel, because we have not defeated the ideology that motivates them.
Defeating and replacing the ideology of Wilayat al-Faqih is a necessary condition of “winning” the war and achieving a lasting peace with a new Iran. Until a truly secular government made up of Wester-oriented Iranians committed to peace is in place the war the Islamic Republic declared 47 years ago on America and the West will continue.
George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ.com. A veteran of over 300 political campaigns, he served as a staff member, consultant or advance representative for some of America’s most recognized conservative political figures, including President Ronald Reagan, Senator Jesse Helms, Governor Sarah Palin and Representative Jack Kemp. A member of American MENSA, he served on the House and Senate staff and on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle. Rasley is a graduate of Hanover College and studied international affairs at Oxford University's Worcester College. Rasley has lived, worked and travelled extensively in the Muslim world, including staffing Vice President Quayle on official visits to Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.
The result, after a week of ceasefire breaches, threats and counter-threats, so-called negotiations, strikes and counter-strikes has been the release of a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) proposed by… we’re not sure who.
The MOU bears many of the hallmarks of past comments by the Islamic Republic’s fellow Muslim states, and contradicts many of President Trump’s statements about the war aims of the United States, but it is apparently getting serious consideration by the President, but perhaps not the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Axios, not exactly a pro-Trump source, is reporting the US and Iran are close to signing the proposed 60-day MOU to extend the existing “ceasefire” and define a framework for a broader deal.
The President has YET to sign off, according to multiple sources.
Key elements per Axios:
• Strait of Hormuz reopened for unrestricted shipping (Iran clears mines, no tolls)
• Iran commits to never pursuing nuclear weapons and further negotiations on uranium stockpile removal
• US open to discussing sanctions relief and releasing frozen Iranian assets
• The ceasefire could be extended by mutual consent to allow for continued negotiations
• Iran commits to never pursuing nuclear weapons and further negotiations on uranium stockpile removal
• US open to discussing sanctions relief and releasing frozen Iranian assets
• The ceasefire could be extended by mutual consent to allow for continued negotiations
Little about how the “negotiations” with Iran have been conducted makes sense in the context of past American negotiations with totalitarian adversaries, such as President Reagan’s negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, or the defeated Iraqi government post-the Gulf Wars.
In those cases, there was transparency on the American side about our aims and direct, face-to-face, communication between our decision-makers and theirs.
However, in this “negotiation” those elements seem to be lacking, in some measure because it is unclear who the real decision-makers on the Iranian side might be.
Nour News, affiliated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, acknowledged what it described as a growing “chronic disorder of governance” inside Iran, arguing that the country suffers not from a lack of information or resources, but from an inability to make “timely, decisive, and rapid decisions.”
In other words, there is no one in the Islamic Republic of Iran who can make a final call and make it stick, especially if it involves capitulating to American demands to surrender its nuclear stockpile, give up its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and withdraw from its attempts to exercise sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
What’s more, despite breathless reporting by the western media, the Islamic Republic’s leaders show no signs of surrendering. Indeed, they are portraying the current conflict with the United States and Israel as part of a continuous “hybrid war” waged by the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution—and using it as an excuse to repress domestic dissent and intimidate its neighbors.
And the “intimidate its neighbors” part of the Islamic Republic’s negotiating strategy seems to be working since they appear to be the loudest voices calling on the United States to reduce its demands to something far short of the total capitulation that our military success would allow us to impose on the Ayatollahs if we chose to do so.
So, what’s the bottom line?
From our perspective of 50-years of studying Iran’s Shia Twelver revolutionary government and working on national security matters one thing is quite clear to us; no Iranian Twelver is ever going to surrender on our terms.
To do so would involve not only violating the Islamic Republic’s political values, as expressed in their constitution and the governing principles of Khomeinism, or “Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih” (Guardianship of the Jurist), it would also violate the core religious principles of Shia Islam, namely that by spreading war and chaos the return of the hidden Twelfth Imam will be hastened and an Armageddon-like conflict will bring about the worldwide rule of Shia Islam.
Killing General Qasem Soleimani, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh, Army Chief of Staff Abdul Rahim Mousavi, Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib, commander of Iran's Basij paramilitary force Gholamreza Soleimani, and others, does not defeat the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ideology of Wilayat al-Faqih.
This ideology, based on Shia “Twelver” Islam, is the motivating force behind Iran’s drive to acquire a nuclear weapon and to sow terror and chaos across the world. Killing Iran’s leaders does not defeat this ideology because another adherent of Wilayat al-Faqih will step up to take their place.
It is obvious to us, but maybe not to the President’s team, that a 60-day ceasefire is merely a hiatus in the “hybrid war” waged against us by the Islamic Republic ever since the 1979 revolution. In the near term the Ayatollahs will give up only the minimum necessary for the regime to survive, in the long term, they have every intention of continuing their war against the United States and Israel, because it is the entire reason for the existence of the Islamic Republic.
Failing to defeat the Taliban’s ideology of Sharia-supremacism is why Afghanistan’s former government was quickly defeated after Joe Biden precipitously withdrew our forces. So, we can kill Iranian leaders down to the point that sergeants are running the army and the clerks are running the government and they are not going to change their goal of acquiring nuclear weapons and their stated policy of death to the two Satans, the United States and Israel, because we have not defeated the ideology that motivates them.
Defeating and replacing the ideology of Wilayat al-Faqih is a necessary condition of “winning” the war and achieving a lasting peace with a new Iran. Until a truly secular government made up of Wester-oriented Iranians committed to peace is in place the war the Islamic Republic declared 47 years ago on America and the West will continue.
George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ.com. A veteran of over 300 political campaigns, he served as a staff member, consultant or advance representative for some of America’s most recognized conservative political figures, including President Ronald Reagan, Senator Jesse Helms, Governor Sarah Palin and Representative Jack Kemp. A member of American MENSA, he served on the House and Senate staff and on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle. Rasley is a graduate of Hanover College and studied international affairs at Oxford University's Worcester College. Rasley has lived, worked and travelled extensively in the Muslim world, including staffing Vice President Quayle on official visits to Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.
