While authoring the official memoirs of Jalal Talabani, the then-President of Iraq post-Saddam Hussein's 2003 downfall, I found myself spending an evening at the Presidential Palace where dinner was graced by several U.S. officials from President George W. Bush’s administration. During the event, Dr. Latif Rashid, now serving as Iraq's President, introduced me to one of America’s esteemed and prominent military generals seated beside me. Upon learning that I was a Kurdish Iranian pursuing my studies in the United States, he posed an intriguing question: "Why is the Islamic Republic our adversary?" Caught in a moment of youthful enthusiasm, I instantly asserted that the Iranian people harbor a deep affection for America. Two decades have elapsed since that poignant inquiry first resonated within the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. It is a query that lingers stubbornly among the nation's elite political, military, and intelligence circles. Reflecting on the era when Iran, under its then-patriotic King Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, stood as a staunch ally of the United States during the zenith of the Cold War, it becomes apparent that the White House’s gratitude was notably absent. Now, 46 years removed from the turbulent events and terrorist revolt of 1979, the United States grapples with a complex quandary, up to now seemingly bereft of the necessary resolve or mental fortitude to effectively confront or eliminate the scourge of " Islamic terrorism ." Throughout the 20th century, many of America’s most distinguished figures in politics, military, and intelligence community were vocal and active adversaries of Apartheid and Communism. Their resolve did not waver even in the aftermath of September 11; they staunchly defended the global fight against terrorism—a conflict that claimed the lives of thousands of American servicemen and women. Yet, despite these sacrifices, the specter of Islamic terrorism remains undiminished. Meanwhile, in a recurring and troubling theme, the current administration continues to engage diplomatically with regimes that endorse such terrorism, seemingly oblivious to the ideological underpinnings of the Wilayat al-Faqih—a Shiite religious dictatorship or Theocracy. This recurring engagement underscores a persistent gap in understanding. CIA directors have previously noted in their memoirs that as of 1979, not one Middle East specialist in the agency had engaged with the writings of Khomeini, reflecting a significant blind spot in intelligence. Even more broadly, the Defense Intelligence Agency once optimistically predicted that the Shah of Iran would retain power for another decade—an assertion proving not just incorrect, but indicative of a deeper, enduring miscalculation. This historical oversight continues to inflict its toll, underscoring a cycle of missteps that echo through U.S. policy. The ideological pillars of the pernicious doctrine known as Khomeinism rest on a foundation of Islamic terrorism, anarchism, and profound antipathy towards Western civilization and culture. No incumbent of the White House, be they Democrat, Republican, Jewish, Christian, Catholic, or atheist, has ever claimed to act as a divine emissary, the voice of God, or as a sanctified spiritual figure. In stark contrast, adherents to Khomeinism, including Iran’s dictators—Khomeini and his successor Khamenei—proclaim themselves as God’s representatives on Earth and assert leadership over Muslims globally. While U.S. Presidents are democratically elected and operate under the constraints of the law, Iran’s theocratic rulers dismiss the electorate’s will and legal frameworks, self-styling as Ayatollahs, a term which means 'Sign of God,' thus perpetrating a grand deceit and fraud. The regime's current Dictator, Khamenei, has repeatedly levied insults and threats at international figures, including ordering assassination attempts against President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, denouncing Trump’s rhetoric as mere bluster and bluffs. 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. Within the framework established by Khomeini and Khamenei, 'Islam' refers exclusively to their own rule, and 'resistance' and 'jihad' are euphemisms for terrorism and the targeted killing of Americans and Israelis. At least Marco Rubio, Sebastian Gorka, Ratcliffe, Waltz, and Tulsi Gabbard know what I am talking about. Since 1979, when American presidents have penned letters to Iran's regime dictators, it has often been under the auspices of liberal ideology, a commitment to democratic principles, and the broader ideals that underpin American values and modernity. In a notable instance, President Reagan, in a gesture of goodwill, sent a Bible to Khomeini—an act that inadvertently became a footnote in the controversial Iran-Contra affair. This persistent misreading of the nature of Islamic terrorism and the objectives of the Islamic Republic has seen President Trump echo these past missteps. Engaging in correspondence with a leader who, since 2003, has supported not less than 11 Islamic terrorist groups implicated in attacks on American troops, who maintains ties with criminal cartels across Latin America to perpetrate terror attacks on U.S. soil, and who desires the annihilation of Israel with the assistance of terrorist 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 United States or its allies and instead underscore a dangerous lack of strategic clarity. To date, the Islamic Republic’s propaganda apparatus maintains that they never received a letter from President Trump, dismissing his pronouncements as mere bluster and bluff. Even if, in a hypothetical scenario, the Islamic Republic acquiesced to Trump's demands, the reality is that Islamic terrorism, oppressive governance, missile programs, and nuclear ambitions are ingrained in the very fabric of the mullahs' regime. Without these elements, the identity and continuity of the Islamic Republic are at stake or the regime would collapse. Currently teetering on the brink of collapse, the regime's embrace of the destructive Khomeinist ideology has been discredited. The Iranian populace, with a civilization stretching back 5,000 years, has risen 18 times against the regime’s tyranny, brutality, corruption, and oppression. Yet, no U.S. president has formally supported Iran's democratic aspirations through direct communication, fearing the political repercussions in Washington, where even a whisper of "regime change" is seen as a political faux pas of the highest order. Despite this, the question remains whether U.S. presidents should back the Iranian democratic movement or engage with a regime that stands as the principal backer of global Islamic terrorism. History will inevitably follow its course, and the imperative to align with the just side of history will resonate through future generations. Presidents, whether Democrat or Republican, are tasked with safeguarding American interests. Undoubtedly, the dissolution of Tehran’s theocratic dictatorship would serve those interests. Otherwise, figures like Khamenei will continue to act as proxies for Russian interests, and a harmonious coexistence with a regime rooted in terrorism is unfeasible and impossible to justify in the sphere of international relations. Erfan Fard is a counter-terrorism analyst and Middle East Studies researcher based in Washington, D.C. His new book is Regime Change in Iran, currently For those interested in ordering the book, it's currently available on the company's website.
