War by other means

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Good morning, this is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. 

I’m Nick Eicher.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

Well, as you heard earlier in the program, critics of President Trump’s agreement with Iran argue that it gives away more than it gets in return.

WORLD commentator Cal Thomas says there’s an even deeper problem: Any agreement with Iran ultimately depends on trusting a regime that is untrustworthy.

CAL THOMAS: Iran’s rulers have spent decades misleading inspectors, concealing nuclear activities, sponsoring terrorist proxies, and breaking commitments.

But my concern goes deeper than Iran’s record. It has to do with how Iran’s rulers understand negotiation itself.

I often bypass the diplomats and experts and turn instead to Yoram Ettinger, a former Israeli diplomat who understands the Iranian mindset as well as anyone I know. 

Ettinger says Western negotiators and Iran’s rulers often enter the same room with entirely different objectives. The Western view of negotiation is straightforward: two sides trying to resolve differences and reach a lasting agreement.

Iran’s rulers see it differently. To them, negotiation is not a path to peace, it's another instrument of conflict. It’s a way to buy time, gain advantage, and prepare for the next move.

That distinction matters.

President Trump appears to believe that economic incentives can change the regime’s behavior. After using military force, he is now offering the prospect of prosperity.

But Iran’s rulers have never suggested that prosperity is their highest priority. This is a regime that has impoverished its own people, sacrificing economic growth in pursuit of ideological and religious goals.

Even after suffering military losses, Iran is unlikely to abandon those ambitions. China, Russia, and North Korea have every reason to help rebuild what was damaged because they share a common interest in weakening American influence.

And then there is the question of verification. Any new agreement will almost certainly involve inspections and promises regarding Iran’s nuclear program. 

We have seen that movie before.

Iran repeatedly misled international inspectors while advancing its nuclear capabilities behind the scenes. Why should this time be different?

The president may secure a diplomatic victory—what remains doubtful is whether he has secured a lasting change in the intentions of the Iranian regime.

History suggests otherwise.

That is why agreements with Tehran have so often disappointed those who believed they had finally solved the problem.

The signatures may change, but the regime stays the same.

For WORLD, I’m Cal Thomas.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.