Dr. Miklos K. Radvanyi
The difference between governing and criticizing those who carry the very complex burden of governance is one of the most fundamental concerns in politics. Both are necessary in a healthy democracy, but they require very different skills, incentives, and responsibilities. Governing means having the authority to make binding decisions under complex circumstances. Heads of governments often than not must choose among imperfect options, balance competing interests, and accept the consequences. Criticism means judging decisions, exposing weaknesses as well as failures, and proposing alternatives. Criticism’s unquestionable strength is that it is less constrained by immediate responsibility. A state without criticism sinks into dictatorship, autocracy, and tyranny. The results are always ruthless cruelty, destructive corruption, ubiquitous paralysis, and vainglorious apathy toward the members of the entire society.
Clogged with seemingly unsolvable static conflicts that have rotted for centuries, it is almost impossible to believe that real changes are within the realm of current international politics. Today, humanity is facing multiple overlapping crises, which by reinforcing each other create a terrorizing world crisis. Starting with the great-power confrontations and continuing with the many fearsome instabilities in all the continents, the seemingly unstoppable erosion of the balance of power across the globe is progressing with lethal certainty.
In the weeks, months, and years ahead, the United States of America’s political leaders carry a great responsibility to exert a decisive global influence over the other states’ short-medium-long-term interests and an unwavering respect for the peaceful as well as stable progress of mankind. This responsibility calls for a creative vision based on the universal moral as well as legal principle of “primum non nocere” – “first, do no harm,” or more generally, “do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself.” At this moment of the unenthusiastic signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran the duty of self-restraint matters more than ever. It is in the United States of America’s interest because an all out war is perilous and adhering to its principal identity as a democracy that values human life above all will reinforce its essential goodness.
Generally speaking, the main intention of the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding is de-escalation first, final resolution later, or stop the bleeding first, solve the disease later. The disagreement centers around the question whether stopping the bleeding creates an acceptable path to lasting peace, or merely provides one side time to recover. President Trump and his administration argue that a temporary flawed agreement is preferable to uncontrolled escalation. The renewal of war will certainly affect regional stability, energy markets, the economies of allies and partners, and the civilian populations. Moreover, military confrontation will strengthen the hardliners within Iran, especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) by demonstrating that compromise with the “Great Satan” is impossible. Finally, engagement rather than war empowers different segments of the Iranian population to participate in economic development, international trade, and peaceful cooperation.
On the opposite side, the strongest counterargument is that while Tehran may receive economic and strategic relief, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not obligated from the start to irreversible nuclear and regional concessions. Critics point especially to the difficulties of turning broad principles into mandatorily enforceable technical rules. More bluntly, Tehran gets concrete benefits now, while the United States of America gets empty promises about future behavior. To hark back to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action P5+1 – E3+3 (JCPOA) of July 14, 2015, this was also the central argument against it that the first Trump administration used to nix this agreement on May 8, 2018. More importantly, then President Trump argued that Tehran seemingly complied with the 2015 agreement, while in reality was busy to hastily develop the nuclear bomb.
In comparison, these two situations frighteningly resemble the age-old fable about the “Scorpion and the Frog.” It is a short, yet powerful story about trust, nature, and whether character can truly change. It exists in countless versions, but its essence is the same. In all the fables, a scorpion goes to the bank of a river and wants to cross. Unable to swim, he sees and approaches a frog nearby. “Frog,” says the scorpion, “would you carry me across the river on your back?” The frog is hesitant to comply because the scorpion might sting him during the trip. “Carry you? Why would I do that? You are a scorpion. You will sting me.” The scorpion assures the frog that “that would make no sense. If I sting you while we are crossing, you will drown, and I will drown with you.” The frog thinks long about the scorpion’s seemingly cogent assurance. The latter’s argument seems logical. The scorpion life depends on keeping the frog alive. Thus, the frog finally agrees. The scorpion climbs onto the frog’s back, and the frog begins swimming across the river. Halfway across, the frog suddenly feels a terrible pain. The scorpion did sting him. As the poison spreads and both begin sinking beneath the water, the dying frog asks: “Why did you do that? Now we will both die.” The scorpion answers: “I could not help it. It is my nature.”
Based on the conclusion of this fable, it is highly likely that the states’ fundamental nature may conquer reason, promises, or even self-interest. Such concerns are not outside the realm of politics, diplomacy, business, and even personal relationships among heads of states for history provides ample examples of politicians who cannot be trusted just because cooperation would be rational. However, concerning the terroristic nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran from its very inception in early 1979, there is a second more compelling interpretation. The frog’s greatest error was not kindness, it was ignoring risk. Trust requires not only optimism, but also safeguards. A wiser frog might say: “I truly want to believe you, but I need ironclad guarantees to make sure that you cannot sting me at all.” This is the essential reason why diplomacy, agreements, institutions, and societies rely not only on promises, but on verification, incentives, consequences, and checks as well as balances. It must also be noted that between 2015 and 2026, the nature of the Iranian Mullahcracy has defeated reason in every single instance. Therefore, the most appalling political and legal malpractice of the Memorandum of Understanding in question is that there is no guarantee against nature again defeating reason. Closely tied to this fundamental deficiency is the fact that the Trump administration does not fully comprehend the deceptive nature of the Iranian Mullacracy, which is the intricate combination of historical, political, religious, and misplaced human grievances against the Shi’a minority sect’s coreligionists, and against all the non-Muslim “Mulhid,” meaning the “impious without fear of Allah,” who are absolutely contaminated with spiritual impurity, physical uncleanliness, and inhuman animality. These uncompromisingly ruthless traits of the Iranian Twelver Shi’ism (Ithna Ashariyya) produce the fundamental political doctrines of the Iranian Mullacracy, which are Allah’s divine justice against their perceived as well as real enemies, the sacred martyrdom, transformative political-religious tragedy, the symbolic mourning of Karbala, and the Taqiyya – the practice of hiding the true Believers’ faith under threat or prosecution.
Equally important is the fact that the current hostility, momentarily restrained by the military defeat of Tehran, is not of a nature to be ended exclusively by the force of the superior quality of the combined American-Israeli military. Historically, rivalries that were solved exclusively by the force of arms often remained transitory. On the account of the irreconcilable paradoxes of cultures between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the latter will never perceive any agreement with the “Great Satan” as legitimately lasting. On the contrary, any agreement with the chief enemy of their faith is only an unbinding as well as unserious mockery that can be reversed as soon as the situation changes. Thus, regardless of a “final agreement,” and as long as the Islamic Republic of Iran is under the exclusive reign of this extremely religious group, they will tirelessly, and in an uncompromising way, scheme against the United States of America, its allies, and friends. In spite of the idiotic reasoning of the “multiculturalist” crowd, Americans and these Shi’a extremists will never think in the same way.
Rendering this utterly pessimistic opinion even more hopeless, the current domestic conundrum within the Islamic Republic of Iran makes any lasting peace totally impossible because of the lethal power struggle among the three factions of the regime. With the almost complete annihilation of the previous leadership and coupled with the uncertain condition of the previous leader’s son Mojtaba Khamenei, the Mullahcracy is practically leaderless. The second group, seemingly headed by the Speaker of the Majlis Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, is feverishly working on organizing a coup against the current constitutional order personified by Mojtaba Khamenei who might be incapacitated or even dead. Even more alarmingly, Qalibaf’s agenda might be inclined toward settlement with the United States of America, yet he is an absolute enemy of Israel and all the Sunni Arab states that will surely be the cause for any peace agreement to fail. The third group, namely the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is the best positioned militarily, economically, financially, and religiously to prevail over the two previous groups. Clearly, they are exclusively situated to assume absolute control over the leaderless as well as chaotic Islamic Republic of Iran. The irony of this situation is obvious. As of June 2026, the IRGC has been formally designated as a terrorist organization by the United States of America and at least 12 other states, as well as the European Union. Becoming the most powerful institution of the Islamic Republic during the last fifty years of the Mullahcracy by constructing a state-within-the-state regional empire, the Trump administration has been negotiating with the wrong people. Moreover, the Memorandum of Understanding in its present form will benefit the most from a terrorist organization with an impeccable record of being uncompromisingly anti-American. President Trump’s “maximum pressure” is not a strategy. It is not even a viable tactic. It is merely a narrow-minded unempirical hodge podge that is based on misplaced ambition in the present, while neglecting almost totally the future. For all these reasons, it is time for a clear, unbiased, creative vision that clears the fog and sees the light, and escapes the laughable impression of being a dupe as well as the victim of uncontrolled circumstances.
If one reaches the conclusion that the Trump administration’s foreign policy is both absurd and fatal in the long run for the United States of America as well as the rest of the world, this Memorandum of Understanding cannot stand as the preconception of a final peace agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Two-and-a-half-centuries of existence of the United States of America have given the world a new political civilization, based on the growth of prosperity and the preservation of stability. Moreover, its Constitution has enabled the individual to be sovereign and live in freedom. This sovereign independence is the essence of the United States of America’s greatness. Allowing it to be destroyed by a small group of religious fanatics with very limited international influence would demonstrate the failure of human justice over a man-made ideological movement that from its inception has been in permanent war with itself as well as the rest of the world. This base fickleness of the Iranian Twelver Shi’ism as a politically tainted religion has led to a destructively arrested development. Therefore, freeing the world from the stifling tyranny of this Mullahcracy, must be the primary objective of American foreign policy.
The discombobulated complexity of the international situation in the Middle East and beyond must be reduced to a single governing principle. This governing principle that can also be called the Archimedean point, or a fixed fulcrum, must apply force on one side in order to move the other side too. Naturally, a point outside the geographic place must be found to facilitate the movements of this force. This Archimedean point of absolute certainty is a coherent foreign policy strategy. Such a strategy cannot be completely trapped inside the existing status quo. The logical reason is that the reformer needs distance from personal interests and most of the past failures of the existing situation. Today, President Trump’s Iran and Middle East policy can be summarized thus: exclude Israel, while seeking a grand bargain with all the Muslim states. And here is precisely the central dilemma of President Trump’s diplomacy. In this intellectual conundrum, there is an irreconcilable confusion between transactional regional deal-making and the eternal foreign policy principle that a durable peace must include all the parties directly involved in the conflict. President Trump’s approach toward the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as the greater Middle East seeks to move beyond traditional diplomacy by assembling a coalition of as many Muslim states as he can – especially the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the State of Qatar, the Sultanate of Oman, and the Republic of Turkiye (Turkey) – around security, investment, normalization, and the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Iran that it will abandon possessing nuclear bombs. Yet, any strategy that attempts to establish permanent peace and stability in the Middle East, while marginalizing the State of Israel’s legitimate security concerns will have serious structural weaknesses. The Middle East is not merely a random collection of constitutionally diverse governments; it is a region where history, identity, religion, nationalism, and legitimacy matter as much as military power.
In this light, President Trump wants a regional deal and not necessarily a comprehensive peace accord that is irredeemably weighed down by the fact that states can normalize relations, yet populations and unresolved national movements cannot simply be bypassed. The major strategic failure of the Memorandum of Understanding in question is that it neither addresses Tehran’s regional military networks nor the combined securities of the State of Israel and the Gulf monarchies.
All this is compounded by the Trump administration’s and ultimately the United States of America’s credibility problems. President Trump could not reconcile his dual commitment problem. On the one hand, he must reassure the Arab states that he wants stability. On the other hand, he must do the same toward the State of Israel so that he will stand firmly behind Jerusalem in preventing threats against the latter’s survival. Therefore, too much compromise with the Islamic Republic of Iran will alarm both the State of Israel and all the monarchies of the Gulf Consultative Council. His present formula of Arabs+Iran+USA decides, while the State of Israel must adapt because it has no other choice is wrong.
Finally, the Great- Power dimension, namely the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China and their role in exploiting strategic opportunities in the region and beyond must also be taken into account. The real danger is that if President Trump’s diplomacy fails, regional actors can turn to these two powers as alternatives to American pressure. For all these reasons, a more global American strategy must include the elimination of the Iranian threat, providing ironclad security guarantees for the State of Israel and the monarchies of the Gulf Consultative Council, and comprehensive regional Muslim-states security guarantees with international backing.
In closing, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a normal Republic. It is a theocracy with an unelected religious authority who outranks every elected official because his mandate is not from this world, but from the only sovereign authority, which is God himself. The enormous gap between the Iranian people and the state is unmatched by any other organized entity in today’s world. This Supreme Leader is protected by a parallel ideological-religious army whose constitutional duty is primarily to defend an indefensible terrorist ideology and not the national territory. In addition, exporting terrorism is part of the Mullahcracy’s state ideology. This army’s external branch, the Quds Force, has exclusive authority over regional terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Kata’ib Hezbollah, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and the Badr Organization in Iraq, various Iraqi Shi’a Militias, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the General Command in Syria, and Hamas in Gaza. Tehran’s visceral hatred against the American civilization globally and the only true democracy Israel in the Middle East regionally is not a coincidence. Consequently, Tehran’s inceptive turpitude toward these two states have meant an uncompromising intent to destroy both. The battle cries “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” must be taken very seriously because the existence of Western civilization is at stake. In this conflict against the evil Islamic Republic of Iran, diplomacy only has limited utility. In order to construct full and lasting peace in the Middle East, stability will require internal as well as external self-discipline that can exist for a long time among all the states with even different identities. Ensuring such a political self-discipline will demand both the prudent use of military might as well as the political ability to be constructively engaged in its implementation.