The story is vast, the stakes are immense, and this is the issue above all others. The war unfolding today because of Khomeinist Iran is not a war like any other, nor is it just another crisis. It is a struggle between competing visions seeking to shape a new world. That is the perspective from which we should view this issue.
This is not simply a matter of a strategic strait that opens today, closes tomorrow, and reopens the day after. Nor is it merely about ballistic missiles, drones, proxy militias, or even nuclear weapons. These are only manifestations of the deeper driving force: the Iranian regime's determination to impose its will and its vision not only on the region but on the world.
That is why this dilemma must be viewed from a higher vantage point. With that in mind, I would like to examine the views of two prominent Iranian writers and scholars living outside Iran.
The first is Vali Nasr, the Iranian-American professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University. Writing in the Financial Times, he argued that the renewed conflict between the United States and Iran did not arise from a misunderstanding of their informal understanding, but from the balance of power that the understanding effectively froze at the time it was reached. Washington later sought to alter that balance, while Tehran remained determined to preserve it.
In other words, according to Nasr, Iran interpreted the understanding as a victory and as an American acknowledgment of its regional influence. Iranian leaders therefore reacted with anger to what they saw as a betrayal of that supposed victory: Washington's failure to restrain Israel in Lebanon, its refusal to release funds to Tehran, its unwillingness to recognize Iran's authority over the Strait of Hormuz, and the continued flow of weapons and military equipment to the Gulf states and Jordan.
According to Nasr, all of this demonstrated an American effort to undermine the influence Iran had gained during the war.
Very well. But what, Dr. Nasr, is the solution?
To accept the Iranian vision?
Amir Taheri, the veteran Iranian journalist and author, offers a far clearer answer. He criticizes what he sees as the fundamental flaw in the American understanding of the Iranian threat, although he acknowledges that the current U.S. president, Donald Trump, has been bolder than his predecessors, including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
One must first understand the nature of this regime and the way it thinks. As Taheri puts it: "When facing an enemy like this, the worst thing you can do is wound it and leave it alive. With such an enemy, you either kill it or turn it into a friend."
Taheri, once a prominent journalist during the Shah's era and now based in London decades later, argues that "after nearly half a century, it has become clear to everyone that the Khomeinist regime is incapable of reforming itself, except for the worse."
He goes further, arguing that the real solution lies in overwhelming military force. To achieve victory, he says, military pressure must be reinforced by diplomacy aimed at persuading the countries of the region and Europe to adopt a united position toward Tehran. Such a strategy, he argues, requires patience and perseverance, not merely tweets.
These are two perspectives from two Iranian minds. One argues, albeit indirectly, that Iran's regional influence should be accepted. The other argues that it must be uprooted. In their view, there is no genuine middle ground, because the regime's conception of itself and of the world is deeply entrenched and resistant to change.
