For over thirty years, American presidents have faltered in their policy dealings with the revolutionary regime.

From before Khomeini arrived in Tehran, the administration of Jimmy Carter believed that a friendship between the two nations would continue as it had under the Shah.  And while the hostage crisis proved the opposite, Khomeini was still met with gestures of peace and accommodation.

Yet Carter was not the only President to offer peace to the revolutionary regime and receive continued aggression in return.

Presidents both Democrat and Republican following Carter have fared no better in reaching understandings with Iran, and failed to take retaliatory actions in the wake of deadly terror attacks directly linked to the top levels of the Iranian regime.

Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and President Obama have accomplished little in their attempts to reach critical dialogue with Iran,

For years, U.S. administrations have mislabeled some of Iran’s harshest politicians as moderates, and have been deceived by the intentions of the regime.

George W. Bush took a different approach on Iran, labeling them a member of the “Axis of Evil” along with North Korea and Iraq; but he failed to take constructive action to prevent Iran from masterminding terrorist attacks, attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq, or furthering the development of its nuclear program.

In the early part of President Obama’s tenure, he has expressed a willingness to reestablish diplomatic ties with Iran, in an attempt to negotiate the continued development of Iran’s nuclear program, but with nothing to show for it.

Why Negotiations Will Never Work

To understand the Iranian leadership’s commitment to carrying out its revolutionary goals, is to understand why reaching common ground with such a regime can never work.  A regime founded on the principle of opposing an “American conspiracy”, and a leadership that openly discusses a “world without the United States,” has little to talk about with any American administration.

And thirty plus years of direct terror sponsorship, against American and Western interests, should serve as proof that this regime means what it says about fighting its enemies.

Silence in the Wake of Bloody 2009 Election Protests

Obama remained silent during the 2009 protests of the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  

It is widely believed that severe election fraud led to Ahmadinejad’s re-appointment.  Not long after the election, rumors of electioneering started to become more prevalent. Protestors hit the streets in Tehran, and riot police were well prepared.  

Reports have surfaced that the IRGC had calculated in advance that 200 protesters needed to be killed and at least 2,000 arrested for the demonstrations to die down.

Those estimates came painfully true, as nearly 200 were killed by IRGC forces, and well over 5,000 arrested.

Many view the electioneering that took place, and the brutality inflicted on protestors, as a form of military coup that made a mockery of democratic processes.

Through his silence during the brutality, Obama refused to throw moral support behind the non-violent protest rights of civilians who were accusing the Iranian government of making a mockery of their most basic democratic rights.

The surprising message that this silence can send to opponents of the regime in Iran, is that the United States actually supports the Presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the government of Iran, and the principles of its more than 30-year-old revolution.