The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Hayes Gahagan is a former Maine state senator, entrepreneur, and managing member of Loring Holdings, LLC. He writes from Castle Hill.
The debate over President Donald Trump’s recent agreement with Iran has quickly divided into two opposing camps. One side proclaims the deal a historic success. The other denounces it as capitulation.
Both conclusions may be premature.
The more important question is whether we are witnessing a genuine strategic breakthrough or merely an intermission in a conflict that has shaped the Middle East for nearly half a century.
I believe Trump deserves credit for several undeniable achievements. The United States avoided a costly ground war. The Strait of Hormuz remains open. Global energy markets so far avoided the worst predictions of economic catastrophe. Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure suffered significant setbacks. Most importantly, a regime that long insisted it would never negotiate was compelled to return to the table.
These are not insignificant accomplishments.
Yet history teaches that tactical victories and strategic victories are not always the same thing.
Retired General Jack Keane has repeatedly argued that any agreement with Iran must rest on strict verification because Tehran has a long record of deception, delay, and noncompliance. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has likewise warned that the central challenge is not merely uranium enrichment or sanctions, but the nature of the regime itself. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has observed that military success alone does not guarantee political transformation. A weakened regime is not necessarily a changed regime.
This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:
What if the ideology, behavior, and intentions of Iran’s ruling theocracy have not changed and will not change?
If that assumption proves correct, then I believe American policy should be guided by six principles.
First, trust nothing and verify everything.
Diplomatic agreements are not self enforcing. Every commitment must be independently verified and continuously monitored. Verification is not an insult; it is the foundation of confidence.
Second, keep the sword visible.
Deterrence works only when adversaries believe violations will bring immediate consequences. Economic pressure, military readiness, and strategic partnerships must remain credible.
Third, separate the Persian people from the regime.
Iran is one of the world’s oldest civilizations. The aspirations of the Iranian people should never be confused with the ambitions of the ruling theocracy. America should continue supporting freedom and opportunity for the people while maintaining pressure on the regime.
Fourth, support allies without seeking endless war.
Israel’s right to exist should not be controversial. Whatever disagreements one may have with a particular Israeli government, Israel remains the Middle East’s most enduring democracy, governed through elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and the rule of law.
For decades, the rulers of Iran have sponsored organizations committed to Israel’s destruction while simultaneously leading chants of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” Americans should recognize the distinction between a free society defending its existence and a regime that openly calls for the destruction of its adversaries.
Fifth, measure conduct, not promises.
The true test will not be speeches or diplomatic communiqués. The true test will be uranium enrichment, missile development, proxy activity, inspections, and freedom of navigation.
Sixth, expect relapse.
Hope for compliance, but prepare for noncompliance. History suggests that Tehran often views negotiations not as an end, but as a means of buying time.
I believe the larger struggle is not between Persians and Israelis, nor even between America and Iran. It is between freedom and tyranny, self-government and theocracy, hope and fear.
Many Americans, including millions of Christians, feel a historic and spiritual affinity toward Israel. Others support Israel because they recognize the broader struggle between liberty and authoritarianism. Whatever the source of that support, few can reasonably deny Israel’s right to live in peace and security without facing constant threats of annihilation.
The ultimate objective is not another Middle Eastern war. Nor is it permanent hostility toward the Iranian people.
The ultimate objective is a durable peace secured by freedom, deterrence, and the gradual replacement of revolutionary tyranny with accountable government chosen by the Iranian people themselves.
If the current agreement succeeds in reducing tensions, preventing nuclear proliferation, and creating opportunities for greater freedom within Iran, history will judge it kindly.
If it merely provides time for rearmament and renewed aggression, history will judge it differently.
The challenge before America is not simply determining whether Iran can be trusted. The challenge is preserving the clarity to distinguish between free societies that seek peace and regimes that openly celebrate the destruction of their adversaries — and then acting accordingly.