John M. Crisp: On the other hand, Iran has a point

Here's a fundamental principle of diplomacy: Chances of success are diminished if one side thinks the other is comprised of crazy bastards. Especially if one side is willing to call the other "crazy bastards" in public, as President Donald Trump did in early April.

The "bastards" part is just an insult; let's consider the "crazy" part.

Iran is a theocracy. Religion, by definition, is irrational. But irrational is not identical to crazy.

Our Founders knew that mixing religion with governance is a bad idea, but before we begin to feel superior to the Iranians, remember that our ally against Iran, Israel, is powerfully influenced by right-wing religious zealots.

And our own nation is far from full agreement about the separation of church and state. The Trump administration is rife with characters who think of nationhood and governance in Christian terms or who have expressed Christian nationalist sympathies. Secretary of "war" Pete Hegseth is the prime example: he frequently invokes Jesus in support of what, to him, is practically a holy war against Iran.

We're not a theocracy, like Iran. But the idea that the Trump administration's version of Christianity seeks increasing power over how we're governed is not far-fetched.

Which is ironic, since the administration has little patience for that most-Christian of virtues: empathy.

Without some empathy, it's far too easy to dismiss the mullahs as deranged religious nutcases, limiting the possibilities for negotiation.

In fact, our diplomacy has often been characterized by a lack of knowledge and understanding of the perspectives of our adversaries. Our current conflict with Iran is a good example. It reflects a long history of which most Americans are unaware, but which Iranians know by heart.

Modern Iran is largely the result of bad American policies that date back more than a century. It's beyond the scope of this column to relate this sorry chronicle, but the upshot is that Britain and the U.S. have thwarted Iranian yearnings for democracy since at least the Iranian Revolution of 1906, which diminished the power of the monarch and established a parliament and constitution.

For a century, British and American interests in Iran were driven more by oil than by concern for democracy. In 1953, the U.S. engineered a coup to depose Iran's duly elected prime minister, who was seen as a threat to our oil supply. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 became almost inevitable after decades of American support for the repressive, autocratic but compliant shah.

Water under the bridge? Maybe. But the river keeps flowing.

In 2007, the U.S. had 170,000 troops in Iraq, just to Iran's west. To the east, the U.S. had 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and, within a few years, 100,000. President George W. Bush mused openly about invading Iran, as he had invaded Iraq.

So the mullahs and the Iranian people have reasons to resent and fear Israel and America. A skeptic might argue that Iran's distrust, suspicion and resentment are unwarranted. But they're not irrational, and certainly not "crazy."

American failure to appreciate Iran's perspective makes successful negotiation unlikely. So does Trump's abrogation in 2018 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 agreement among Iran, the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and the European Union that severely limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

The J.C.P.O.A. was working. Vali Nasr, an Iran expert at Johns Hopkins University, notes that 11 reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency documented Iranian compliance with the agreement. But Trump doesn't like any deal that he didn't make.

It's easy to see why negotiating a new deal with Iran will be extremely difficult:

On one side: A proud 2,500-year-old nation of 93 million that has rational grievances against Israel and the U.S., as well as credible reasons to fear for its continued existence.

On the other side: A president who started an unpopular, unprovoked and probably illegal war on sketchy pretexts and with obscure goals. In desperation, he has threatened to destroy Iran-including women, children, and old people-with what are almost certainly war crimes.

So, who's the crazy bastard here?

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

_____

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published April 28, 2026 at 8:39 AM.