For release: 04/30/26
Do we know our enemy?
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Content Agency
President Trump canceled a delegation of U.S. negotiators about to head to Islamabad for continued negotiations with Iran because it appeared no one from the Iranian regime planned to show up. It’s past time to consider whether the American side truly knows the goals of the Iranian side. Such knowledge is key to success.
In his often quoted “The Art of War,” Sun Tzu wrote: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy or yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” This is often interpreted to mean one must think like one’s opponent.
There is little evidence I’ve seen that indicates the U.S. knows or understands the thinking of the Iranian regime. Quite the opposite.
One of my trusted sources on how radical Islamists think is retired Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger. In his newsletter he writes: “Iran’s Regime Change Requires Rewriting its DNA.”
What is that “DNA”? Ettinger explains: “The 1979 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the roadmap of the Ayatollah’s vision. It lays the religious, ideological, historic and strategic foundation of the systematic, rogue, fanatic, anti-US domestic, regional and global conduct of Iran’s Ayatollah regime, which transformed (Iran) from ‘The American Policeman of the Gulf’ into a leading global epicenter (in cooperation with China, Russia, North Korea and Hezbollah) of anti-US wars, terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and the proliferation of military systems, such as predator drones sold to Mexico’s drug cartels.”
And this: “The Ayatollahs’ Constitution provides the guidelines for the exportation of the Islamic Revolution by utilizing subversion, terrorism, civil wars, the proliferation of ballistic technologies, drug trafficking and proselytization in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America (the US’ soft underbelly) and on US soil. The strategic goal of the Ayatollahs’ Constitution is to establish a universal Shiite society, based on the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini, and bring to submission the Sunni Moslem ‘apostates’ and the non-Moslem ‘infidels.’ A victory over US despotism!”
The regime uses diplomacy as a means to achieve its stated goal, mandated, they believe, by Allah, which is spelled out in its constitution and theology.
If the U.S. side does not fully understand the motivation, the reason behind the motivation, and the goal which cannot be negotiated away for fear of divine judgment, our goal of an Iran without nuclear weapons and a potential regime change to a secular and more Western-friendly government, will never be achieved.
America’s enemies do not share our view of morality, freedom and democracy. They are not coy about this but state their opposing views outwardly and regularly. Our mistake has been not to take them seriously, even when they demonstrate their resolve in the murder of their own people and other kinds of oppression.
This failure to understand the enemy can only mean we will eventually be on the losing side of any and all “negotiations.”
As Ettinger writes: “Western democracies tend to rely heavily on diplomacy and negotiation with the Ayatollah regime, which has demonstrated its mastery in the art of the Quran-sanctioned Taqiyya (dissimulation). Moreover, since 1979, the Ayatollah regime has leveraged diplomacy/negotiation as a robust tailwind for its anti-US conduct in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East at-large, Africa, Latin America and on US soil.”
Ettinger gets it. Apparently, we do not.
Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).
(C) 2026 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
Loved your book, Watchman in The Night! I didn’t want it to end. Cal, you are a remarkable man& writer. Thank you for sharing your stories with us!
THANKS VERY MUCH SUSIE. MUCH APPRECIATED
Cal–I normally love your commentary. This one baffles me. You criticize a straw man version of the administration’s approach to Iran and you appear to be more interested in creating doubt rather than providing a clear alternative.
Straw Man: The administration is trying to negotiate without understanding their opponent.
Reality: The administration has decimated (at least in the current moment) Iran’s military-industrial complex and substantively degraded their offensive and defensive capabilities while maintaining a naval blockade that will, in short term, cause economic and likely political implosion within Iran. The administration has deftly refused to accept Iranian negotiating tricks (not sending top negotiators, trying to push off nuclear talks, etc) and continues to negotiate from a position of strength. Admittedly we don’t know all the details of the Trump admin’s negotiation strategy, but that in and of itself is a savvy move. And of course the blockade and concurrent de-mining of the Straight of Hormuz also reduces risk to US forces, expense and further reduction of armaments, and allows for US forces to refit, rearm, reposition, and plan further actions. This isn’t a perfect strategy, but it’s far from the tactical victory/strategic loss you make it out to be. Rather, it appears to be a very smart operational methodology focused on the strategic aims of eliminating the nuclear and offensive capability threat of Iran.
Cal Thomas position: Iran is a bunch of lying lunatics with whom negotiations are fruitless. The Cal Thomas recommendation is to acknowledge this and call it a day. At least that’s as much of a position as you have outlined here.
So what is your point? Most of your commentaries come with a clear way forward, recommendation, or other objective framework. Your Iran position appears to be “all hope is lost, it’s a mess, and I don’t know what we should do other than not what we are doing.” That’s not a useful commentary, that is mere hand-wringing.
Suggest you revisit this and put some more thought into your critique in order to offer your audiences with a substantive analysis.
Finish the job and arm the resistance, or come back in 20 years and do it all over again