The Hill ... The March 2015 article by Jeremy Smith “Mystery Killers” correctly identified a major obstacle in improving public health globally—a lack of information. 

Specifically, of 50 million recorded deaths last year around the globe, few provided the cause. Oftentimes “garbage codes” were used—i.e., overly broad terms, such as “brain trauma,” having numerous causes. Thus, Smith opined, “How can we save lives if we don’t understand what threatens them?” 

This same question needs to be asked as a nuclear deal with Iran fast approaches. 

To be able to negotiate a treaty with Iran demands we must first understand the threat. Although we do not yet know the terms of the agreement, to focus on anything short of this is time wasted on garbage code talk.

Most importantly, understanding that threat requires knowing the mullahs’ intentions.  

The definitive yardstick for measuring the efficacy of a nuclear deal with Iran—whatever the terms—rests on understanding whether the mullahs’ intentions vis-à-vis the West are being addressed. 

Therefore, we must understand those intentions. 

The best starting point for this is the statement by the Founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, making those intentions very clear.  

Khomeini explained Islam’s goal is, “the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world…those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.” 

He mocked the concept of “peaceful” Islam:

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless…Islam says: whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword!…Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”  

Khomeini’s mindset does not give one a particularly “warm and fuzzy” feeling. It is this same mindset motivating Iran’s mullahs today. 

Thus, it is safe to assume the mullahs’ intentions towards the West are inherently evil. This mindset, then, must be considered in undertaking negotiations with Iran.

In American contract law, parties to any agreement are held to act in “good faith.” We cannot assume this in any nuclear deal with Iran, lest—to use Khomeini’s words—we be deemed “foolish souls.”

Other considerations evidencing that Khomeini’s stated goal for Islam remains unchanged must be weighed: 

- Iran’s theocracy adheres to Islam’s apocalyptic return of the “Mahdi”—a child imam who ascended into a state of occultation centuries ago. It is believed his return will lead to Islam’s establishment as THE world’s religion. 

However, his return will only be triggered by global chaos. And, the mullahs believe, man can be the catalyst in causing it. Is this the ultimate purpose for which Tehran seeks nuclear weapons?

- When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was Iran’s president, he told other Muslim leaders the Mahdi would return during his term in office. 

His assertions came before Iran’s computers were deeply infected by the Stuxnet virus which severely delayed advancement of its nuclear program. Did Ahmadinejad believe Iran would possess a nuclear weapon during his term to trigger the Mahdi’s return? (But for Stuxnet, perhaps so.) 

- Iran’s leadership embraces “taqiyya”—the practice of deceiving an enemy as to its true intentions. The practice supposedly is sanctioned by Allah to further Islam’s goals and has often been used successfully against the West. Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani, boasts about this in a video smuggled out of the country. 

In it, he explains how—as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator at the time—he fooled the West by saying one thing while doing another, enabling the program to make significant progress. 

It is this practice that should concern us that Secretary of State John Kerry gives credence to a fatwa (never-before-seen) allegedly issued by Khomeini condemning nuclear weapons. (One can only wonder then what Iran’s ballistic missiles are to carry.)  

The frightening reality is that the intentions of Iran’s mullahs are really no different than those of ISIS. As ISIS seeks a world caliphate for Sunnis, Iran seeks one for Shiites. What ISIS openly does to reach that goal, Iran does more discretely. 

While we have witnessed the true and constant brutality of ISIS, Iran awaits a deal allowing it to gain nuclear weapons before fully unleashing its true brutality.

Meanwhile, those putting their faith in the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that served us well to prevent nuclear war between the U.S. and Soviet Union—i.e., one side will not start a nuclear war knowing the other can retaliate in kind—will similarly inhibit Iran are foolish souls. 

With the mullahs’ apocalyptic mindset, MAD serves not as a deterrent but an incentive for nuclear war.  

We would never think about negotiating a deal with ISIS by which it gained access to nuclear technology leading to possible development of nuclear weapons. Yet, we stand on the brink of blessing such a deal with Iran. 

Doing so ignores the fact Iran’s mullahs are merely Shiites in ISIS clothing.  

Historians will record a nuclear agreement with Iran will prove to be the most important decision of the early 21st century impacting upon America’s security. As such, “garbage code” talk should not cloud our judgment on what needs to be done.

The bottom line is any deal giving Iran nuclear weapons—whether sooner or later—is a bad one. 

As rational thinkers, democratic leaders have tended to imbue adversaries with the same quality of logical thought we exercise. It was a quality Adolf Hitler successfully manipulated prior to World War II.  

Similarly, we now allow Iran’s mullahs to manipulate us at our own peril.