Latest Bill Siegel News | Fox News

The real Iran threat is in black and white: It's even in their constitution

Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:00:45 -0400

As the conflict with Iran continues, many elements of an ultimate deal have been explored. Issues such as nuclear weapons development, missile production, uranium divestiture and enrichment, foreign proxy financing, as well as activities in the region by Israel and Arab nations, have been scrutinized. In the meantime, it is well recognized that any deal with the Iranian regime is suspect; compliance has always been questionable, and efficient monitoring creates an even greater set of problems.

From the beginning, the notion of "regime change" has received much attention. For some, it means the termination of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For others, it entails the complete elimination of all who have led and participated in the Iranian Revolution for decades. For others, it can be satisfied with a mere leadership change on the assumption, as with the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, that new leaders may emerge who will lead the nation to greater cooperation with the U.S., turn away from fueling terror through proxies in other nations, and, because of an improved economy, be open to granting the general population greater individual freedoms.

One focus that has been completely absent from the public discussion concerns the regime’s own constitution and whether amendments, if not a full overhaul, should be on the table. Of course, a change in a document does not guarantee a meaningful change in behavior. Nonetheless, the failure to agree to specified amendments, if not a totally new framework, demonstrates that true change of the type much of the world would appreciate is unlikely.

MICHAEL OREN: IRAN HAS WAGED WAR ON AMERICA FOR 47 YEARS — TIME TO END IT

The existing constitution, formed in 1979 and subsequently amended in 1989, outlines a vision that is fully incompatible with Western principles and that has guided and given reason to all the regime has sought throughout its forty-seven-year existence. It also gives meaning to what has often been mistaken for mere hyperbolic cheerleading: "Death to America."

While America was built on notions of liberty, individual freedoms and limited government control, the Islamic Republic is based upon a global totalitarian vision. Essentially, it seeks a one-world Islamic government derived from Koranic principles and Sharia law. It sets out to help all similar revolutionary efforts across the world, justifying its support for its proxies and other activities abroad. In addition, it was hoped that this vision would be realized by the end of the 20th century, which certainly explains the unquenchable appetite for nuclear weapons as the optimum, most accelerated pathway toward overtaking all other forms of rule.

AMB. GORDON SONDLAND: THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAN'S 'IMMINENT THREAT' THAT POLITICIANS HATE TO ADMIT

Here are just a few passages from the preamble and the articles themselves (italics added):

"The Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse ‘This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me’ [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world."

The constitution was framed "with all the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."

The army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards "will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way, that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world…"

"With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad."

"…framing the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support for the freedom fighters of the world."

The constitution dictates not only activities within the territory; it is offensive as well as defensive. Again, its reach is worldwide, not limited to the Middle East, as many in the media seek to posture. The Little and Great Satans are the prime enemies precisely because they represent the greatest obstacles. It was Iran that declared war on America decades ago; it has been the U.S., until the current administration, that has minimized its importance while hoping to peaceably negotiate Iran away from its mission. For those who question how Iran is a threat to the U.S., its prime goal requires the "downfall" of the U.S.

THE IRANIAN REGIME WAS BUILT ON ‘VICIOUS ANTISEMITISM’ FOLLOWING THE 1979 ISLAMIC REVOLUTION

The constitution is based on the belief, in part, in "the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God." The official religion is the Twelver Ja’fari Shiite school, which is to "remain eternally immutable." This school, generally speaking, awaits the return of its Mahdi, similar to the Messiah, and encourages global chaos, which is necessary to hasten his appearance. It is this very global chaos that underlies much of what the regime has consistently fostered.

Negotiations are difficult and, generally, only those directly involved have a full view of all the concerns, issues, relative leverage, and risks at hand. Consequently, the public is often unaware of many true constraints and opportunities the parties hold. Consequently, many necessary tradeoffs are often not understood by those outside the central negotiators.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Nonetheless, the last century, as well as the beginning of this one, has taught us the necessity of trusting how the enemy describes itself. From Hitler and Stalin to all Western communists, Mao to the CCP, and the Islamists, we have learned it is important to believe what they tell us. The Iranian Constitution does just that, telling us exactly who the regime is and what it seeks, and meaningful public discourse must be fully informed by it.

Any deal with this regime is suspect given its history and its adherence to the Prophet Mohammad’s treatment of truces; nothing ensures compliance. Yet, more importantly, the failure of Iran to agree to address many provisions in the constitution will make clear exactly what kind of "regime change," if any, will result.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Failure to adequately address the constitution will ultimately be perceived as acceptance and ratification of the extreme principles underlying all of its terms. And should it be determined that the best path forward is an agreement with expiration dates, the constitution, unchanged, tells us exactly what will be faced once those expiration dates have passed.

Again, changes to the constitution are no guarantee of true change, but the failure to make changes will likely guarantee no true change. It is therefore imperative that public attention be so focused before any final agreement is reached.

Why Team Obama used 'blame- the-video' tactic after Libya attack

Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:00:16 -0400

Perhaps the most under-examined aspect of the blame-the-video story spun by President Obama’s administration following the Benghazi terror attacks is how easy the White House presumed it would be to sell.

An acquiescent mainstream media has for years encouraged an arrogant administration to expect its full support, even it has been forced to acknowledge that the administration has erred, if not lied when it comes to the deadly attack in Libya.

It is equally critical, however, that we the people begin to understand our contribution to this tragedy and how suggestible and easily exploitable we are.

It is clear that the White House did not want to tell us the truth about the Benghazi assassinations -- that Al Qaeda is far from dead or “mission accomplished,” that there were no protests before the attack, and that the State Department and intelligence agencies had quickly concluded it was a highly coordinated terrorist attack.

Is the administration so incompetent that any peek inside would spell immediate disaster for Obama’s reelection campaign? Could some analysts’ suspicions that Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been assigned with originally arming the Libyan rebels and was on a doomed mission to retrieve such weapons be the underlying revelation that must be covered up at all costs -- "Fast and Furious" Libyan Style? These issues will hopefully soon be investigated. But of all the substitute explanations available, why the one which cites a barely viewed video?

[pullquote]

Certainly there are political objectives underlying the choice. The Muslim Brotherhood has allies situated into virtually all US government functions that involve Islam and the Islamic world, from Muslim “outreach” to law enforcement to policy development. I believe that much of Obama’s domestic and Middle East policy can be characterized as aligned with the Brotherhood and its now institutionalized objectives.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the Blame-the-Video tactic would be fully Brotherhood compliant. The Brotherhood, along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the largest Islamic body in the world), has for years sought to bring about a change in US free speech laws so as to criminalize speech that is blasphemous or otherwise critical of Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. Part of the strategy involves demonstrating that such speech is uniquely inciting to Muslims and certain to result in violence: the narrative of the “Fragile Muslim” requiring special treatment for Muslims and Islam. Incremental acceptance of the notion that insults to Islam “cause” violence will “evolve” into banning such speech on the theory that violence becomes, a priori, “imminent.”

Furthermore, UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 sets out to enforce a ban on such speech by treaty rather than through our traditional domestic legislative process. That Hillary Clinton co-sponsored this resolution speaks volumes as to where the Obama administration sits.

Nonetheless, the blame-the-video tactic would not exist without our willing collusion. It is natural, of course, for us to try to minimize escalation following an unprovoked violent attack. Yet more insidious, there is the tendency of much of the modern Western mindset to accept responsibility for the hatred and anger practiced throughout much of the Islamic world. Whether illegally occupying Muslim lands, supporting un-Islamic leaders in Muslim territories, violating Shariah laws in our own land, or insulting the Prophet in cartoons, films, and novels, the critical maneuver is to place the West as the “cause” of Muslim behavior.

At core, there is a profound relationship between the West and the Islamic world that, albeit oversimplified, resembles that between an addict and its enablers. For the addict, the goal is to continue unacceptable behavior without end or restriction and much of his world view is centered upon victimhood; others cause him to be outraged and consequently violent. The addict will rant and rave for so long as he is allowed to get away with it rather than take responsibility for and change his behavior.

The corollary to the addict’s anger is the enabler’s extreme fear -- fear of what the enraged addict might do if left unaddressed.

With respect to our modern Islamic enemy, the threat posed is so terrifying that the Western mind does all it can to change its perceptions so as to blind itself to the true reality it faces. The most ubiquitous enabler technique to keep stability is to accept the narrative that he is responsible for the addict’s behavior.

The dirty secret is that if one is the cause, he can find a way to change the outcome. The dirty reality, however, is that the only way to change this threat is to eliminate it in total; something that even today remains politically unacceptable to much of the West.

Obama must be fully familiar with this relationship as those he surrounds himself with are fully identified with it.

The overwhelming tendency for the American mind to accept itself as cause for Islamic rage and violence is easily exploited. When the White House needed a true channel changer, it went right to what it knew best.

Hopefully, the American mind is beginning to tire of the enabler role and is beginning to seek more accurate perceptions of what is truly going on.

Bill Siegel is the author of "The Control Factor -- Our Struggle to See the True Threat" published by Hamilton Books.