Trump’s Iran Gamble: Terror Network Still Intact Despite Stunning Strike

Liberty Check

• Trump’s framework agreement with Tehran risks repeating Obama-era mistakes by negotiating with a regime whose terrorist infrastructure remains fully operational
• Despite eliminating Khamenei and Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxy network—Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and Iraqi militias—continue threatening American interests
• Iranian freedom fighters who once praised Trump for confronting the regime now feel abandoned as Washington prioritizes deals over supporting democratic opposition

In 1979, American weakness and the betrayal of a loyal ally opened the door for radical Islamic terrorism and handed Iran to Soviet influence. Nearly five decades later, Washington’s refusal to back Iran’s pro-democracy movement has once again emboldened Islamist forces, leaving America strategically weakened while the battle between jihadism and Iranian nationalism rages on.

Many Iranians view the 1979 revolution as the birth of a regime built entirely on violence and terror. During recent uprisings, Trump voiced support for the Iranian people while simultaneously pursuing negotiations with Tehran. Regime opponents later thanked Trump and Netanyahu for confronting Ali Khamenei, the brutal dictator they saw as the face of oppression and bloodshed.

Reasonable people can debate the merits of diplomatic agreements. But certain realities cannot be ignored. Throughout history, dictators and terrorist organizations have never fundamentally changed their nature simply because others chose to negotiate with them. A tyrant does not become a champion of liberty overnight, and a terrorist network does not suddenly start distributing flowers to the very people it has oppressed and murdered.

The notion that Iran’s barbaric ruling system can fundamentally transform without dismantling its destructive ideological foundations and propaganda apparatus is pure fantasy. The structure remains intact. The institutions sustaining the regime remain operational. Eliminating a few commanders or military assets does not dismantle a deeply entrenched military junta and ideological system.

The elimination of Qassem Soleimani and Ali Khamenei dealt devastating blows to the regime’s prestige and morale. Yet because the broader structure survived, those who inherited power are now desperately seeking survival and buying time. They offer promises that may appeal to Trump, but countless Iranians do not believe them.

As a result, Trump—once viewed by many Iranians as a hero for confronting Tehran’s dictator—is now seen by many of those same people as having abandoned their cause in favor of another deal with the regime. Many opponents believe this agreement has come at the expense of those who sacrificed their lives during the uprising.

One of Trump’s most significant achievements during his first term was the elimination of Soleimani, the architect of Iran’s regional terror network. If the deaths of Imad Mughniyeh and Osama bin Laden were major victories in the war against Islamic terrorism, then taking out Soleimani was arguably even more consequential.

Yet Soleimani’s death did not destroy the structure he helped build. Ahmad Vahidi, now one of the most influential figures in the post-Khamenei order, remains embedded in the system. The overseas terrorist apparatus of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Quds Force continues operating.

The terrorist network survived. Consequently, many fear this agreement—much like previous diplomatic openings with Tehran—will encourage renewed aggression within the regime’s security establishment.

Another crucial development was the weakening of Tehran’s proxy network and the reduction of its regional influence. When Israel faced an existential threat, Mossad—under Yossi Cohen and later David Barnea—succeeded in significantly damaging the Islamic Republic’s transnational terror network throughout the Shiite Crescent.

Yet the network has not disappeared. The regime’s “4H” axis—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraq’s Hashd al-Shaabi militias—remains intact, and Tehran continues relying on these groups to create pressure on Israel whenever necessary.

A third critical factor was Trump’s unwavering support for Israel in the face of direct Iranian missile and drone attacks. The threats Khamenei made against Israel and the Jewish people echoed rhetoric previously associated with history’s most notorious dictators. In fact, Khamenei was one of the principal figures behind the forces responsible for the October 7, 2023 atrocities.

For decades, the regime relied on proxy groups to confront Israel. Eventually it crossed a historic threshold by launching direct missile and drone attacks against the Jewish state. In the eyes of many regime opponents, this demonstrated Tehran’s true genocidal ambitions.

Many Iranians welcomed efforts by Israel and the United States to weaken the Islamic Republic and the IRGC, hoping increased pressure on the regime would bring Iran closer to freedom and democracy. From that perspective, President Trump’s support for Israel remains one of the most significant and commendable aspects of his Middle East policy.

Yet the greatest danger remains. If the regime is given an opportunity to rebuild, neither its terrorist infrastructure nor its ambitions of regional domination will disappear. Within the ideological framework established by Khomeini, hostility toward the United States and Israel remains a central principle. The regime may change its tactics for survival, but it does not abandon its long-term objectives.

If Tehran succeeds in buying time and recovering its strength, the same network of Islamist terrorism will reemerge. The regime’s “4H” axis—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hashd al-Shaabi—will remain in place alongside other terrorist organizations linked to Tehran’s regional strategy. Many Iranians believe the previous JCPOA strengthened the regime’s terrorist infrastructure rather than benefiting ordinary citizens. Critics fear new financial relief will produce identical results.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether an agreement is signed or rejected. The real issue is preventing the reconstruction of the transnational terrorist infrastructure that could once again threaten American interests, U.S. allies, and regional stability.

Ironically and regrettably, President Trump’s willingness to reach another agreement with Tehran demonstrates that Washington has no genuine commitment to pursuing regime change in Iran. Critics argue that peaceful coexistence with this cancerous regime in the heart of the Middle East is simply impossible. In reality, the regime may change its tactics, but it cannot change its nature.

The regime also faces a growing internal crisis, and the forces that fueled the uprising have not disappeared. Many Iranians believe the aspirations of the protest movement were ultimately ignored and that the current agreement has diverted attention from the central struggle inside Iran.

Iran’s future will ultimately be determined not by agreements signed abroad, but by the continuing struggle between a regime fighting for survival and a society demanding freedom and democratic change.

The Constitution must be defended.