The track record of a conventional Iran highlights the following:
*Iran annually celebrates November 4 as "Death to America Day,” commemorating the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy, featuring a burning of the American flag.
*Iran intensifies radical Shiite ideology, emphasizing the submission of humanity to the Prophet Muhammad; the submission of the "infidel” the Sharia' laws; the duty to conduct a "holy war” (Jihad) on behalf of Islam; the divinely-ordained Islamic title to land (Waqf)); the duty to expand Dar al-Islam (the residence of the "believers”) into the Dar al-Harb (the residence of the "disbelievers,” who are doomed by the sword); and the art of doubletalk and deception-based agreements, aimed at shielding the "believers” from the "disbelievers” (Taqiyyah), to be abrogated once conditions are ripe.
*Iran collaborates with the anti-US regimes in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba, is expanding ties with Argentina and seeking enhanced ties with Mexico.
*Iran is the key supporter of Syria' Assad regime and Hezbollah, which has terrorized Lebanon , targeting Americans, as demonstrated by the two 1983 car bombs, that claimed the lives of 300 US Marines at the US Embassy and Marines headquarters in Beirut.
Notwithstanding such a ruthless track record, the "hope-driven, fact-dismissing school of thought” considers the Ayatollahs a partner for an agreement (rather than imposition), in a region where intra-Muslim agreements are usually signed on ice, not carved in stone. In fact, the nature of the Iranian regime, on the one hand, and compliance with agreements, on the other hand, constitute a classic oxymoron.
Will the US learn from recent history by avoiding, or repeating, past mistakes?!
Are the Ayatollahs amenable to policy-change, or do they require a regime-change?