CIA knows Iran's real power center while Washington pretends otherwise - opInion

As negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain deadlocked, U.S. President Donald Trump convened a high-level meeting with senior national security officials, including the CIA director, secretary of defense, and vice president, to discuss scenarios for a possible return to military confrontation with Iran. Simultaneously, Qatar and Pakistan launched last-minute mediation efforts, which ultimately failed to prevent further escalation.

Sources close to the White House indicate that Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with the stalled diplomacy and is considering a "decisive final military operation" to resolve the crisis. While no final decision has been made, the confrontation appears to be approaching a dangerous turning point. This situation raises a strategic question: Do the CIA, in coordination with Mossad, now perceive regime change in Iran not as a distant aspiration but as an increasingly realistic objective?

The article posits that the United States continues to engage with Iran's "diplomatic façade," while real authority remains concentrated within the ideological-security structure of the IRGC and outwardly, the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It draws parallels to the 1979 revolution, suggesting the CIA did not fully grasp the ideological engine behind Khomeini or the implications of the "Velayat-e Faqih" doctrine, which led to a religious dictatorship. The piece also references the CIA's perceived failure to foresee the rise of Islamist terrorism and the loss of power by the Shah of Iran, America's former ally.

Furthermore, the author notes that during 1975–1978, warnings from SAVAK, a close intelligence partner of the CIA and Mossad, about KGB involvement in both Marxist terrorist movements and Islamist militant networks were often dismissed. The article also touches upon the narrative cultivated by Khomeini's inner circle that the CIA orchestrated the 1953 coup against a "popular prime minister," questioning why a more fundamental inquiry into the events was not pursued.