His resume is impressive: A child of the Iranian Revolution, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took part in the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979, served as an instructor of militia groups and as a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and volunteered in the basiji (Iran’s state-sponsored militia). And, from the time he took office almost four months ago, this virulently anti-Western hardliner has served as president of the Islamic Republic.

As Iranian president, Ahmadinejad has shown no diversion from his previous path.

Since he won the presidential election in June this year, Iran’s president has declared a worldwide Islamic revolution, thrown his support behind Iran’s nuclear program and placed it under the military’s control, hinted at using oil as a blackmailing tool, declared that Israel should be wiped off the map, and sacked 40 prominent ambassadors and senior diplomats deemed too liberal or pro-Western.

Also during these short few months under its new leadership, Iran has reportedly accumulated 40,000 willing suicide bombers, supplied weaponry to Iraqi terrorists to be used against American soldiers and continued to meddle in Iraq, confirmed that it plans to launch a euro-based oil exchange to challenge the dollar, and launched a space program with a satellite capable of spying on Israel.

All this, and barely a whimper of protest from America. Why the silence?

As the Trumpet has documented previously, Iran holds the key to stability in Iraq—and with the United States looking to draw down its forces in Iraq, the last thing it needs is for Iran to stir up more trouble in that country. This in itself has tempered America’s dealings with Iran since the “axis of evil” days.

But in addition—judging by the United States’ lack of response—indications are that it simply doesn’t believe Iran’s leader needs to be taken seriously.

Certainly, there is criticism of Ahmadinejad coming from within Iran—even from those within the conservative establishment—leading some to conclude he doesn’t really speak for the nation. For example, the president received flack earlier this month from influential Iranian politician Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani for dismissing moderate long-serving government officials.

That such criticism is coming from fellow conservatives, however, in itself illustrates the direction Iran is going: The reformists are nowhere to be heard. With the reformists out of the picture ever since they were defeated in parliamentary elections in February last year (which happened quite easily seeing as they largely were excluded from even running for office), the power struggles remaining are among the conservatives. Specifically, there are two factions: the pragmatic conservatives, who are open to dialogue with the West so long as it serves their nation’s interests; and the ultraconservatives, whose catchcry is more akin to “death to the infidels.”

Certain analysts believe the rift between the pragmatists, led by Rafsanjani, and the conservatives, for whom Ahmadinejad speaks, may weaken the Islamic Republic. This view, however, ignores the fact that both camps have precisely the same aims for their nation.

In much the same way as the reformists have been on the same page as the conservatives as far as national goals go, so the two conservative blocs are unified in their quest for regional supremacy. And just as the reformist former President Mohammed Khatami served the conservative clerical establishment’s goals by giving Iran a new legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world, so the current division between the two conservative camps will likely be used to advance Iran’s cause.

What appears to be America’s policy of stepping back and waiting for the political situation in Iran to play itself out will give Iran the time and opportunity it needs to pursue its pushy foreign policy. While America does nothing, Iran continues to support terrorism; continues to pursue its nuclear weapons program; continues to interfere in Iraq. In other words, Iran moves forward in its quest to dominate the Middle East—in particular by seeking to serve as a model to Muslims worldwide of Islamic national rule.

The face of Iran that Ahmadinejad represents simply reveals to the world Iranian policy in the raw. In the theocratic republic of Iran, the real power rests with the religious leaders. Under Iranian law, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can override the president on any action he wishes. The fact that Ahmadinejad is more or less being given free reign demonstrates that his actions and rhetoric are indeed in line with the clerical establishment’s vision for Iran.

This should be of no small concern to the West.

Even should the public image of the republic change with a new leader at some point, the real power will remain with the ruling religious regime. In fact, because Ahmadinejad is so radical in his approach and rhetoric, he would make any more opportunistic conservative—such as Rafsanjani—appear positively moderate to the West by comparison. Should someone like Rafsanjani gain power sometime in the future, one could easily envisage the U.S. welcoming such a leader with open arms. But again, the danger to the West would be the same.

In the meantime, the U.S. sits back and watches what some may consider Iranian politics in turmoil. As Stratfor states, “[T]he situation makes it exceptionally difficult for the United States to deal with the Iranians over Tehran’s nuclear program, given that Washington is not sure who is actually in charge” (November 16). Perhaps this is exactly what the Iranians want.

The Trumpet has often pointed to Daniel 11:40 as referring to the pushy foreign policy of Iran (or the “king of the south”) in this end time (see our booklet The King of the South). “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push ….” The word push means to strike or to push; and it is used figuratively as “a victor who prostrates the nations before him”—in other words, it means to wage war (Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).

Increasingly, we are seeing the foreign policy of Iran reflect this warlike approach. Iran will continue to push—particularly against America and, increasingly, against Europe—until it triggers a response that it wasn’t counting on.