The greatest terror-sponsoring nation in the world is developing nuclear technology. The world is alarmed, right? And nations are coming together to do something about it, right? Wrong.

Last Wednesday (May 25), the EU3—Britain, France and Germany—promised to draft within three months a set of detailed proposals for economic, political and security incentives for Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing to continue suspending its uranium enrichment program.

The very next day, the Islamic Republic was rewarded by being invited to begin World Trade Organization entry negotiations. The “right” to join the wto has been one of Iran’s main demands in recent months of negotiations.

After blocking Iran’s application on 22 separate occasions, the U.S.—forced to respond to Iran’s gesture of extending its suspension of uranium processing—backed down and lifted its opposition to Iran’s entry into the wto. “President Bush offered a big economic carrot to Iran …. This U.S. shift, from threatening the Islamic Republic to wooing it, hasn’t been in Mr. Bush’s antiterrorism playbook up to now” (Christian Science Monitor, May 27).

Without giving an inch—using merely the threat of resuming what it wasn’t meant to be doing to start with—Iran has gained three months’ reprieve, an agreement for Europe to come up with a definite plan of rewards, and an invitation to enter the World Trade Organization. Not bad for what has been a pariah state, currently the greatest terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world, whose declared enemy is the U.S.

In a further indication of who is doing the accommodating, the May 25 meetings featured Europe’s representatives reinforcing Iran’s right to pursue a nuclear program and Iran’s representative reiterating that Tehran’s freeze on uranium enrichment was only temporary. Speaking for Iran, Hassan Rowhani described the deal as a victory.

It appears that by putting the next round of negotiations off till August, Europe may be hoping for a more pragmatic Iranian leadership to deal with. Many European representatives hope that former President Ali Akbar Rafsanjani will be the candidate to win Iran’s June 17 presidential election. “Mr. Rafsanjani is viewed as a credible interlocutor by many Europeans” ( Financial Times, London, May 26).

This is interesting, seeing as the ruling mullahs of Iran also fully back Rafsanjani, considered by many as the government’s strongman.

In Iran’s parliamentary elections last year, the conservatives gained back control of the legislative branch of government (albeit by disqualifying hundreds of reformist candidates). “The conservatives,” said Stratfor, “now intend to reassert their control over the entire system, by taking the executive branch as well” (May 24). Their candidate of choice, it appears, is Rafsanjani, and it just so happens he is the frontrunner in election polls.

Rafsanjani was president for two terms from 1989 to 1997 and, as one of the top leaders of the conservative clerical establishment, is currently head of Iran’s Expediency Council. Rafsanjani appears to walk a middle road, appealing to modernists and hard-liners alike with his “pragmatic conservatism.” This makes him an ideal candidate for the conservatives: a more acceptable leader both at home and abroad, capable of “keeping the system at home intact and trying to catapult Iran into the position of regional hegemon” (ibid.).

In keeping with his projection of a more moderate image, Rafsanjani said a couple weeks ago that he wanted to mend relations with the U.S. (ibid., May 19). But taking a look at his history and recent statements, we can see a clearer picture of this conservative cleric.

Rafsanjani was a pillar of the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution before becoming president a decade later. As leader of the Iranian government, Rafsanjani actively and openly supported terrorism around the world and spent billions to rebuild Iran’s military. Under his watch, Iran acquired missiles and nuclear hardware and stockpiled chemical weapons (U.S.News & World Report, Nov. 14, 1994).

As for how he really feels about America, this is what he had to say in an interview in September 2003: “Even though the United States has a physical presence in the countries that surround us, the reality is that the United States is in fact surrounded by Iran. … Our enemies such as Saddam, the Taliban and the Monafeghins [an Iranian opposition group] have been swept out of our way, and soon the U.S. will be too” (Agence France Presse, Sept. 11, 2003).

And, concerning Iran’s nuclear program—bringing into question Europe’s optimism—Rafsanjani declared the need for an “Islamic bomb” in a speech at Tehran University four years ago ( Time, May 22). Two weeks ago, he said Iran would never abandon its nuclear program (Stratfor, May 19).

There may be limited success in nuclear negotiations if Rafsanjani comes to power—but we can be assured it will be on Iran’s terms. “Rafsanjani is a dealmaker, first and last,” and Iran’s “most clever politician” ( Time, op. cit.).

Whoever becomes the next president of Iran, this much we know: He will be approved by the Shiite clerical establishment that controls the country, and he will further Iran’s aims for regional supremacy. Iranian rapprochement with the U.S. is simply the means to an end for Iran, just like its negotiations with Europe are. Certainly, for as long as it stands to gain from negotiations and deals that will provide economic and technological benefits—not to mention international standing—Tehran will continue the charade.

But make no mistake; Iran’s path will not change. Diplomacy will go out the window once Tehran finds itself with enough power and leverage to show the whole world who is, in biblical language, “the king of the south” (Daniel 11:40).

As the Trumpet stated in its July 1997 issue, “The Bible prophesies of an Islamic king of the south to be a major political force in this end time. Religion will be the guiding force behind the king of the south. As these prophecies unfold, we can expect religious radicals and dictatorial rulers to gain prominence as they enter onto the world stage for one final scene.”