Yes, that’s me, at the Supreme Leader’s house on election day, watching him cast the first vote in the 2016 Elections. An absurd story for another post…

So I went to Iran. Twice. The first time to visit with the Jewish community there, to go on a religious pilgrimage to the city of Hamedan to visit the graves of Queen Esther and Mordechai, and to see for myself this country that is at the forefront of my life, as a political being, and as a Jew.

I got invited back. Not sure why, not sure how, but I got invited back to cover the Iranian elections to the Parliament and the Assembly of Experts, and as a journalist I could not pass up the opportunity, even though I knew little of what I was about to see was reality in any manner known to me.

The days leading up to the election I spent interviewing members of Parliament, both Principalist (conservative) and Reformist (“moderate”) candidates and voters on the streets of Tehran, and a picture began to take shape, of a nation in far less turmoil than President Obama wishes to believe.

One of the more interesting meetings I had during the 18 days I spent in Iran was with Dr. Moshen Keshvari, one of the top principalist candidates for Parliament. I asked Dr. Keshvari if the Iran Deal influences the election, and his answer was surprisingly unabashed.

“These are uncertain times, full of threats from inside and outside the country, and we expect a record turnout because of it. People either want us, who will safeguard Iranian values and meet American promises with the suspicion it deserves, or they will choose the Reformists who recklessly trust America and the West.”

When I point out to Dr. Keshvari that many in America and the West believe that Iran was the winner in the 5+1 deal and that Obama fully conceded to Iranian terms he smiles and says, “I agree.” I laugh in astonishment at his honesty and ask him if he worries about President Obama’s replacement or follows the American presidential elections where several Republican candidates have campaigned on overturning the deal, but at this he shrugs with apparent contentment.

“Believe me, Miss Rothstein. We are ready for whatever candidate is chosen, and we are prepared for one that rips up the deal. When he does we will produce … what do you call it … an ace up our sleeve.”

The doctor quickly adds that neither he nor Iran has a problem with the American people, but that the American governmental policy has always been one of deception and betrayal, and that one cannot expect Iran to welcome the new American approach without fear or suspicion after so many years of failed relations. “Its not as complicated as you think,” he says to me, “America just has to stop its constant propaganda and animosity against Iran, and then we will consider them an ally. Until then we will keep them at arm’s length and consider them with the utmost suspicion.”

Dr. Keshvari does not even pretend to have a partner in America, because he understands what President Obama does not. The deal proved a great success to not only Dr. Keshvari and his particular political allies, but to the entire establishment of Iran, and from what I gather from his answers there was little doubt on their end of the outcome, or winner, of this historical agreement.

“America needs us now, and we know it. The entire West needs someone to control the Middle East and keep ISIS and the barbarians at bay. They need us now, we do not need them, and like a small child we cannot be infected with the Western ideas because we have been inoculated.”

And this is what I saw, to a great extent, during my visit to this country that captured my heart and broke it at once; so filled with beautiful contradictions is Iran, and so far from what I expected. I saw how little consequence the Western world is to them all, from politicians to pedestrians, and how wrong President Obama is to believe that they want what we have or are striving to reach a point of Western-style democracy.

The animosity felt toward the US is palpable. In the murals I see, walking down the Tehran streets, calling for death to America and ridiculing Obama, picturing him next to famous historical tyrants. He may see himself as a difference-maker, a bridge builder and a symbol of hope and change — but here in the heart of the Middle East, that sentiment is very one-sided.

The Iran-Iraq war still represents a huge open wound to the people of Iran. Everyone I meet is in some way affected by it and on my third day in the country I am taken to the blood fountain in Tehran’s biggest cemetery. It has been dyed red, spouting “blood” in memory of the martyrs of the Iran-Iraq war, and my guide tells me how America abandoned Iran, how the world let them down, and how they will never again be vulnerable or weak. The Iran deal is seen as a part of strengthening against the West, not as a bridge built toward it. This is a way for Iran to gain power and independence and to challenge the US in terms of world power — not to become an ally to the same.

There is no reform here in the Western sense of the word, and even those most adamant about achieving change do not want a Western-style society. American culture is widely perceived as being a threat to all that is good and holy, causing breakdown of families and deterioration of societies, and the message pumped out by the regime for the past 37 years has been as effective as it has been clear — the two paths being resistance or death. This is not the view merely held by the regime, it is ingrained in the Iranian society. The picture put forth by the Obama administration, of a people dying to be Westernized, is simply not true. This is a country proud of its heritage and deeply defiant toward America, the nation they see as their moral and political opposite. After my time in Iran I see that we in the Western world have to relate to the Iranian regime, but I also see the fallacy of this deal in all its brutal clarity.

President Obama’s inflated self-image made him ignore the facts, the knowledge of history so necessary for any world leader, and he instead chose to believe that the Middle East would change according to his ideology — despite having centuries of empirical evidence that it would not.

The next President of the United States needs to be one who understands the Middle East, and most importantly has the modesty to learn and relate to history, rather than believe he is the only piece of history that matters. Because Iran, along with the few kingdoms, stands stable as an entity in the Middle East, we in the West need to relate to it rather than exclude it. But in so doing, we need to shake off the rose-colored glasses worn by the current administration and understand that it is balance of terror, and not brotherhood, that will define this relationship.