Iran thundered in apocalyptic prose: Israel will be destroyed! Death to America! Destroy the infidels! Kill the Jews! The future is ours!

General Ali Fadavi, the deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, smugly told the media, “Iran’s response to the Zionist aggression is definite. We are capable of destroying all that the Zionists possess with one operation.”

At least, Fadavi felt that way on October 31, when he issued that statement. Since then, America had a pretty big presidential election. (You might’ve heard about it.) But if you haven’t, here’s the highlight: The crazy, scary Orange Man is back in the saddle.

And suddenly, Iran’s singing a dramatically different tune.

It was released on Thanksgiving Day, so most people probably didn’t see it, but The New York Times released a fascinating story yesterday: “With Trump Returning and Hezbollah Weakened, Iran Strikes a Conciliatory Tone.”

The sub-header: “As Iran faces domestic and foreign challenges, its bellicose rhetoric on the United States and Israel has given way to signs that it wants less confrontation.”

The contrast is striking: Just weeks earlier, Iran was vowing to utterly eviscerate its enemies. No compromises, no exceptions! And remarkably, the world was largely falling into line: Biden even pressured America’s allies to “respond in proportion” to Iranian missile attacks on civilian targets.

But after Election Day? Even The New York Times noted the Iranian sea change:

In mid-November, Iran dispatched a top official to Beirut to urge Hezbollah to accept a cease-fire with Israel. Around the same time, Iran’s U.N. ambassador met with Elon Musk, as overture to President-elect Donald J. Trump’s inner circle. And on Friday, it will hold talks in Geneva with European countries on a range of issues, including its nuclear program.

Get ready for the money quote:

Five Iranian officials, one of them a Revolutionary Guards member, and two former officials said the decision to recalibrate was prompted by Mr. Trump winning the Nov. 5 election, with concerns about an unpredictable leader who, in his first term, pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. [emphasis added]

During the Nixon years, we called it the madman theory: When foreign adversaries cannot predict the actions of a “mad” U.S. president, they’re suddenly risk-adverse. It’s a very old idea: Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in 1517 that sometimes, it’s “a very wise thing to simulate madness.”

But there’s nothing “mad” about it.

All nations make risk-reward calculations. //

Flawed worldviews lead to flawed results.

Iran isn’t motivated by insecurity; Iran is motivated by self-interest. When you’re not a superpower, your actions aren’t driven by utopian ideals, but risk-reward calculations: How much can we get away with before the cost is too great?

During the Obama-Biden-Harris years, they read the numbers one way. With Trump, it’s an entirely different calculation.

It’s not just morning again in America: It’s morning again in the Middle East, too.