Matthew McKenna
Part I: Iran
Author’s Note: This is the first part in a several part series about the alleged enemies of the United States. This series is designed to improve the reader’s understanding of the origins of the “enemy” status that the nations in question hold. The series is neither an endorsement nor condemnation of the alleged enemy’s actions, but a critical look at how US policy has affected these states and their outlook on the world. As has been mentioned on this blog in earlier posts, the United States is the global empire, and thus needs to be scrutinized most severely.
The Omnipresent American Enemy: Nuance
We are stuck in a world dominated by fiction. Americans buy into a Disney curated reality wherein the world exists in a binary divided by good and evil. Within this dynamic we (the United States) are invariably good, and our perceived geopolitical enemies are evil. This view of the world in these oversimplified terms is harmful, as well as obfuscating a very useful truth. The enemies of the United States are operating in a very rational and predictable manner. It is reassuring to Americans to dismiss nations that refuse to kowtow to the global empire as being evil, illogical, or crazy. Contrarily, to admit that these nations are conducting themselves as rational actors would demand some introspection of our own behavior toward them. That is not the American way, and so we continue down a destructive path.
A Man Representative of an Era
I wonder what Qasim Soleimani’s last thought was before the missile fired from a US predator drone removed him from his earthly existence. If he realized his death was imminent, even for a millisecond prior to the missile’s impact, he would have probably concluded that this was not out of character behavior for his long time advisory. Indeed, Qasim Soleimani spent his entire life operating in a dynamic where he could not afford to underestimate the devious, often paranoid and irrational behavior of the United States of America. At the time of his US conducted assassination, the general had amassed 62 years on the planet. Any Iranian alive during these 6 decades since Soleimani’s birth in 1957, would unlikely be terribly surprised by the belligerence displayed by the global superpower to its tortured Persian counterpart.
The United States Supports Democracy, but Please Don’t Read the Fine Print
Had he been born a decade earlier, Soleimani would have experienced the hope of Iranian democracy. His country had elected the resource nationalist, Mohammad Mossadegh, to the presidency, and the hope that gripped many nations of the global south gripped Iran as well. Mossadegh had aspirations to create an Iran that would undergo a drastic shift from its recent monarchical past to a more egalitarian society. To that end, the ambitious prime minister sought to utilize the massive wealth that the country sat on in the form of oil. His push to nationalize the democracy’s petroleum alarmed the British who had grown quite used to imperial theft, and whose Anglo-Iranian oil company had controlled much of the reserves in the nation. Unaware or unwilling to deal with the reality of his declining empire, the always imperial Winston Churchill would not tolerate such disobedience from a presumed vassal state and proceeded to take action. After failing to get the United States to commit to discipline the disobedient Iranians under Truman, the British found a willing partner in Dwight Eisenhower. Wielding the bogeyman of a communist threat (even though Mossadegh was not a communist) was enough to convince the 35th president to be a willful collaborator in violating the newly created UN charter.
The Return of the King
Through a combination of collaboration with the Iranian royal family, deliberate disinformation, and staged protests, the American CIA and British MI6 successfully overthrew the democratic government of Mossadegh. In his place, they installed Reza Shah Pahlavi, reinstituting monarchy in Persia. This kicked off decades of extreme repression, complete with (US created) secret police, torture, and disappearances of political dissidents. None of these grave violations dampened US support for the regime, on whom it bestowed military and diplomatic aid. Even as the Shahs’ secret police, the Savak, was identified as one of the gravest violators of human rights on the planet, President Jimmy Carter was still praising the authoritarian regime as an “Island of stability.”
Imperial Middle Management gets Fired
Having purged all (especially left wing) political opposition with help from the US, one of the only venues where Iranians could voice dissent to the severe repression, was a religious one. The mosque provided a platform through which resistance to repression could be fomented. The result of such organizing was the Islamic Revolution, in which the nation deposed the oppressive Shah, and Ayatollah Khomeini became the central governing figure. The people who demanded justice for the Shah’s egregious crimes were rebuffed by the United States once more as the superpower gave the ousted monarch refuge. By the time these events unfolded in 1979, the United States had long since gained its reputation for overt and covert action to thwart self deterministic movements in the global South. With that knowledge, and fearing a repeat of the US interference of 26 years earlier, young Iranians stormed the American Embassy in Tehran. The resultant hostage crisis is generally the event through which most (even informed) Americans view as the beginning of the rocky relationship with the Persian nation. It is the subject of Hollywood productions, political theater, and outright threats of retributive violence by the 45th US president; 40 years after the fact. The Iranian students were not insane or paranoid to suspect the superpower of foul play. They made a calculated decision based on actions they believed the American government would likely take. This hypothesis was based on their own history with the hegemon and what any objective third party observer would say about United States behavior of this era more generally. Along with the CIA coup that crushed Iranian self determination in 1953, the US had conducted dozens of other interventions since at the cost of millions of lives in the global South. Often these covert actions were conducted directly out of a US embassy in the targeted country.
There is also much to be said for what would become a continued pattern of Iranian restraint. The young Persians did not kill any hostages and even let some of the African American employees of the embassy go free. The people of Iran had the audacity to reject US dominance over their lives. Despite claims of concern for human rights, nuclear programs, or terrorist activity, disobeying US authority is the crime the US truly cannot forgive the Islamic republic for.
Uncle Sam’s Tragic Love Affair with Saddam
The Iran in which Soleimani began adulthood was a state under attack. Aside from the Islamic Revolution and the 444 day hostage crisis souring ties with the United States, the new government had a more regional threat to its existence. Iraq’s Ba’ath party had emerged and consolidated power during the Shah’s reign in neighboring Iran. Purging internal opposition (with assistance from.. well, you know) strong man Saddam Hussein solidified his hold over the former British colony. Among his first actions taken as president was to leverage the chaos in neighboring Iran in his favor. Iraq invaded its Persian neighbor and initiated the most brutal war in the second half of the 20th century. Washington, still hoping to roll back the Islamic Revolution, gave its full military and diplomatic support to Saddam, providing arms, intelligence, and diplomatic cover. The United States even engaged in outright combat with the Iranian navy, destroying its fleet in what has been known as “Tanker War.” While today we are used to hearing our leaders berate the Islamic Republic of Iran for its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapons, it was the US providing Iraq with biological and chemical agents that would be constructed into WMD’s (the term that only gained association with Iraq more than a decade afterward). With the aid from US in the form of satellite imagery, these weapons would later be used on Iranians (and Shiites within Iraq), with the US diplomatic cover for Hussein at the UN. Perhaps the event that best encapsulates American devaluation of Persian life is the downing of Iranian flight 655. On July 3, 1988, the cruiser USS Vincennes, shot down the Dubai bound passenger plane, killing all 290 civilians on board. Admiral William Fogarty spoke of the incident as one where characterized by the captain of the ship acting “prudent manner” and even suggested that Iran should share the blame. This runs counter to the subsequent investigations that revealed that the Vincennes was position in Iranian waters, in violation of international law. Running cover for the atrocity did not prevent Fogerty from being awarded for his “meritorious service” during the period from 1987 to 1989. Conversely to remorse or apology, American leadership further demonstrated the callousness to which they view Iranian life. Vice president, and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush remarked on the incident at a campaign event, “I’ll never apologize for America ever! I don’t care what the facts are!” The Iran-Iraq War came to a close less than 2 months later, but the destabilizing role of United States in the region was only beginning. As Americans, we use the term “Never Forget” when speaking about the September 11th attacks, but do not even begin to understand the kind of anti-American animosity that same slogan might engender for Iranians. How should Iranians characterize their feelings toward the most powerful nation in the world, that armed their neighbor with both conventional and chemical weapons, sunk its navy, and violated Iranian territorial sovereignty from where it shot down an Iranian passenger plane? They would unlikely be comforted by the fact that all of this terror was in service of a war of aggression which killed half a million to a million Persians. Chanting “Death to America” seems rather tame compared to the slogans Americans would undoubtedly be spewing about the Islamic Republic were the roles reversed.
It was this in this war that Qasim Soleimani gained his earliest military experiences. It was in this hellscape that the general-to be would volunteer for the newly formed elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp to protect his embattled nation. It was from there that he would gain his reputation as a protector of not just Iranians, but other ethnic groups in the region from Western authored aggression.
The Missed Opportunities of September 11th
The months that followed 9/11 were ones of great opportunity. The problem is that the Bush administration did not seize on the available correct one and rather pursued a murderous and destructive one. That moment in time was one of the few instances in the entire history of the United States that it could be viewed with sympathy in the eyes of the rest of the world. This was a chance for reevaluating our actions and redirecting our foreign policy to reflect a prioritization of diplomacy, multilateralism, and peace. The latter value was an available option, as America’s alleged enemies seized on the moment to attempt to reconcile with the injured superpower. The United States had the chance to bury the hatchet with long time adversaries, as sympathy and support poured in from ally and enemy alike. This included medical supplies from Cuba and repudiation of the attacks by nemesis Muammar Gaddafi, who described the attack as “horrifying.” Russia’s Vladimir Putin was the first international leader to call President Bush after the attacks. The Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Fadlallah of, allegedly, the anti-American Hezbollah, was the first Muslim cleric to condemn the attacks.
Empire’s Gonna Empire, Even if You’re Nice
Hezbollah’s benefactor, Iran, illustrated its own capacity for forgiveness in the days after the tragedy as well. This included condemnations of the attacks from both the president and the Supreme Leader, candlelit vigils in the streets of Tehran, and 60,000 mourning Iranians respecting a full minute silence in Tehran’s soccer stadium in honor of the victims. This moment of Iranian solidarity with the mourning nation was even documented by US officials.
Iran even supported the US invasion into neighboring Afghanistan. This support included providing intelligence, search and rescue teams, and arresting dozens of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters that had crossed into Iran. They granted the Americans access to airfields near the Afghan border and proved to be very cooperative with the Americans in the construction of the post-Taliban-Afghan government. Perhaps this benevolent action toward the United States was motivated by strategic goals, genuine goodwill, or a combination of those factors. Either way, it is fair to assume that Iran was likely collectively anticipating that their acts of kinship with the US in late 2001 would be precursor to reversal of the then 5 decades of malevolence that has been visited upon them by the superpower. This assumption granted far too much credit to the US ability to reciprocate goodwill.
The Enemy of my Enemy is… Still my Enemy?!
Iran’s cooperation with the United States after September 11th was rewarded with bellicosity. It must have surprised the leadership of the Persian state when on January 29, 2002, President Bush took the stage for his State of the Union Address and proceeded to label Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil.” Aside from being a betrayal of the improved cooperation between the nations, this characterization must have been especially surprising as it lumped Iran in with its neighboring enemy, Iraq. “The chance for a serious dialogue that might actually have led somewhere pretty much ended with ‘Axis of evil,’ said veteran diplomat Ryan C Crocker of the speech. Even then, Iranian leadership did not totally give up on the doomed cooperation with the United States. As the US embarked on its fictionally justified war on Iraq, the Iranians held out hope that the Bush administration could be reasoned with.
Iranian leadership firmly opposed the US invasion of Iraq for a variety of reasons, not least of all, because they feared US military presence would create an increased probability the Americans would target Iran next, a fear that proved to not be unfounded. They also pointed to the obvious illegal nature of the invasion. However, when invasion did come to pass, despite international objection, the Iranians once again proved themselves to be more than cooperative with the increasingly belligerent empire.
As the American war on Iran’s regional enemy became imminent, the state maneuvered, in hopes normalize relations with the US. To that end Foreign Minister Javad Zarif sent a potentially fateful fax to his American counterparts. In what has been termed the “Grand Bargain,” the fax proposed a variety of compromises, concessions, and propositions reflective of a sensitivity to both American and Iranian concerns. Among issues the Iranians were willing to discuss were, turning over Al Qaeda prisoners, making peace attempts with Israel, reviewing their support for Hezbollah, and transparency to their nuclear program. In return, the Iranians hoped the Americans would support for the Iranian nuclear energy program, cease in their anti-Persian hostilities, including ending sanctions, turning over anti-Iranian terrorists. The fax was complete with hypothetical steps to be taken to satisfy both sides. However, the mood in the United States was not one of peace at the time. Zarif never received a reply from the Americans.
The Global “Outside Agitator” Strikes Again
Qasim Soleimani’s stature in the Iranian military had been rising since his days of fighting the American backed Iraqis in the 1980’s. By the time the American’s criminal and poorly thought out invasion of Iraq had unintentionally (but predictably) empowered Iran, Soleimani was among the most powerful figures, civilian or military, in his nation. As the US “redirected” its policy in the region towards the goal of weakening the newly empowered Iran (that they had created by overthrowing Saddam), the resultant crisis in Syria further grew the reputation of the general.
As the Syrian Civil War broke out in 2011, Sunni Salafi militants (directly and indirectly supported by the US) threatened Iran’s regional ally in Bashar Al Assad. Soleimani’s elite Quds force contributed to the Syrian government’s efforts to maintain the secular state. This should not have been a surprise. The rebels, both of Al Qaeda loyalty and even the more violent ISIS, made a serious bid to take over both Iraq and Syria, Iran likely viewed this as an existential threat. Given that the Salafi extremist’s propensity for genocidal violence not just against Shias, but Christians and Yazidis as well, the world’s largest Shia state likely perceived the possibility of a radical Sunni Caliphate in the region to be unacceptable. To that end, Soleimani himself was responsible for bringing the Russians into the conflict on the side of the Syrian government, all but assuring its victory, and undoubtedly saving many Shia, Christians, and Yazidis a horrible fate.
Even with ISIS all but defeated by Iranian forces and their militias, Al Qaeda loyal groups still dominate parts of Syria. It is in this context that the Syrian government, Iran, and Russia have been conducting (often very violent) operations in the Idlib province. Criticism of their tactics is fair, but it is worth pondering how the United States would behave were an Al Qaeda chapter to seize control of an entire region of the US or even Canada. Nevertheless, Iranian (often defensive) conduct in the region is uniformly portrayed as aggressive in US media. This is done with little mention of the United States’ exponentially greater destabilizing role across the Middle East. Indeed, if Iranian involvement in Syria, at the invitation of the government, is aggression, then what should we term the United States’ illegal presence in the same country? The latter’s presence has entailed arming a host of violent Salafi groups, leveling of whole cities, attempting to steal Syrian oil, sanctioning the people into destitution, and preventing the onset of peace.
The Criminally Neglected Questions
The view from Tehran is one of justifiable caution and wariness of the United States. Like most issues of US foreign policy, a criminally neglected question is, how are US actions likely perceived by our geopolitical rivals? Aside from the aforementioned American belligerence the Iranians have faced, consider that plans to conduct regime change in Iran have been expressed from both major political parties fairly often since the 1990’s. Consider that after 9/11, at the same time that Iranians were expressing so much grief for Americans, at the highest levels of the US military hierarchy there were serious (now public) plans to make war on the same mourning people. Observe how powerful figures ranging from popular politicians to columnists at the New York Times, casually talk about attacking Iran. The nation that has cemented the (illegal) act of preemptive war into policy, should be able to identify that if any country has ever had justification to utilize such a principle, the Iranians have it against the US.
Trading Our Proverbial Footwear
It is helpful to imagine the situation in reverse. Suppose hypothetically, it was Iran that, while consistently threatening military action on the US, also garrisoned bordering Mexico and Canada with military bases. That is precisely what the United States has done to Iran, surrounding it with military bases in Iraq to its west, and Afghanistan to its East. Speaking of those surrounding nations, Imagine that Iran had invaded, deposed the governments, and occupied both Canada and Mexico, killing, maiming and displacing millions in the process. From there, picture, that it was Iran continued to voice consistently bellicose statements towards the US, accusing it of having a developing nuclear weapons program, in spite numerous US attempts to dissuade these fears. This would be the same false allegation that led to the complete destruction of a neighboring country. Suppose it was Iranian politicians consorting with anti-American terrorist organizations, and openly predicting to them the imminent overthrow of US government? Picture for a moment that it was Iran’s military vessels, that instead of remaining in the Persian Gulf, were patrolling the Caribbean and the Atlantic Coast, just miles from the US mainland. How would American businesses react were they dictated to by the Iranian government as to which other countries they are permitted to conduct commerce with? Potentially igniting the most outrage would be if Iran instituted crippling sanctions on the US, preventing the importation of critical medicines and medical supplies during the global CoVid19 pandemic (which is against a UN declaration). From there, after ensuring the health crisis would be exasperated, imagine Iran had the gaul to shame the US for its mishandling of the pandemic!
Of course, all of these are actions that Uncle Sam has visited and continues to visit on the people of the Islamic Republic. We do not actually know how the United States would respond to the same provocations, but we can make a hypothesis based on its past behavior. If an (albeit tragic but one time) event like the 9/11 attacks caused the United States to spy on its own citizens, suspend habeus corpus, conduct a torture program, and assassinate its own citizens, then shouldn’t we expect similar behavior from Iran given the constant belligerence from the world’s most powerful empire? Is it at all surprising that legitimate criticism of the Islamic government is often dismissed in Iran as being Western propaganda, given the ample proof that the US does intervene in Iranian affairs? Our own politicians in chorus speak of foreign interference in the US, even as their own government is by far the world’s leader in the very same behavior.
Nukes for Me, Not for You
While the Iranians have been steadfast and open in both religious and secular terms about not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the US still levels hostility and threatens military action over the issue. Iran has been party to Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1968, assuring their commitment to not pursue nuclear weapons. The nuclear technology Iran does possess is for a civilian nuclear energy program, as is their right through the NPT, and as 50 other nations possess as well. Furthermore, Iran is cooperative with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which provides for inspection of its nuclear energy facilities. The Persian leadership is likely further perplexed at the ongoing suspicion, as much of their nuclear technology was actually given to the them by the US, and that some of the United States’ closest allies are not parties to the aforementioned agreements. Even when the diplomatic agreement in the form of the Iran Nuclear Deal was reached in 2015, this was only an unnecessary additional level of scrutiny that Iran (and no other nation) became subject to. Iran agreed to subject itself to this because the deal included the lifting of crippling sanctions. So, while Trump’s destruction of the deal in 2018 was an act of extreme aggression, it is worth noting that the deal itself was merely an imperial action, once again demanding that a nation in the global south not be granted the same autonomy of the Western nations.
The question arises: why should Iran be denied atomic weaponry while other nations are permitted to possess it? The American or Israeli punditry might counter that Iran is an irrational actor, motivated by religious fanaticism, and thus disqualified from possessing such weapons. However, Iran’s actions since 1979 have proved to be rational, if not predictable, in the face of ceaseless belligerence from the US. In fact, you could argue that their most irrational move was to not pursue atomic weaponry. The last twenty years saw Saddam Hussein’s Iraq destroyed on the false claims of WMD possession, and Libya annihilated with its leader being lynched after they had willingly given up all pursuit of nuclear weapons. All the while, North Korea, who had developed nuclear weapons, remains untouched by a US invasion. It would be reasonable for the Iranians to conclude that by remaining free of nuclear weapons, puts them more at risk of a US attack than remaining disarmed. Regardless, they have still not pursued atomic weapons and have repeatedly pushed for a nuclear-free Middle East. This attempt has been rebuffed each time by the USA and the only nuclear armed country in the region, Israel (the latter having developed their weapons in secret and remaining outside of the NPT).
Standing in the Way of Progress
There are aspects of Iranian society that many citizens of the Islamic Republic wish to see reformed. However, the reality is, that these issues of justice and equality will be most effectively addressed by Iranians. The US and the West at large has not been an honest broker in Iran or anywhere else in the Middle East. Concerns about human rights in Iran that emanate from the exact US actors who support Saudi Arabia’s monarchy, should be understood as cynically opportunistic. Adjacently, worries about Iran’s treatment of women and members of the LGBTQ community should be greeted with similar skepticism. The politicians weaponizing these concerns are often the very same whose support is based in domestic fanatical religious groups with retrograde views about the same marginalized populations. Aside from the toll that the United States has taken on Iran, the US role in the region has actively made reform more difficult. This was a predictable outcome as now even genuine reformers can be referred to as agents of the west. Due to the terrible track record of the US intervening in Persia, this claim against activists unfortunately maintains legitimacy. The reality is that regardless of how one characterizes the behavior of the Iranian government, its greatest crime in the eyes of the US power elite has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or human rights. Iran’s had the nerve to declare itself independent of US hegemony 41 years ago, and has never been forgiven for its disobedience. The original sin in this tortured relationship was committed by the United States in 1953. From there, the United States has displayed a continuous pattern of disrespect for Iranian sovereignty and Iranian life. While Iran has continually shown restraint and openness to negotiation, the belligerence to Iran has continued from one US presidency to the next. This pattern is the root of the continued tension. Given the asymmetrical nature of the rivalry, if it is to be resolved, it will take a re-evaluation of seven decades of American mistakes.