The Neoconservative Obsession with Iran

Reason Foundation's picture
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Americans could be enjoying cultural and commercial relations with Iranians were it not for U.S. "leaders," who are more aptly described as misleaders. Because of institutional, geopolitical, and economic reasons, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, , and Bill Clinton were not about to let that happen. They thought America needed an enemy, and Iran filled the bill.

RELATED ARTICLES

MORE ARTICLES BY

President George W. Bush appeared to follow in his predecessors' footsteps, Gareth Porter writes in his important new book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. But Bush added his own twist: the neoconservative zeal for regime change in the Middle East, a blind fanaticism about the magic of American military power that overwhelmed all sense of realism about the world. The results have been costly in lives and resources, and despite the current talks with Iran over its nuclear-power program, the neocon legacy might yet include war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Bush's predecessors were determined to deny the Islamic regime all legitimacy. The regime came to power after Iran's U.S.-backed autocratic ruler was overthrown in 1979, a quarter-century after the CIA overthrew a democratic government and restored him to power. As part of their efforts to undermine the Islamic Republic, American presidents strove to keep it from building even civilian nuclear power and medical-research facilities. However, as a signer of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is subject to inspections and is permitted to acquire equipment and materials for generating nuclear power and medical isotopes. As a result of the U.S. government's obsession with undermining Iran's regime, attempts by the Shi'ite government to cooperate with the U.S. government were repeatedly rebuffed, even when rapprochement would have been in an administration's interest, for example, in the battle against a common enemy, al-Qaeda.

On the surface, Bush's anti-Iran policy, signified by his listing the country in the "axis of evil," looked like those that came before. "But," Porter writes, "like so much of the politics and policies surrounding the issue, that public posture was a cover for a rather different policy. The administration was actually less concerned about the Iranian nuclear program than about delegitimizing the Iranian regime. And that ambition for regime change distorted the Bush policy toward the nuclear issue, perversely skewing it toward provoking Iran to accelerate its [uranium] enrichment program."

In fact, Hillary Mann Leverett, who coordinated Persian Gulf and Afghanistan policy for Bush's National Security Council, told Porter that Vice President Dick Cheney's staff took the view that "After regime change, we may not want to oppose nuclear weapons by Iran."

The Bush people thought that the U.S. government could fundamentally change the Middle East with military power. "The administration’s strategy … was based on the firm conviction that the Islamic regime in Iran would fall within a few years as part of the broader redrawing of the political map of the region that the neoconservatives were planning," Porter writes. Iraq would be first, "turning Iraq into a base for projecting US power into the rest of the Middle East. The result was expected to be a string of regime changes in those countries that had not been de facto allies of the United States.… And it would leave Iran surrounded by pro-American governments in Kabul, Baghdad, and Istanbul. Iran was targeted as the biggest prize of all in the regime change strategy."

If that didn't bring regime change, war would.

Predictably, things did not work out as Bush's neocons planned. Iraq gained a pro-Iranian government, while remaining mired in horrendous sectarian violence. Afghanistan's government is corrupt, autocratic, and ineffective against the Taliban. Bashar al-Assad of Syria, an ally of Iran, remains firmly in power despite U.S. efforts to aid an opposition dominated by al-Qaeda-type jihadists. And Iran's supreme leader, who backs an elected president determined to reconcile with the West, doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration did everything in its power, including lying, to stop the more realistic British, French, and Germans from reaching agreement with an Iranian government eager to ensure the transparency of its nuclear program and, in return, have economic sanctions lifted.

Let's hope President Obama doesn't let the neocons destroy the current chance at reconciliation.

This article originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Sheldon Richman is vice president of the Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of Future of Freedom, FFF's monthly publication.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • were it not for U.S. "leaders," who are more aptly described as misleaders,

    Oh, burn!

    or to reply

  • or to reply

  • why, exactly, should we try and make nice with a nation that actively sponsors terrorism? I'm hardly of the mindset of "bomb Iran" but what Sheldon calls "reconciliation" works both ways.

    --stop funding Hezbollah

    --enough with the Israel extermination talk

    Two basic steps that Iran seems incapable of taking. Again, not advocating bombing but it's not always "neo-conz!!11!"

    or to reply

  • Will the US stop funding terrorists who attack Iran? (The US even funds MKO which has killed Americans)

    Will the US stop calling for the end of the Islamic regime? (Iran has called for the end of the Zionist regime)

    or to reply

  • You left out "stop executing Baha'is, gays, and religious dissidents."

    Richman is the Walter Duranty of our time. Reason should be embarrassed to be paying him.

    or to reply

  • We are nice with the Saudis even though they execute all sorts of people and not only fund terrorists but Saudis are in the top ranks of foreign fighters in Afganistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc etc

    or to reply

  • Let's hope President Obama doesn't let the neocons destroy the current chance at reconciliation.

    Really? There's only one subset of one party causing all of this? Was this written in 2009?

    or to reply

  • UnCivilServant

    Books take a few years to go through the editorial wringer.

    or to reply

  • The Nobel Prize winner is the Bringer of Peace and the Healer of the Environment, don't you know?

    or to reply

  • War eagle, did you not see that in 1953 Mosadegh was overthrown on behalf of Britain and the US. They installed their puppet dictator. Mi6 and CIA trained the new IraniAn secret police known as the Savok. Any dissenters, or anyone rallying against these new leaders were subjected to (along with their families) rape torture and even murder. The constitution was thrown out, and women's rights were repealed.

    How in the eff does anyone go around thinking they can fuck with people and subject them to such atrocities and make it like there is no resentment, and that no one would want to protect themselves from future overthrows.

    The new Iran is brought to you care of the US and UK. This foreign policy is very dangerous, and after 72 interventions since ww2 they should have learned. Yet folks like McCain, and that douchebag Giuliani walk around wondering why folks want to attack us. It's not because we're free, because this is no free country first off.....it's because the US intervenes in everyone's affairs.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • sloopyinca|5.15.14 @ 9:06AM|#

    What ever happened to "sticks and stones"?

    I have no problem with our so-called leaders rhetoric on Iran. That place is run by despots. But I do have a problem with our persistent attempt to undermine their sovereignty by arming their enemies. In my opinion it's no better that if they started sending weapons secretly to terrorists in our borders. Or, you know, like what we're doing with F&F...or what we did in Libya...or Egypt...or Syria...or in a dozen other countries we are currently trying to meddle in.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

Leave a Comment

* COMMENT:

You must have an account and be logged in to comment.
Click here to register, or here to login if you already have an account
News Source : The Neoconservative Obsession with Iran
Copy this html code to your website/blog to embed this press release.