An Axis of Evil: Foreign Policy or Political Philosophy?
Interview with Koorosh Modarresi
WPI Briefing: In his state of union address, Bush labelled Iran,
Iraq and Korea an axis of evil. Is this a change in USA policy? Is
his speech particularly about these three countries and a fight against
terrorism, solely for domestic consumption, or larger global issues?
Koorosh Modarresi: I think this is neither a change in US foreign
policy nor a change in policy towards Iran, Iraq or North Korea in
particular. One should put this speech in its context. This was, as
you have mentioned, the state of the union address and not a speech
on US foreign policy towards these countries. What George W. Bush
is trying to do is give a purpose or a philosophy if you like, to
justify the role of the United States as a sole super power, running
world affairs in its own interest. Since the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War, this political philosophy has been
lost. Different administrations and political think tanks have tried,
unsuccessfully, to justify such a policy. Putting together a 'world
affairs analysis', the results of which are a priori known, is not
that easy, let alone hypocritical. They have developed bizarre arbitrary
theories, from the 'clash of civilizations' to the 'axes of evil';
all these theories have been there right from the beginning. Depending
on the think tank circles which come to office at each election or
the world situation and problems facing the US administration, one
of these so called theories are picked up. They are picked up not
to give a new direction or dimension to US foreign policy, but to
justify what is already taking place. The US government needs to keep
the fire of American patriotism alive and to justify its military
spending, its intervention in wherever it is involved, and its pressure
on Europe to stay in- line and particularly to justify its unjustifiable
policy towards the Palestinian question. Defining the 'fight against
terrorism' is not descriptive enough of US foreign policy. With such
a general statement, one would immediately question the Israeli government's
state terrorism towards the Palestinians for example, so a collection
of evils is picked at will. First it was Iraq, an ally of the West
when the former was using chemical weapons against the Kurds; then
it was Yugoslavia, now Iran and North Korea have been included in
the list. As I said, these theories only create a kind of façade for
US policy rather than a framework and they should not be taken at
face value. Accordingly, I do not believe this speech is putting forward
a new direction to US policy toward any of these countries. US policy
towards these countries will remain the same as before. They lack
any strategy towards Iraq and deal with it on a daily base. US policy
on Iran will also remain the same as before - trying to create a transition
from above to a benign Islamic and possibly a pro-West regime like
Turkey. North Korea is simply a Joker card to complete the axis.
WPI Briefing: Bush's speech has caused some groups to whip up hysteria
about an imminent attack on Iran similar to the one on Afghanistan.
Clearly Iran is not Afghanistan. Do you believe that the USA will
attack Iran? If it did, what would the consequences be?
Koorosh Modarresi: I don't think there is a real possibility of any
sort of military action against Iran for two reasons. First, as I
said earlier, this speech should be put in the context of giving a
populist political philosophy to current US global interventions and
military spending, and second, Iran is a country with powerful strategic
leverages, which cannot be taken lightly. Iran can block the Persian
Gulf, destabilize other countries in the region and is a vast and
populated country with considerable regional economic and military
might. Bringing Iran and Iraq together against the US is beyond even
the simple minded George W. Bush. Any military action against Iran
would be way beyond the dimensions of the actions against Iraq or
Afghanistan. I don't believe the US is ready or capable of such an
operation on its own, keeping in mind that Europe is not dancing to
its tune.
The hysteria of an imminent US attack on Iran is either coming from
the Islamic government, especially Khamanei's faction, or nationalist-anti-imperialist
organisations, whose only political compass is anti- Americanism.
Of course we should also add the narrow-minded political analysts
who see everything through their 'expertise', i.e. Iranian affairs.
The consequence of US military action against Iran would be nothing
but a blunt provocation of the Islamic regime against the people.
If the US government wants to help Khamenei, it should drop bombs
on Iranian targets. Such an action, before anything, will bring the
ranks of the Islamic regime in line behind Khamenei and will more
importantly legitimize a bloody suppression of any protest and possibly
the mass execution of political and union activists by the army of
deranged Islamic militia and revolutionary guards. The balance of
power between the people in Iran and the Islamic government is not
at a stage that such an action will result in the people's fight back
against the regime. On the contrary, I believe, it will result in
a mass retreat and will extend the life of the Islamic regime.
WPI Briefing: Following Bush's address, anti-war coalitions and anti-imperialists
abroad and religious- nationalist groupings in Iran have rushed to
the aid of the Iranian government. Why do these groups always stand
besides repressive regimes? What is a principled approach to the USA's
threat, which can really support the people vis-à-vis both governments?
Koorosh Modarresi: Well, these coalitions are among the first victims
of the threat. I said anti-imperialist forces in Iran would rally
behind the government; European and American versions of these forces
will follow. This is yet another stage of the political activism of
these forces, which ends up supporting a repressive government. I
have given a rather detailed portrait of these forces in another interview
with WPI Briefing.
I think we should demand that the US leave us be. People in Iran
are in the process of getting rid of the Islamic regime. If anyone
wants to help then they should promote the undeniable rights of people
in Iran and help and support the opposition which is fighting for
these rights. There is no room for US jingoism or support of yet another
repressive force.