U.S. Peace with Iran Based on American Prejudice
June 28, 2020
Americans see the Middle East as a region of insoluble problems and ancient hostility. But whatever truth there may be to this mindset, it has kept Americans from understanding the stakes of foreign policy there, even as the United States has remained consistently and deeply involved. Against this backdrop, U.S. president Donald Trump’s decision to identify and pressure Iran as an opponent may seem like yet another senseless swing in U.S. policy in the region. Quite the contrary, considering Iran’s long-term and increasing hostility, it is on its face a more sensible policy than the U.S. has previously held toward the Islamic Republic, albeit one that carries significant risk.
As a China watcher who has seen U.S. Mideast policy develop over the years, it seems to me that most popular views are neglectful and sometimes hateful escapism. Americans seem to get how poorly we understand China, but when it comes to the Mideast we’d rather not think about it at all. The first popular U.S. view is plain nihilism: the United States should simply “nuke” Iran and “turn it into a glass parking lot.” This is not a rational solution and is mostly a conversation stopper, an attempt to escape the difficulties that reality presents. And despite its ubiquity, we should not overlook its hateful tone.
The other main line of thinking is “It’s a troubled region and we shouldn’t be there.” This response has the advantage of at least acknowledging the complexities, but by avoiding conversation about the issues it is ultimately just as escapist as the first. For example, it seems reasonable that the U.S. should desire to neutralize organizations bent on attacking it, like the Islamic State. And while it may be unpopular to say so, functioning energy markets are important, as is maintaining an open and prosperous world market. When these interests come under threat then the United States, along with partners and allies, should do something.
Which brings us to a variation on this mindset: “It’s all about oil and money.” The global free market has in fact been very successful at meeting American and world petroleum demand for some time now, suggesting “oil and money” have not been the primary reasons for U.S. actions. On the contrary, protesters’ oft-repeated calls of “No blood for oil” show the real political pressure comes from the opposite direction: against any U.S. intervention in oil-producing regions. In this perverse line of thinking, stopping Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was just as blameworthy as the second Iraq war.
There are as well some disciples of former U.S. president Barack Obama who thought suing for peace with Iran to be the wisest course. However, Iran’s conduct in other areas raises serious questions about this belief, for example longstanding terrorism and assault of Israel, the killing of American troops in Iraq, the quest for illegal nuclear weapons, destabilizing Syria, the proxy war in Yemen, and what look like Iran’s recent attacks on international shipping and a U.S. drone. These are only the most obvious issues, suggesting they are but the tip of the iceberg. Why should a government receive any benefit from the international community while continuing to support such an array of hostile acts?
It’s not a rhetorical question. The Obama administration attempted to welcome Iran back into the comity of nations, even as Iran proved its unwillingness to be a partner. It may be true that Iran would never have agreed to a nuclear deal if the deal had restricted its ability to attack other countries. However, it is worth taking a lesson from Chamberlain at Munich: you can’t simply dismiss a bully’s bad behavior. A worthwhile deal can only happen after you have established your own strength. How is it then that Americans allowed themselves to be part of such an unbalanced agreement?
Part of the answer - perhaps the main part - is ignorance and prejudice similar to that described in Edward Said’s Orientalism: outsiders’ view of the Orient or Middle East as a barbarous region where people are killed as a matter of practice. “It’s their culture.” If Iran happens to be doing it today, it will just be someone else tomorrow. We shouldn’t be there in the first place, etc.
For their own part, recent American presidents have seen Iran as a bad actor, but not the most immediate threat. Indeed, they have put it on the backburner despite Tehran’s hostility. To their discredit, these presidents relied on this prejudice - the racist assumption that Persians or Muslims are somehow inherently barbarous - to avoid taking a stand against Iran. Until Trump.
Trump is known for responding in kind to even the smallest slights. His supporters should not lightly dismiss the potential for him to overplay his hand and get stuck in an unnecessary war. That said, Trump campaigned on ending conflicts and has thus far shown moderation in the use of force, albeit a moderation far less afraid to send violently clear signals. But for American prejudice, it should be little surprise that Iran’s pervasive malefaction has turned Trump definitively against it.
Ironically, Trump is the first U.S. president to treat Iran as a nation with its own interests, not as a mere symptom of “Oriental perfidy.” It is no accident that the U.S. National Security Strategy identified Iran as the last remaining state opponent in the Middle East. It may be some time before we know whether the president’s actions come from a place of sober calculation or transactional tit-for-tat. Until then, we Americans should carefully examine our prejudices and be at least as firm as we are moderate. Dismissing hostile actions with prejudiced beliefs is no more reasonable than launching ill-informed and ill-advised wars.
The views expressed in this paper represent the personal views of the author and are not necessarily the views of the Department of Defense or of the Department of the Air Force.