United States of America Foreign Policy and the New Axis of Evil: The Threat of Iran

At the outset of the twentieth century the United States of America was a burgeoning industrial country mostly confined to its large swath of North America. In short time the young country would be a super power. With two wars that destroyed most of Europe, booming industrial success, expansion throughout a large continent filled with natural resources, and a successful financial sector the United States of America (US) was primed for super power status. With that status precipitated the many negative aspects that come with power, including the adoption of many foreign enemies.

Two such enemies include Iran and North Korea. The two countries share some commonalities, but above all they share a healthy distrust for American foreign policy. In 2002 President George W. Bush identified these two countries as part of a new axis of evil (”State of the Union”). Both countries harbor the necessary components of a rogue state: a distrust for the opposition coupled with a lack of incentive to refrain from derogatory activity. While the current state of diplomatic relations between America and these two countries remains difficult, Iran poses a greater threat to American foreign policy and security. The current state of volatility within the Middle East, the economic potential of Iran, and the growing distrust for American foreign policy throughout the world has created a legitimate foe in Iran.

Historical Background of Relations

Longstanding as a hereditary monarchical kingdom, the Korean peninsula has experienced centuries of conflict with imperial powers. Annexed by Japan in 1905, Korea began the twentieth century under the governance of a regional rival (“North Korea” The World Factbook). This would become a theme for the Korean peninsula throughout the rest of the century. After World War II (WWII), and the defeat of the Japanese, the US stepped in and took over the role of Japan’s imperial rule. As a result the US took on a sinister façade in the eyes of Korean citizens, their new imperial masters.

In the aftermath of WWII the US and Russia emerged as world powers. Conflicting economic interests between US and Russia quickly led to military interventions and nearly five decades of proxy wars throughout the world. These competing interests met shortly after WWII on the Korean peninsula. Russia supported the left-leaning communist country of North Korea while the US worked to build a proxy capitalist regime in South Korea. The war compounded a weakening North Korea, forcing the country to isolate itself with a centralized, self-reliant form of governance. Much of the contemporary ill-will between North Korea and the US today is a result of that conflict.

In the past few decades much of the US-North Korean relationship has focused on an ongoing back-and-forth disagreement over North Korean nuclear armament. Rumored nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, and 2013 have threatened US foreign policy and the security of pro-American South Korea. Occasional North Korean cooperation with nuclear transparency agreements like the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Declaration and the 1994 Agreed Framework has helped, but North Korea reneged at each step (“North Korea” The World Factbook). Compounding the US-North Korean diplomatic relationship is an ever-increasing level of pro-American sentiment in South Korea. A BBC World Service Poll conducted in 2011 showed 74% of South Korean citizens favored the US, making it one of the most pro-American countries in the world (British Broadcasting Company 3). As a result North Korean propaganda against the US has only increased.

Before the US gained such powerful status on the world stage relations with Iran were quite positive. From the middle nineteenth century through WWII the US was seen as much more genial threat to imperial interest in what was once Persia (“Iran” The World Factbook). The United Kingdom (UK) and Russia held economic and geo-political interests in Iran through much of the industrialization of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Large oil reserves made the Middle Eastern country a hotbed of colonial struggle. US-Iranian relations turned sour, however, in 1953 when a UK and US-backed coup d’état forced out Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq (NPR Staff). Mossadeq had begun the process of nationalizing a UK-owned oil company, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (“Iran” The World Factbook). At the time Anglo-Iranian Oil was the largest UK-owned foreign company (NPR Staff). In the wake of the coup d’état the US installed a more Western-friendly government, and as a result garnered the same popular distrust once reserved for Russia and the UK.

More than two decades of US-backed Iranian governance opposed conservative elements in Iranian society. Islamist conservatives eventually over-threw the pro-American government and installed Islamist Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at the head of the Iranian government (Rasler 133). The low-point of US-Iranian relations came in November 1979 when “Iranian students” seized the US embassy in the Iranian capitol Tehran (“Iran” The World Factbook). The hostage crisis continued until mid-January 1981 prompting a complete breakdown in the diplomatic relationship that was once strong.

While no formal diplomatic relationship exists today, efforts have been made. Compounding the relationship is an ongoing set of Western-backed accusations of electoral fraud on the part of the Islamist conservative party that has held much of the political power in Iran since 1979. Anti-American propaganda has followed suit, and US militaristic and economic meddling in the Middle East over the past 30 years has increased tensions between the two countries.

Analysis of Position

North Korea and Iran threaten US foreign policy and security, but it is evident that Iran poses a greater threat. While North Korea has maintained a larger conventional military force, bolstered by nuclear proliferation attempts and the development of long-range missiles, it remains a product of the Cold War. A lack of investment in industry and agriculture maintains a stagnant economy, and Cold War-era debt to Russia stifles the type of capital prosperity in South Korea. Iran, on the other hand, exists in an extremely volatile region of the world that continually pushes out imperial powers.

One global trend that speaks to the lack of diplomatic relations between these entities is the increased use of economic sanctions to preclude military action. The power of those sanctions, however, lies in the economic state of the parties involved. North Korea’s economy is one of the world’s most centrally-directed economies. As a result the North Korean economy lacks the fluidity of the free-market. North Korea’s foreign policy since its inception has also prompted it to invest heavily in the country’s conventional military forces. With so much invested in the military North Korea has failed to invest in long term industrial gains and agricultural technologies (Manyin and Nikitin 1). It is evident that North Korean economic stagnation can open the country up to significant problems in times of famine or conflict.

Economic stagnation is also evident in Iran over the last few years, but large oil and natural gas reserves maintain a functioning economy. As of 2012 Iran’s estimated GDP was $988.4 billion with industry and external services making up about 90% of the country’s GDP composite (“Iran” The World Factbook). Iran’s GDP growth rate dropped from 5.9% to -1.9% in 2012, a result of international sanctions, however the country was the 6th largest producer of crude oil in the world and the 4th largest producer of natural gas (“Iran” USEIA). Energy wealth in the twenty-first century provides bargaining power, internal self-sustenance, and the freedom to extend political alliances at-will.

It is clear that Iran maintains a significantly stronger economic position than North Korea, but economic strength is only useful if it can be wielded independently of external pressures. North Korea is bound by $11 billion of debt to Russia, and the country has experienced periods of famine that have prompted a heavy reliance on foreign food aid (Manyin and Nikitin 2). Since 1995 the US alone has provided over $1.2 billion in food and medical assistance (Manyin and Nikitin 1). While the nuclear testing scares of 2006, 2009, and 2013 are threatening, evidence points to another reality. North Korea’s spotty cooperation with nuclear non-proliferation agreements is less likely an indication of their regional prowess and more likely a means of garnering international food aid.

Iran’s noncompliance with diplomatic relations does not follow North Korea’s pattern. While economic sanctions have stifled the country’s access to international oil markets, Iran retains an ability to wield energy richness as a means of alliance with anti-American entities. Iran’s go-to alliance strategy has focused on undermining the economic sanctions that have been placed on it and flirting with their nuclear weapons development (Heydemann 33). This form of alliance strategy is dangerous because it necessitates Iranian alliances with entities that only agree on anti-American sentiment. This divorces a regard for diplomatic relationships based on political or economic similarities, giving power to entities with extremist potential. Iran has strong links to two extremist political groups that have actively participated in non-conventional militaristic activity: Hezbollah and Hamas. In recent years Hezbollah has gained political control of Lebanon, and Hamas has gained control of the Gaza strip (Byman). Masked by the volatility of the region both organizations have used non-conventional militant tactics, largely funded by Iranian oil and natural gas revenues, to gain power.

Conclusion

The so called “axis of evil” that George W. Bush claimed to stand as a threat to American foreign policy remains today. Over the past 12 years the US has confronted the “axis of evil” with two costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pock-marked relations with Iran and North Korea. Bush’s sentiments are markedly different than the foreign policy initiatives of the Obama administration. Commenting on US foreign policy in 2009 Barack Obama stated, “The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” (“Remarks by the President”). This indicates a shift in the way US leadership views itself on the world stage. With the oil and natural gas rich reserves of the Middle East it is likely that US interests in the region, however, will continue. The volatility of this region makes those interests a dangerous proposition. Iran understands that dichotomy and has used it to its advantage gaining anti-American allies through financial support, military training, and political backing. While North Korea poses a threat, Iran poses a greater one. Whether or not insecurity precipitates will hinge on legitimate diplomatic relations and an economic common ground.

Works Cited

British Broadcasting Company. Press Office. BBC World Service Poll 2011. London: British Broadcasting, 2011. Print.

Bush, George W. "The President's State of the Union Address." State of the Union. Executive Office of the President. The United States Capitol, Washington DC. 29 Jan. 2002. Speech.

Byman, Daniel. "Iran’s Terrorism Problem." The Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution, 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.

Heydemann, Steven. "Iran’s Regional and Global Relations." Engagement, Coercion, and Iran's Nuclear Challenge. Washington DC: The Henry L. Stimson Center, 2010. 32-37. Print.

"Iran." The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, 28 Jan. 2014. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.

"Iran." USEIA Independent Statistics and Analysis. United States Energy Information Administration, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.

Manyin, Mark , and Mary Beth Nikitin. Foreign Assistance to North Korea. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 2013. Print.

"North Korea." The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, 28 Jan. 2014. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.

NPR Staff. "Declassified Documents Reveal CIA Role In 1953 Iranian Coup."National Public Radio History. National Public Radio, 1 Sept. 2013. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.

Obama, Barack. “Remarks by the President to the United Nations General Assembly.” United Nations Headquarters. New York, NY. 23 September 2009. Presidential Address.

Rasler, Karen. "Concessions, Repression, and Political Protest in the Iranian Revolution." American Sociological Review 61.1 (1996): 132-152. Print.