Some United States think tanks and political elites believe in the possibility of a surprise military attack. The attack could be limited to nuclear facilities or might be done against all military infrastructure to ensure Iran’s inability to retaliate. The Centre for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkinson University, the Heritage Foundation, and some think tanks support the option of carrying out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Adopting the approach of weakening the Iranian government by providing a rationale for creating the scenario of psychological operations
Iran needs to look at lobbying among the United States elites and think tanks from two perspectives:
- The position of the elite in the process of turning decision-formation into decision-making;
- The role of elites in expanding the psychological operations.
A number of elites in some United States think tanks, such as the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, the Committee on the Present Danger, the Hudson Institute and the Nixon Centre, support the option of organizing soft threats against Iran. People like Joseph Lieberman, (a Democrat Jewish senator), James Woolsey (former director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency), Ilan Berman (Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council), Mark Palmer (former United States ambassador to Hungary), Daniel Platka (Director of the Defence and Foreign Policy Group in The American Enterprise Institute), Elliott Cohen (who proposed the theory of World War IV), Frank Gaffney ( Director of the Centre for Security Policy), Daniel Pipes (Editor of the Middle East Quarterly), and Marshall Britt (senior researcher at the Institution of United States Foreign Policy) believe that to weaken Iran’s government or change its behaviour, it is necessary to pursue a policy of isolation by the means of psychological methods.
In this regard, some United States think tanks have directly entered the phase of carrying out psychological operations against Iran’s nuclear activities, such as producing the documentary “Iranium” which is a combination of the two words Iran and uranium or the book “The Iran Primer.” “Iranium,” directed by Alex Traiman, is produced in four languages: English, Arabic, French and Persian, and uses two components of Iranophobia and Shiaphobia to show that Iran’s nuclear programs are a strategic threat against the Arab states of the region and the West. In this documentary, 25 researchers and senior researchers of think tanks have been interviewed. The film was produced with the support of the Clarion Foundation, one of the leading organizations in launching propaganda campaigns, which has had produced two other films namely, “Third Jihad” and “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” The Foundation for Defence of Democracies, the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the David Horowitz Freedom Centre has played an active role in producing this film.
In the book “The Iran Primer,” about 50 senior researchers from the United States think tanks have expressed their views on Iran. The book was co-authored by Robin Wright, a joint work of two United States research centres for peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Researchers. Showing that Iran’s economy is in a critical condition, instilling the view that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, being anti-Shi’ah, propagating unrealistic news about the goals and nature of the IRGC’s activities, and pretending that there are conflict and discord between society and the government are some of the aspects of the book “The Iran Primer.” Some of the methods used by American political elites to increase the effectiveness of psychological operations include:
- Synergizing capacities by implementing the model of network-based interaction
- Examining the relationship between the United States think tanks, which are active in the field of security and defence issues, reveals the close interaction of political elites with the media, legislators, government officials and Israeli lobbies; for example, the political elites affiliated with the Israeli lobbies had meetings with the senior advisor to Obama to indirectly influence the White House’s policies. In one case, the United States National Security Adviser made a speech at the Washington think tank on January 31, 2010, presenting two options: “sanctions” and “ negotiation under pressure “ for changing Iran’s nuclear policies.
- Strategic management of public opinion and strengthening communication bridges with the centres of power
- Studying the behaviour of political elites in the think tanks of the United States shows their planning to increase the influence on the centres of power. In this regard, the most important ways to influence the United States think tanks so that to influence decision-formation and decision-making in the field of political, security and defence issues are as follows:
- Calling the United States government officials to join the Council of Counselors or become Honorary Chairs of Study Centres;
- Using public diplomacy tools such as publishing a magazine, quarterly or making documentaries;
- Accepting the membership of senators and prominent congressional representatives;
- Accepting the membership of senior White House advisers;
- Inviting the White House legislators and government officials for speaking or giving an interview;
Attending and speaking at important international security, economic and political meetings such as the lectures delivered by Richard Nathan Haass President of the Council on Foreign Relations at the 2011 Davos Summit.
Suggested solutions to confront the approaches of the elites in the United States think tanks on Iran’s nuclear program
In addition to the negotiation-based approach, the next three approaches of United States think tanks on Iran from 2009 to 2013 effectively portray serious security threats against Iran, and this requires special attention from security officials so that they could design a clear anti-strategy to counter these threats. To deal with the explained approaches, the following solutions are suggested:
- First: smart use of the tools of soft power
- Second: to increase purposeful interactions between elites and political decision-makers
- Third: joining various coalitions and alliances
- Fourth: preventing the continuation of passing resolutions that impose sanctions against Iran
- Fifth: explaining deterrence-based defence strategy to deal with possible limited military strikes
- Sixth: strengthening the domestic think tanks to analyze threatening scenarios
- Seventh: maximum utilization of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
Conclusion
Reviewing and evaluating policy-making groups and circles in American policy toward Iran can make a significant contribution to gain a more accurate understanding of policies. By producing knowledge and theorization, active political elites in think tanks have played an important role in the intellectual nourishment of the advocators of imposing unilateral American sanctions against Iran. The role of Israeli lobbies and American political elites is to identify and manage appropriate ways to influence the centres of power. By recruiting, communicating with, or inviting agents close to the centres of power, they use them as a bridge between decision-formation or decision-making centres, a method which can be seen in the sanctions imposed on Iran.
One of the ways Israeli lobbies used to exert influence is lobbying simultaneously with the political elites in think tanks, leading lawmakers in Congress, and the first round of senior advisers to the United States President. This sense of reciprocity has led to the emergence of a series of activities between the four sides of the Israeli lobby, political elites, media outlets and architects of sanctions on Iran in the United States government and Congress so that to justify and expand Washington’s unilateral sanctions, especially as most supporters of sanctions on Iran in the United States are linked to the politically active elites in think tanks who provide the rationale for justifying sanctions.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments