The victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran which sought global ideals and anti-arrogance goals in the strategic region of the Persian Gulf led the superpowers to use the policy of confrontation against this system. Moreover, the interactive pattern that had been prevailed in Iran-United States relations before the victory of the Islamic Revolution was replaced by a pattern of conflict and divergence which the United States has been following up until today.
This Revolution, as French poststructuralist philosopher Michel Foucault put it, is a symbol of the fourth face of power. While adopting a popular approach and relying on religious values and Islamic civilization, it led to a serious and new development in the region and among the Arab regimes in an attempt to counter the domination of foreign powers, led by the United States, over the religious, political, cultural and military aspects of societies. Therefore, all societies showed either a defensive and supportive reaction or an aggressive one. The American strategy in the Middle East toward Iran is based on restricting, isolating, and changing the country’s behaviour. Based on this perception, since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the United States has developed a multilateral foreign policy strategy against Iran in terms of politics, security, military, economy and culture. Examples of such policies include the attack on Tabas, inciting the anti-revolutionary groups in Kordestan and Gonbad, providing Iraq with the military, political and logistic supports during the war with Iran, the planning of the Nojeh coup, supporting the separatist ethnic groups, entering the Persian Gulf, imposing economic sanctions, and officially supporting the 2009 Sedition. However, these hostile behaviours have not caused Iran to back down from its goals and policies, and the failure to achieve the goal has made the United States adopt a strategy of infiltration, which became more important after the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1.
Soft power theorist Joseph Nye is an American researcher. In 1990, he introduced the concept of soft power in his book “The Changing Nature of American Power,” noting that the United States is not only the strongest country in terms of military and economic power but also is a powerful country in terms of soft power. Joseph Nye writes: “Soft power tries to occupy the public opinion of other societies through presenting appealing concepts, and a country or a society achieves soft power when it can use information and knowledge to end the disputed issues and take advantage of differences.”
The United States and the Strategy of Infiltration
After the Islamic Revolution, the United States adopted the strategy of confrontation with Iran. The failure of this strategy forced the United States to reconsider it during the presidency of George W. Bush.
The then United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, explicitly stated that the strategy of comprehensive confrontation with the Islamic Republic did not lead to the collapse of the Islamic system in Iran. On the contrary, it weakened the United States on the one hand and strengthened Iran on the other. Therefore, the previous failures of the United States since the severance of its relations with Iran in 1979, constitute the main reason for changing the strategy from “confrontation” to “interaction.” This changing of the strategy was a necessity that had been in line with and approved by the American think tanks and strategic ideas over the past years. For example, in 2007, a year before Obama took office, an article was published in the Washington Post quarterly entitled “A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran.” It was based on such a new attitude that Mr. Obama chose the slogan “change” for his campaign, and after entering the White House, he expressed his desire to normalize relations with Iran.
Obama says about the nuclear agreement: “If we sign the nuclear deal, probably the moderate forces inside Iran will be strengthened.”
“Compared to other conflicts between Iran and the United States, the nuclear agreement is only a small deal. But this nuclear agreement must be part of a more general and smart policy to contain Iran. If so, it could contribute to realizing the goals and national interest of the United States,” said Nicholas Burns, the former Deputy State Secretary.
Therefore, the United States, by the means of the strategy of infiltration, is trying to somehow pursue the same plan it had used to dissolve the Soviet Union, in the Islamic Republic. Accordingly, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in a report, explicitly states that “the positive aspect of the nuclear deal is that it has given us ten years to overthrow the Iranian government. Therefore, we should make the best of this period of time.”
Following the United States plan for influencing Iran, the National Iranian-American Council, which consists of Iranians living in the United States, proposes seven strategies to the United States.
1) Holding scientific meetings between Iran, Europe and the United States (scientific diplomacy);
2) Ending delegations to establish cooperation in the field of clean and renewable energy sources such as solar energy and wind energy;
3) Sending the Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the United States Congress to Tehran;
4) Presidents of major American universities should visit Tehran;
5) Scholarship should be provided for Iranian students;
6) Conducting the environmental projects in Lake Urmia;
7) Helping to reduce air pollution in Iran.
Therefore, the United States sees the nuclear deal as an opportunity for implementing some of its policies against Iran, and also it considers the strategy of infiltration as a good way to achieve its goals at this stage.
The Aspects of United States Strategy of Influencing Iran
Political Infiltration
According to the dominant perspective among American officials, the nuclear deal is a kind of strategic step to change the political calculations of officials and even the nature of the Islamic system. Attempts to change perceptions and disrupt the decision-making process of the Islamic Republic are among the approaches that the domineering system has always employed against Iran during political events. On this basis, they have tried to change the attitudes of the country’s political elites by imposing pressure and posing threats such that they feel that the “cost” of confronting the West and standing up for the ideals of the Islamic Revolution far outweighs its benefits.
Americans seek to create a space for exerting political influence or changing the country’s political and decision-making processes. To achieve this goal, they employ policies such as creating divisions. Addressing some as “talented,” “revisionist,” “young generation” in Obama’s remarks, or “young people who want a future,” and calling the opponents of establishing a relationship with the United States “hardliners” in John Kerry’s remarks, are among such divisions they sought to create in Iranian society.
Cultural Infiltration
“With an agreement, the possibility of starting a cultural war against Iran and also the United States cultural influence in this country will increase,” said Michael Jones, an American researcher, author, and editor-in-chief of the “Culture Wars.”
Referring to cultural infiltration which tries to change the minds, thoughts and beliefs of young Iranians, Mark Glenn, an American writer and analyst, said in an interview: “The United States seeks to exactly use the Trojan Horse strategy against Iran. They want to bring Hollywood into the homes of Iranians via media so that they would make the Iranian youth follow their intended culture.”
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution believes: “The anti-revolutionary forces exert influence in different ways. One of their ways to exert influence is to create obstacles on the way of revolutionary and religious beliefs. They are creating obstacles in the way of revolutionary and religious beliefs in order to influence them. They use all these ways and they have different agents for them. They have university professors, student activists and intellectual and scientific personalities. They have all sorts of individuals for achieving such influence.”
Economic Infiltration
Although the impact of economic infiltration is less than political and cultural ones, it is also of importance and the economic problems in the country have caused the United States to consider this area in its strategy of infiltration. Obama says: “If they (Iranians) manage to enter the international market and attract foreign investments and their economy becomes more integrated into the global economy, it will be difficult for them to behave in a way that is contrary to international terms and norms.”
The Impact of the United States’ Political Infiltration on the National Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran
With its political influence in Iran, the United States seeks to create pro-Western political currents in the country, which will lead to the polarization of the country’s political currents, and hence probably we would witness two situations. The first is that Iran, due to external pressures and the formation of a domestic bipolar system, would comply with the demands of the oppressive powers to prevent security problems and social unrest thereby abandoning its missile programs and the like and giving up on its policies regarding the culture and human rights to the extent that the West will be satisfied.
The second situation is that given the formation of the bipolar system which is reinforced by a westernized current inside the country if the Islamic Republic refuses to submit to the Westerners, a decision that the public opinion also will demand because of the formation of bipolarity, widespread social unrest and a soft coup like the one in the 2009 Sedition would take place.
As far as the political influence is concerned, the Supreme Leader of the Revolution states: “Political influence also means influencing either the decision-making centers or the process of decision-making. When the political apparatus and administrative organizations of a country are influenced by the arrogant enemies, all decisions in this country will be made according to the will of the arrogant powers.”
The Impact of Cultural Infiltration on National Security
The United States has made good use of its many soft power sources, including cinemas and numerous satellite networks, to enter people’s and institutionalize American culture in a way that appeals to members of society. This is because the popular culture is generally not strictly controlled by the governments, and the United States is quickly selling its popular culture industry to foreign buyers with the lowest prices.
The cultural threat that the Supreme Leader of the Revolution has referred to as “Cultural NATO” is used for gaining political power by the means of destructing morality, promoting consumerism, disregarding the national identity, being attached to American values, and so on. In the short term, this type of threat would emerge as a soft element of security in the form of issues such as elite migration and political tensions that target the legitimacy, cohesion and potentials of political systems. However, with the changing of public orientation, such a threat in the long term will lead to the undermining of the soft elements of security and the change in the macro-orientations of a society. It seems that one of the first steps in the process of changing cultural orientations is the news of McDonald’s presence and activity in Iran. McDonald-based symbolism has no meaning other than embracing the American way of life.
The Impact of Economic Infiltration on National Security
As far as the impact of economic infiltration on the national security of the country is concerned, the warning of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution can be an important point. He states: “In economic areas, the vigilant eyes of the officials of economic affairs should be open and they should take care not to allow the enemy to exert economic influence because it weakens the bases of a strong economy.”
By using multinational and international companies in different countries to employ their native people, the United States creates an international center of power and wealth thereby gradually paving the way for entering politics and other fields. As a result, involving in the process of overthrowing and changing the government would seem much easier. Therefore, today’s strategy of the United States for infiltrating other countries is no longer appointing a king and soft overthrow, rather it seeks to do so through such multinational corporations.
Reference: Journal of Islamic Revolution Studies. Vol 14, No 48, Spring 2017, Pp 71-90.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments