By Michael Garson
Many countries covered in extemporaneous speaking are decidedly one-dimensional. Either the economics, politics, or foreign policy of a country stands out as a defining trait. Iran is unique in that it has multiple areas of analysis. Round topics from Middle East to International Economics to U.S. Foreign Policy all are likely to include questions on Iran. As one of the most important countries in a troubled region of the world, Iran certainly merits deeper analysis.
This brief will:
– Look at the internal politics that define, and divide, Iran
– Examine oil’s impact Iran and the world
o Determine to what extent Iran can use oil as a shield
– Investigate Iran’s nuclear program
o Envision possible outcomes of a completely nuclear Iran
o Explore the morality of the program
– Look at how the United States can and should proceed in limiting Iran’s power
Domestic Affairs
1979-present
As the History Channel has repeated chronicled, Iran fell to a revolution in 1979. The real root of Iranian-American tension is the result of the United States’ support of the Shah. The Shah was the secular tyrant in Iran who repressed his people. In response, Iranian students held American citizens hostage in their own embassy as the country replaced the Shah with an Ayatollah (religious leader). Since 1979, Iran has been a theocracy that condemns American decadence and secularism, calling it the Great Satan. To its credit, the United States has been none too kind with Iran. The United States supported Saddam’s Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. To be sure, a country must be awfully unpopular to reach the point where Saddam Hussein is supported in a conflict. Until present, jabs have been thrown back and forth between the countries.
Internal Structure
Iran has by far the most interesting and complex of government structures. While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is famously the president, he is only a mouthpiece. The true power of Iranian government rests in the shadows. Supreme Leader Ali Khameini is the actual head of the Iranian government. A deeply religious man, he has the power to appoint half of the Council of Guardians. The Council has the power to allow candidates to run for President, supervises the electoral results, declares war, and controls the media. This mysterious body has the ability to put the President on a leash. If the President ever becomes too powerful or strays to far from “the goals of the Revolution”, then he is kept in line by the Council. Regrettably, the mainstream American media has indoctrinated the public to believe that Ahmadinejad is a madman who controls a powerful petro-state. While most extempers buy into this myth, those who know the Iranian government’s structure have the rare opportunity to enlighten judges. Lay judges will be shocked at their ignorance and impressed with the speaker’s knowledge. Judges who are aware of the Council are simply waiting to dock those speakers who believe Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran. It is absolutely essential that all speeches involving Iran acknowledge the intricacies that result from a tiered power system that is headed by clerics. A critical question that must be asked by all extempers is whether or not the Supreme Leader and his Council are rational beings in the western sense. Does the Iranian Revolution prioritize Islamizing the world over national survival? Does Iran subscribe to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Theory in both the nuclear and political senses?
Oil
The Basics
With the world’s 2nd or 3rd, depending on your source, largest energy reserves in the world, Iran is an extremely important player in the international economy. Oil importers China, India, and Western Europe rely on Iran to fuel their economic growth. With Iraq’s oil exportation declining since the 2003 invasion, supply has decreased. Global economic growth and an increasingly large middle-class in developing countries has spurred demand. Simple economics shows that price has increased due to the confluence of these two factors. The increased price has greatly increased Iran’s income and prestige. As a country that is needed by the international community, Iran has seen a rise in prominence.
Oil as a Shell Game
While the United States has an embargo on Iran, it is largely symbolic. Promising not to buy Iranian oil has only a marginal effect on the Iranian economy because of the nature of oil. For those students taking economics, they already know that oil is a virtually inelastic product. This means that even though the price of oil has increased, the demand is largely unchanged. Energy prices have doubled in the past few years, but Americans continue to drive their SUVs and heat their homes. Chinese factories are not going to stop operation because they can no longer afford to run their machines. Gas and oil are so essential to 21st century human life, that the same amount of oil is going to be consumed, regardless of circumstance. Therefore, boycotting Iranian oil is irrelevant.
Since the US will not buy Iranian oil, it has an increased dependence on Mexican and Venezuelan oil. Thus, other oil importers are crowded out and preventing from buying Mexican or Venezuelan oil. Looking for another source, these countries are forced to look to Iran for oil. In terms of understanding and explaining to a judge, it is best to see oil as a shell game. The United States has creatively gained a moral high ground by boycotting Iran, but it is simply a rouse. Without a large-scale boycott, and a commitment to obscenely high oil prices, Iran is going to continue to export oil. Another way to view oil consumption is as a filled balloon. Like oil consumption in the market, there is a fixed amount of air in a balloon. If one side of the balloon is squeezed, the air will simply move elsewhere. Regardless of who, how, and why, the oil exporters are going to export and the importers are going to import.
American Embargo of Iranian Oil
Economically, the boycott of Iran is irrelevant. Yet, there are political ramifications for America’s purchasing decisions. Problematic relationships have been forged because of the embargo. Extempers would be ill-advised to suggest that not buying from Iran has greatly improved the morality of America’s oil purchases. Buying from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela certainly empowers America’s trouble-making adversary. The United States also has increased energy purchases from Russia, which certainly has its own democratic deficit. America’s unique relationship with Russia will be examined in a later brief, but the most cursory of glances at a newspaper suggest that Vladimir Putin is ruling with an iron fist. As a captive audience and customer, President Bush has been forced to be mum on the topic of true democratization in Russia. Another seller of oil to America is Saudi Arabia. As a country renowned for seriously undemocratic tactics, the House of Saud has been given a vote of confidence from the American government. While it is not necessarily fair to claim that the embargo of Iranian oil is counterproductive, but it does little more than let America choose the lesser of evils. In the end, America and the world’s insatiable demand for oil is still forcing all parties to choose evil.
Oil as a Shield?
A common political, military, economic, and extemp question asks if Iran’s oil exports protect it from international intervention. As a literal extemp question, an entire point, subpoint, or underlying basis for an answer, extempers need to be aware of the crucial role that oil plays in Iran.
Yes
1. As discussed earlier, the concept of an oil embargo is counter-intuitive since oil consumption is fixed. Therefore, the “oil shield” does exist, since Iranian oil keeps the international oil market going. Without Iran’s contribution, the scramble for energy resources would cause an international panic. Prices would rise with no end in sight. Eventually, importing countries would have to trim consumption, causing great economic problems. The clamor for hybrid cars and energy-efficient appliances, while discarding SUVs and incandescent light bulbs, would put great pressure on the economy to change immediately. The least profitable of Chinese factories would be shut down, depriving China and the world of jobs and production. The crisis that would ensue would simply not be worth intervening in Iran.
2. As the wars of the 20th century showed, economics are becoming the new militaries. As negotiations on various treaties show, economics are also becoming the new governments. With globalization the most concrete form of power is money. Political institutions and tanks are defined by a fixed set of boundaries. Dollars and Yen can move all around the world and give power to whoever owns them (think Lord of the Rings). Iran’s oil shield is not one of economics, but one of politics and a military. Ahmadinejad need not be popular nor have a million-man army. He needs to have foreign currency and natural resources alone. The economic loss due to a cut of Iranian oil production would have dastardly political effects. Those countries that secured energy pipelines would propel ahead in the power structure. Considering China and India’s penchant for preferring oil to dealing with moral governments, a return to economic anarchy may be a worse fate than a nuclear Iran.
3. Another reason to believe in the idea of an oil shield is because it might extend beyond Iranian borders. Surely, any form of intervention in Iran would put many of America’s enemies on alert. The combination of anger and fear could result in some very unfortunate circumstances. For example, Iranian ally and oil exporter, Hugo Chavez might be tempted to also turn off the oil spigot and starve out the western world. In steadfast opposition to the forces of globalization, Hugo could use his oil power to either extort or starve the world. In exchange for continued sales of oil, Chavez might put unfair demands and force the US into compliance. Indeed, America could be held hostage by Iranian sympathizers.
No
1. While few will dispute the power of oil, it certainly can do less damage than a nuclear weapon. The nightmare scenario of a world with far less oil requires rapid technological advances before the world can move out of a 19th century economy. The nightmare scenario of a world with a nuclear exchange would result in the end of life on this planet. More moderate results of an oil shortage such as the 1970s would still be preferable to a singular nuclear strike on Israel that left millions dead and permanently raised the stakes of the clash between the Judeo-Christian world and the Muslim world. If the United States, or the extemper, truly believes that Iran can and will use a nuclear weapon, there is zero reason to be afraid of something as petty as economics.
2. Also, the United States would have the opportunity to tap into other options for oil. The combination of oil production, oil from allies, and the national reserve could keep the economy afloat for enough time to stop Iran. Increased security presence in Iraq could accelerate Iraqi oil exports, which would help offset the harm done by Iran. While this argument would require some very creative arithmetic on the extemper’s part, Iran’s oil exports can be temporarily offset.
3. While Iran certainly has a great deal of natural gas and oil, it does not have a monopoly on energy. One could argue that the investment and infatuation with alternative energies could finally pay off by breaking down the Iranian oil shield. New ideas like wind, solar, and water power could provide energy on a small-scale to family farms or small towns. Ethanol would be a tough sell since most studies suggest that the energy required to grow the corn, convert corn into ethanol, and transport the ethanol is greater than the actual oil and gas that is supposedly replaced. In a few years it is likely that ethanol will become a viable alternative. At present, mother nature appears to be America’s best bet. Another option is coal. The much maligned fuel of yesteryear has triumphantly returned. Again,the inefficiency and pollution of coal does not make it a preferable energy source. Yet, if the world is committed to stopping the Iranian nuclear program, sacrifices must be made. Many will suggest that the world does have enough alternatives and backup plans to withstand the economic fallout.
Nuclear Program
What it means for Iran
Having a nuclear program is an instant Get Out of Jail Free card. There may be no greater deterrent than a nuclear arsenal. Ahmadinejad can rest easy every night if he knew that there was zero chance of a foreign invasion. Further, Iran is seen as just erratic enough to be dangerous. As explained in the nuclear proliferation brief, there is an important distinction between having a nuclear weapon and willing to use a nuclear weapon. The United States would exhaust every possible solution before resorting to WMDs. Without the economic, military, or political power of America, Iran lacks the middle ground of power. There is a great leap between turning off the oil spigot and a nuclear attack. Ahmadinejad would be forced to make this leap if he feels that economics is not enough. Without a world-class fighting force, nuclear weapons would be the only way Iran would know.
What that means for the world
The first change that the common extemper will notice is a serious blow to Israeli power. As explained in an earlier brief, Israel has a nuclear shield. Arab neighbors “mysteriously” stopped periodic invasions and attempts at destruction after Israel started dropping hints about a nuclear program. Ultimately, no amount of money or guns can stand up to a mushroom cloud. Israel largely owes its existence to the fact that it is the only nuclear program in the area. With a nuclear Iran, Israel will be put in check. The Arab world would finally have a serious means to end Israel. If Iran were to engender itself to the rest of the region, all countries could “share” the nuclear program in the name of ending Israel. Peace negotiations with Palestine would be very different if Hamas and the PLO had the backing of a nuclear weapon. The Israeli response to suicide bombings would have to be more calculated and cautious. At some point, Israel would make its stand, draw a line in the sand, and resist Arab aggression. If Iran subscribes to MAD, which is highly debatable, then there would a tense stalemate. In short, the Middle East would be doomed to its own Cold War.
On a larger scale, Iran would be seated at the Adult’s Table of the international community. The ability to end human civilization seems to have this ability to add power. Yet, it is important not to overstate the power of a nuclear program. As an example, Pakistan’s nuclear program is only significant with regards to its relations with India and the threat of terrorists seizing a weapon. Extempers can point to Pakistan, India, England, America, and France as examples of how nuclear power has not greatly increased international prominence. However, extempers also would be wise to recognize how Israel, China, and the former Soviet Union were able to successfully convert a nuclear arsenal into power. There are far too many moving parts and theories to truly figure out if Iran would become anything more than a regional leader with a nuclear weapon.
Morality of the program
It is generally believed that a nuclear Iran is bad for the western world. Empowering a country that has called for the destruction of the United States and Israel is certainly not an optimal situation. While western thinkers continually rail against the nuclear program, it is easy to not see the situation through Iranian eyes. Examining the justifications of Iranian nuclearization yields interesting analysis that most extempers glaze over.
What Iran has noticed over the past 30 years:
§ The institution of an anti-American, fundamentalist government
§ An illegal, covert nuclear program of its sworn enemy be allowed, and even endorsed internationally
§ An American president that has unilaterally invaded its neighbor with very little justification or international support
These three facts seem to suggest that Iran is next. Without a nuclear deterrent, Iran’s very existence is under siege. Israel’s existence was also under attack until a nuclear program saved it from eventual destruction. Iran has been toward by the western elite that it is not allowed to defend itself. In questions of sovereignty, international law is far less important than survival. If Iran truly fears for its own life, then it is hard to argue against a defensive nuclear program. While it would border on anti-American to suggest that Iran should have nuclear weapons, extempers would be wise to recognize the moral justification of the program. As has been stated throughout all the briefs, governments simply want to stay in power. Accepting Iran as a purely defensive country, this attempt at enhancing national defense yields a perfect example of Robert Jervis’ Security Dilemma. If a nuclear weapon is the most efficient way to do so, then it is hard to prevent a country from defending itself.
American Recourse:
For both international and domestic extempers it is important to have an understanding of how the United States can and should proceed against Iran. With so many moving parts and topics, those who analyze Iran in its entirety will show themselves to be light-years ahead of their narrow-minded counterparts. The following is a list of the most common and viable courses of action. This list makes two assumptions: Iran’s nuclear program continues and that it is not acceptable. First, a covert nuclear program would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The second assumption holds that the United States does not believe that a nuclear Iran is an acceptable outcome. Even if it is inevitable, allowing Iran to secretly develop nuclear weapons changes international relations in a negative way and sets an extremely dangerous precedent for other would-be world powers.
Invasion
This plan is the easiest to understand and explain. The United States follows the exact same plan that it had for Iraq in 2003. President Bush, or his successor, would trump up charges and list Iran’s international violations. Afterwards, he would call on a Coalition of the Willing (version 2.0) to join him in stopping Iran before it is too late. Visits to the United Nations and talks with specific potential allies would bring together all countries that are willing to economically, militarily, or politically support the war effort. After all of the allies have worked together, Iran would be given a fixed deadline to prove that the nuclear program has ended. Invariably, the militant wing of the Iranian government would call America’s bluff. The United States would engage in shock and awe, topple the government, and attempt to build a democratic state. The invasion would heavily rely on the desire of the Iranian people to have democracy and to work with the American military to move past the inevitable insurgency.
Pros
1. First, the primary objective of denuclearization would undoubtedly be achieved. If the United States underwent the necessary measures to truly annihilate Iran, there is no question that Iran would fall. With a military draft, the world’s best technology, and truly unlimited funding, America could bring Iran to its knees in a matter of days, if not hours.
2. Gaining control of Iran would greatly help the coalition’s support of Iraq. Without Iran funding and funneling in insurgents, the Iraqi Shi’ias would have their positions moderated. Border control has plagued post-war Iraq from the beginning and dominating Iraq’s eastern neighbor would certainly make border security easier.
3. The larger objective of democratizing Iran could also be achieved through an invasion. If the radicals were kicked out of power, there would be an opportunity for the Iranian middle class to take control of their own government. Unlike Iraq, Iran is a theocracy that has allowed some extent of capitalism. Through the religiousness of the country, many Iranians live very American lives. An invasion would likely test the trust and faith of “modernized” Iranians, but they could be a crucial ally in the war and in the reconstruction.
Cons
1. The main problem with this plan is the responsibility that would fall on the United States. As in Iraq, the war would cost dollars, lives, and flexibility. With the cost of the War in Iraq totaling in the hundreds of billions and counting, a war in Iran would likely have to cost a trillion dollars. Iran is much larger than Iraq, meaning a larger war effort is required. Additionally, the United States need a higher quality fighting machine to truly root out the insurgents, as it failed to do in Iraq. With higher quality and quantity, more troops would be needed. The political fallout of instituting a military draft could rip the United States apart. With so much anti-war sentiment, another full scale invasion of a Middle Eastern oil exporter would be far more than many could handle. As in Vietnam, draft cards would be burned and chaos could permeate throughout all of society. The divisiveness created from Iraq would pale in comparison to that of an Iranian invasion. Once those who do go to Iran start to fight, they also face the possibility of death. Thousands more young Americans would be flown home in boxes. Ultimately, no amount of money or prestige can truly compare to the value of a human life. Finally, stretching the American military would further decrease flexibility. Even with a draft, troops would be redirected towards Iran. Soldiers would be kept from resignation and bases in flashpoints would be abandoned. North Korea would face no significant resistance from a weakened American military. The former Yugoslavia could descend back into chaos without the American military buffer. Throughout the world, the absence of the American military would be felt.
2. Aside from tangible losses, the United States would face anti-Americanism never before seen in human history. The entire world, save for Israel and a few small states, would likely oppose America. Osama bin Laden’s case that the United States is a rogue, anti-Islamic juggernaut would suddenly seem more plausible to many. China and Venezuela could call for a New World Order to replace unipolarity. America has shown itself to be wholly irresponsible and incapable of controlling the world, they would argue. Whether in the form of economic or political ramifications, the United States would notice nearly all of its relationships start to become icy.
Use the UN as a political tool and assorted diplomatic acts
Fulfilling the wishes of the international community circa 2003, the softest of the outlined plans would be multi-lateral in nature. Acknowledging that the United States cannot go alone, other countries would be shown the evidence of a nuclear program. Through the use of superb L-D, Public Forum, and extemp skills, American diplomats would hopefully convince major allies around the world that Iran must be stopped. The costs of high oil prices, temporary political upheaval in an already troubled area, and lives are lower than the havoc that a nuclear Iran would cause. By refusing to disobey the wishes of the intertational community, the United States would resign itself to accepting whatever decision comes down. This plan recognizes the possibility that nothing will happen. In this case, the United States will not lose any popularity, but could lose far more than that later.
Pros
1. The main, and only, advantage with diplomacy is that it improves America’s international standing. There is no real history of unipolarity in the modern era, and the United States would do well to set a precedent of multilateralism. The concept of “primas inter pares”, first among equals, would foster stronger bonds around the world. Regional powers would feel safer without wondering if the United States is going to invade. Those alarmists that fear a rising China would have a more difficult time explaining why China would feel a need to replace the United States. Showing that being the sole superpower is neither fun nor profitable would greatly discourage other countries from seizing the post. In the long run, diplomacy and multilateralism would provide a greater stability to the globe.
Cons
1. The clear disadvantage is the possibility of a fully nuclear Iran. In the shadow of Iraq, many questions will likely be timid to authorize a military operation of this scale. Also, high oil prices will scare off many countries that rely on Iranian oil to fuel their economic growth. Surely China would not want to topple an Iranian regime which has been very helpful in providing oil and natural gas. Additionally, Iran has engendered many relationships with lesser powers around the world through oil exports. The Middle East would panic and loudly oppose any military operations against Iran. Overall, diplomacy is unlikely to work because most countries would rather deal with a nuclear Iran than a new Iran.
Surgical strike on nuclear sites
Just as Israel did decades prior, the United States would send fighter planes over to Iran to destroy the suspected nuclear sites. While notifying the international community publicly would make the act seem slightly less cavalier, it would tip off the Iranians. For this plan to be viable, it is predicated on the Iranians not having enough time to move the nuclear program out of its current location. Speed and secrecy would be prioritized over openness and fairness. Perhaps the President would privately tell close allies and seek their counsel, but this would have to be a unilateral action.
Pros
1. This option seems to strike the perfect balance between means and ends. Many accept that no matter what happens with Iran, nuclear weaponization must be stopped. Though not completely perfect, entrusting military intelligence and authorizing a small-scale operation will likely be successful. This option will achieve the primary objective of stopping the nuclear program.
2. Not just does a surgical strike stop Iran’s nuclear program, it also prevents the international crisis that would result from an invasion. Ahmadinejad will still be furious at the act of war, but Iran will be as stable as before. The government will remain unchanged, sending an important message to the rest of the world: the United States does not like regime change. Nervous Islamic states will be pacified knowing that they will not be toppled by an invasion. If they step out of bounds, there will be ramifications, but there is no appetite for destruction.
3. A small-scale destruction of nuclear sites would also limit how much responsibility the United States would have to take on. The operation will cost a relatively small sum of money and, ideally, have zero casualties. The military can continue to focus on Iraq and its other responsibilities. A draft will be no more necessary than it was before the attack. The international community may be upset at America’s unilateral act, but their anger will be muted by the small-scale of the act. The United States would have been more involved in the former Yugoslavia than in Iran. One would hope that America has enough political capital to justify ending a country’s illegal nuclear program.
Cons
1. While proponents suggest that a surgical strike carries all of the benefits with none of the costs, one could argue that it actually does the reverse. If the ultimate goal is to end Iran’s nuclear program, then a small-scale attack is not the best bet. One has to assume that Iran, like all other nuclear powers, is smart enough to not make all of its operations public. Surely some secret underground plants exist that American intelligence is not aware of. If one single nuclear weapon exists after the strike, then the operation has been a failure. In such a large country, playing hide-and-seek is not a game that the United States is likely to win.
2. Even if all of the weapons are destroyed, the Iranian government still remains. President Ahmadinejad will be more enraged than ever, destabilizing the region. Fearing for his political and physical life, he could order a full-scale intervention in Iraq or stop oil exports to strike back at the United States. Efforts to rebuild a nuclear program will be redoubled and Iran will become more aggressive. If it fears that an existing nuclear weapon is a military liability, he may use it prematurely to achieve the desired effect before the United States ruins the weapon. When dealing with a leader and a country as erratic as Iran, it would be suicide to anger it.
3. Another unilateral attack on a supposedly dangerous Islamic state would deteriorate America’s international standing beyond recognition. Similar to a full-scale invasion, the audacity displayed would deeply disturb allies and enemies alike. Major ally England would be forced to reconsider its relationship with such a rogue state. Potential enemy China would be scared by America’s blatant disregard for international norms. Realizing that the United States cannot be trusted as a superpower, it may attempt to extend its power sphere beyond Asia to encroach on America’s power base. Kim Jong Il would also stand up and take notice of a surgical strike. Since he already has a nuclear arsenal, he would have every reason to believe that he is next. Controlling a much smaller, less powerful state, he could convince himself that a nuclear strike is in North Korea’s best interest. An assault could completely level South Korea and/or the American west coast in a doomsday scenario. A key criticism of the surgical strike plan is that it could destabilize the world every bit as much as a more complete attack would.
“Dangerous Liaisons.” Economist 19 Dec. 2007. http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10329031&CFID=2514226&CFTOKEN=badb551a6b86faf7-313AAFBE-B27C-BB00-012BD0DBAB317D16
This article points out the dangers and results of the Russian-Iranian alliance. With Russia providing nuclear technology, Iran’s capabilities are enhanced. With Russia’s political support in the UN Security Council, Iran’s feasibilities are also improved.
“Iran Says Its First Atom Plant to Start in Mid-2008.” New York Times 30 Dec. 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iran-nuclear-plant.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Apparently committed to making as many headlines as possible before 2008, Iran unleashed a bombshell right before the calendar changes. Using Russian technology, Iran has promised to push forward with its “civilian” energy program. While Iran certainly will benefit from the low cost of atomic energy, even the slightest sign of technological advancement will be sure to frighten western policymakers.
Nasr, Vali, and Ray Takeyh. “The Costs of Containing Iran.” Foreign Affairs. Jan.-Feb. 2008.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87106/vali-nasr-ray-takeyh/the-costs-of-containing-iran.html
As a more general overview of America’s foreign policy in the Middle East, the authors criticize those who suggest that Iran needs to be stopped. Additionally, the internal struggle between Sunnis and Shi’ias that the United States is spurring creates dangerous consequences for the entire region.
Sadjadpour, Karim. “Iran: Reality, Opinion and Consequences.” Carnegie Endowment for Peace. 30 Oct. 2007.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publicatiosn/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19677&prog=zgp&proj=zme,znpp
This article is actually a report presented to congress, but yields interesting conclusions and comments. Sadjadpour focuses on the often neglected Iranian middle class. With little control over the religious extremists in power, the Iranian street is far more moderate than it is given credit for. In order to resolve relations with Iran, the United States must work with both the government and the people it faces.
Slavin, Barbara. “How Bush Saved Iran’s Neocons.” Foreign Policy. Nov. 2007.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4040
Slavin argues that President Bush’s aggressive foreign policy has forced Iran to fight fire with fire. The “with us or against us” worldview has created a self-fulfilling prophecy where Iran has become the enemy that has been so demonized. The article also provides a rare look at how decisions and power truly interact within Iranian politics.