US Policy Towards Iran Played Big Role in Rise of Sunni Extremism

Iran-Map-2

by Shireen T. Hunter

Throughout the recent handwringing about how the US and other Western countries failed to foresee the emergence of ISIS, one factor has been totally ignored, either intentionally or inadvertently: the impact of Washington’s hostility towards Iran, especially its persistent tendency to treat any anti-Iranian movement or idea in the Middle East as either good or the lesser evil compared to dealing with Tehran. This attitude has been coupled with a consistent unwillingness to support positive forces for change and reform in Iran; indeed, actually undermining them by insisting on their meeting preconditions that the West knows can’t be met due to Iran’s internal political dynamics. Significantly, this Western and especially American attitude predated any dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

The first Western mistake followed the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the coming to power of Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in 1989. Instead of taking advantage of Iran’s vulnerability at the time, as well as Rafsanjani’s efforts both to move Iran towards moderation and openness domestically and internationally and to reach out to the West to help him achieve these goals, the United States chose to put all of its eggs into Saddam Hussein’s basket and adamantly refused to acknowledge his many transgressions—against Iraq’s neighbors and own people—until his fateful 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Nevertheless, with great difficulty—due to leftist opposition—Rafsanjani managed to secure Iran’s neutrality in the Persian Gulf War, a fact that facilitated US military operations. He also secured the release of the last of the Western hostages held in Lebanon. Yet, instead of encouraging the moderate political trends in Iran, the US under President George H. W. Bush embarked on a policy of containing Iran (soon to be replaced by the Clinton administration’s “dual containment” policy, which was then followed in 1996 by Congress’ enactment of the first oil sanctions against Iran at a time when Rafsanjani was actively encouraging American oil companies, notably Conoco, to invest). This policy of containment was first announced during a trip to Central Asia in 1992 by then-Secretary of State James Baker who declared containing Iran’s influence in the region would constitute a major goal of US policy.

Guided by this objective, the US subsequently bought into Pakistan’s argument that the Taliban would constitute a credible barrier to Iran’s influence in Afghanistan and, through it, in Central Asia as well. Hence Washington did not object to Pakistan’s arming and promoting the Taliban, a step that eventually led to the fall of the Afghan government of Burhaneddin Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Masood, two leaders who supported a version of Islam far more moderate than that of the Taliban. It is forgotten today that the Afghan civil war began with attacks by the Pakistan-based and more radical Islamists, first through Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and, when Islamabad judged him to be too difficult to control, through the Taliban.

Even after the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, followed by the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Afghanistan, which Iran directly and actively supported, Washington continued to rely on Pakistan as its key regional partner. Despite massive US aid, Islamabad actively—if covertly—undermined US strategy in Afghanistan while it scorned Iran’s offers to help stabilize the country.

Just as Washington ignored or rebuffed Rafsanjani’s efforts to moderate Iran’s domestic and international policies, it similarly declined to help his successor, President Mohammad Khatami, who promoted a tolerant and reformist Islam and a less confrontational approach to relations with the West and Iran’s neighbors. Thus, holding out for the best—namely, a secular, pro-western government in Tehran—the US lost the relatively good. And when Iran actively helped the US both to oust the Taliban and facilitate the transition that followed, it was rewarded by President George W. Bush with membership in the “axis of evil,” paving the way for new and ever more punitive sanctions.

After the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Tehran quietly put forward an offer for a comprehensive deal with the US not only to cooperate on efforts to stabilize Washington’s latest conquest, but also to address all outstanding issues between the two countries, from acceptance of Israel and Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Palestinian resistance groups to Iran’s nuclear program. The Bush administration did not even bother to respond. Moreover, fearful that Iran might become the unintended beneficiary of the Ba’ath regime’s removal, Washington essentially stood by as its regional Sunni allies worked to undermine the fledgling Shia-led government in Baghdad not only by denying it aid and formal diplomatic recognition, but also, in the case of some Gulf states, encouraging and supporting the burgeoning Sunni insurgency, including al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which did not hesitate to attack US personnel, as well as their Shia brethren. Ironically if predictably, Washington’s policy of ignoring Sunni extremists forced Iraq’s Shia government to move closer to Iran.

Of course, the unanticipated insurgency and the increasing sectarian violence that it fostered also derailed hopes by the Bush administration—especially its neoconservative faction—that its “success” in Iraq would lead to “regime change”—either through destabilization or an actual attack—as well. At the same time, however, the administration bought into the idea that the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict could also be used to curb Iran’s influence, notably by forging a de facto alliance between Israel and the Sunni-led states against Tehran and what Jordan’s King Abdullah ominously called the “Shia Crescent.” Of course, not only did Washington’s acceptance and even promotion of this idea contribute to rising sectarian tensions and extremism throughout the region, but it also failed to produce any progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once again, rather than working with Iran to stabilize Iraq, which would have required exerting real pressure on its Sunni allies that were supporting the insurgency, containing Iran’s influence remained Washington’s overriding priority.

It was in this context that the so-called Arab Spring blossomed and, with it, renewed hopes in Washington to reshape the Middle East, if not by achieving “regime change” in Iran, then at least by weakening its regional influence, particularly in the Levant. Even as the Obama administration publicly depicted the movement as the dawn of open and democratic societies, its closest regional partners—to which Washington had so often and so counter-productively deferred in Iraq—saw it as a way to redress the region’s strategic balance that had been upset by the 2003 invasion and the empowerment of Iraq’s Shia majority.

As the movement progressed from Tunisia and Egypt to Libya and the (thwarted) pro-democracy movement in Bahrain, it eventually reached Syria and the minority Alawite regime of President Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s most important regional ally. While the Gulf states and Turkey led the charge against the regime, the US and much of the West were not far behind. Predictably, however, in its desire to see Assad overthrown and Iran weakened, the US and its allies largely ignored the steadily growing influence of groups such as al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, and similar foreign-backed Sunni extremist groups whose violence toward Syrian Shias, Alawites, Alevis, and Christians has been exceeded only by AQI’s successor, the Islamic State (ISIS).

Thus, for the past 25 years or more, the West—especially the United States—has made containing Iran its overriding priority in the Gulf and has too often seen the Wahhabi/Salafi version of Islam and its violent offshoots as an effective counterweight to Iranian influence. In doing so, it has unintentionally helped create monsters like Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and now Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi.

This critique by no means absolves Iran, Syria, Shia militias, or Iraq’s Shia-led government of their own mistakes and crimes. They have their own not insignificant share of responsibility in creating the region’s current problems and conflicts. And they have to do their part if the region’s problems are to be resolved. But as great powers that claim the world’s moral and political leadership with the power to intervene at will in other countries, the US and other Western countries must be judged by higher standards.At the very least, they need to offer a coherent and positive vision of a functioning Middle East and South Asia.

This requires going beyond the platitudes about wanting to advance democracy and human rights.

While the Western powers do not have a clear vision of what kind of Middle East they want and even less how to achieve it, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra have their own regional plans, based on ethnic and sectarian cleansing as we have already seen in both Syria and Iraq.

In short, until the US and the West admit at least to themselves that they have made mistakes in the region in the last few decades, particularly in their efforts to isolate and weaken Iran, and learn from those mistakes and change course, their efforts at defeating extremism and stabilizing the region are bound to fail.

The West cannot get all that it desires in the region, because political engineering has its limits. But if it embarks on a strategy of conflict resolution—fostering regional cooperation, instead of fighting it; and promoting compromise instead of complete capitulation by Iran or any other local power—its interests and those of the region will be better served. Until such a strategy is adopted and seriously implemented, however, every day that passes will make it that much harder to end the violence in the Middle East and encourage compromise and reconciliation. The same is equally true for the regional players. By pursuing maximalist goals they will all end up losers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
avatar

Shireen Hunter

Shireen T. Hunter is a Research Professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Her latest publication is God On Our Side: Religion, Foreign Policy and International Affairs (Rowman & Littlefield, December 2016).

11 Comments

  1. Following Qatar and Turkey’s advices the US has embarked in encouraging the Sunnisation of the Middle East as a way to oppose Iran and protect Israel. They became confident that a ‘moderate’ Islam was the ‘solution’ for all the troubles in the Middle- east. Saudi Arabia was sold to the idea as it appeared to allow Sunnism to regain the influence in the region it has been loosing to the Shias in the region.

    The moto was naive: All countries should be pushed to embrace Sunnism and the Shias and the Kurds should be kept on leash as they are potential trouble makers. That’s why the Arab Spring should have been called the Sunni Spring. It was welcomed and encouraged by the West. The West published pretext was to get rid of “ruthless” dictators. For the Arab Gulf leaders and Turkey, it was also a way to expand their financial hegemony on countries that were under developed economically.
    What contributed greatly to the failure of this plan is the realization by Saudi Arabia that it had embarked on a Turkey and Qatar plan to install a Sunni Moslem Brotherhood leaderhip in all the Arab countries ‘liberated’ from their “dictator”. Saudi Arabia is a staunch opponent to the Moslem Brotherhood ideology. Saudi Arabia has come to realize that it much prefers a dictator or a military ruling in Arab countries where there are so many religious and ethnical minorities. A strictly Islamist rule is bound to fail. This is when Saudi Arabia starts to oppose Qatar and Turkey, unfortunately at expenses of the civilians..

    To counter the rebels forces allied to Qatar, Saudi Arabia started to finance and arm rebels Salafists as well as push to control the Syrian opposition. They soon realized that they had lost control over the fighters as these ‘salafists’ turned into ISIS and that Qatar and Turkey were still powerful in the Syrian opposition. While ISIS could well be a convenient force to oppose Qatar and Turkey, on long term it could threaten Saudi Arabia itself. Therefore Saudi Arabia has an ambiguous and confused attitude toward fighting them. After all they are Sunnis and of the same Wahhabi creed.
    Now if we look at the result of 4 years of the Sunni Spring.
    Egypt has rejected Qatar and Turkey’s plan and installed instead a military regime. Tunisia is oscillating between a secular and a Moslem Brotherhood government, Syria’s situation is undecided but the government seems to be winning over the Qatar-Turkey plan, Yemen where the Shias have taken over and are forcing the Sunnis into negotiating a power sharing,
    Overall for countries where there is a significant dominating military power in place, the Sunni Spring seems to bring back a military ruling of the country, with a zest of ‘democracy’. For others country, like Tunisia or Libya where there are no dominating military power, the country may take a long time to find its way.
    In summary the Sunni Spring has just weakened even more the Sunnis as they ended up killing and hating each other, while the Shias have remained united. The clear winner of the Sunni Spring is Shia Iran.

  2. Interesting post, as well as Virgil’s comment. Adding my 2 cents worth, until the U.S. is purged of the idiots calling the shots, chaos will be the dance of the day. Incredible how one country, the U.S. has gone from being the beacon to look upon, to the butt of stupidity in trying to get its way at the end of a rifle barrel. The road back, is indeed long and tough, one that may be too full of potholes to maneuver.

  3. It is quite simple – imperialism and racism are the defining feelings in America’s elite. Old Roman “Divide and Conquer” is again popular. We still not see a horse of Emperor in Senate but we are not far away from this hubris.

  4. Norman, I have little hopes that the USA will ever cease to be ‘stupid’ when it comes to foreign policies. It has shown over the last decades that it is increasingly trapped in one-track mind reactions, band-aid, and quick fix solutions to the world problems. There is no long term vision except the fig-leaf of “democracy” and ‘morality”. Nowadays, Obama’s pathetic advisors appear overwhelmed by the extent of the damages caused by the naive foreign policy followed by the USA in the last decades.
    What we are seeing is the emergence of other power sources that the USA is unable to enslave. Unless there is another major revolution in the USA to return to the original values that country was build upon, I think the USA influence on the world affairs is bound to decrease significantly over the next decades.

  5. Trying to make sense of mideast politics is one of the reasons they invented alcohol way back when. But wouldn’t you know it. Alcohol is forbidden by Islam.

Comments are closed.