This past February, President Barack Obama unveiled his 2015 National Security Strategy. The document stresses “international order,” renewing calls to “advance” interests in Asia, “strengthen” ties to Europe and “invest” in Africa. In its references to the Middle East and North Africa, where American foreign policy has been focused over the last several years, however, the strategy falls short. Here, the policy is to “seek stability and peace” in order to overcome “the sectarian conflict from Beirut to Baghdad.” With this language, though, American foreign policymakers seem to be missing the point. “Sectarian conflict” cannot be solved with a blind eye and mere stability will not guarantee prolonged future peace. Remaining committed to a Pacific rebalance, the 2015 National Security Strategy ignores the greatest threat to any hope of prosperity in the Middle East: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
For the last three decades, the United States has been at odds with Iran, competing with it for influence in the Middle East. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution saw the overthrow of the US-supported Shah Pahlavi, militants seized the American embassy, beginning a 444-day hostage crisis. American intervention in the Iran-Iraq War and the 1988 shooting of an Iranian commercial plane bred further animosity. More recently, under President Bill Clinton, economic sanctions aimed to deter Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. The exposure of a once-secret nuclear program led the United States and the international community to impose economic sanctions on Iran that remain in place to this day.
Despite the threat of terror and nuclear proliferation, the Obama Administration has reduced pressure on Iran over the last few years. Speaking directly to Iranian President Rouhani in 2013, the president began new negotiations to curb nuclear efforts in exchange for eased sanctions. Instead of inspiring reform, however, these ongoing talks have only legitimized Iran’s repeated abuses. Even with extensions to the Joint Plan of Action, for example, Iran has refused to provide information in response to International Atomic Energy Agency investigations. With revived monetary assets, Iran has challenged negotiations with the announcement of new nuclear plant construction earlier this year. And just this past week, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps performed military drills on a ship modeled after an American aircraft carrier. Through it all, the United States has largely remained silent. Rather than securing stability in the Middle East, the leaders responsible for this strategic reevaluation have disregarded the great risk of expanding Iranian hegemony in the region.
Take Iraq, for example. With the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) last summer, Iran and the United States have a shared interest in rolling back Sunni extremism. While the US has provided air support for the Iraqi Security Forces, however, Iran has funded Shiite militias, operating around the government of Iraq. Intent on defeating ISIL, the United States has largely ignored the nature of these militias. Backed by Iran, groups like Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kitaeb Hezbollah were involved in the fight against American forces before their 2011 withdrawal. Despite US support for Prime Minister Al-Abadi and democracy in Iraq, these organizations promote Shia-Sunni sectarianism and redirect power from the Iraqi military. Without a committed American presence on the ground, Shiite militias have gained new power in Iraq, serving as proxies for the growth of Iranian influence.
Iran has also been at work in Yemen, which earlier this year saw its government overrun by Houthi rebels. Taking control of the presidential palace, the Houthi leadership replaced the Saudi Arabia-backed administration of President Hadi. Although not publicly linked to this take-over, Iran has provided support to the Houthi movement over the years, training rebels with its own Quds Force. Iran is also widely believed to have sent weapons to Yemen, despite denying a connection to the arms shipments found in 2013 aboard the ship Jihan 1. The release of prisoners accused of involvement with Iran’s Quds Force this past September also suggests Iranian influence in the recent Houthi advancement. Yet, the United States continues to operate within Yemen as if nothing has changed. In part due to its unflinching pursuit of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a group that counts Iran among its enemies, Washington has remained indifferent to mounting Iranian power.
Iran’s new influence, though, is most powerful in its ties to the ongoing civil war in Syria. After four years of battle with various rebel groups and international condemnation for war crimes, President al-Assad has held onto power in Syria. The fact that he has been able to do so is at least partly a testament to his alliance with Iran. Specifically, Iran has worked with Hezbollah, its Shiite representative based in Lebanon, to strengthen the forces of al-Assad. As nuclear negotiations resume, however, Iran has also positioned Hezbollah against another neighbor: Israel. In a recent offensive strategy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has worked with Hezbollah to establish a new front along the Golan Heights. Military exchanges in the last month have only confirmed these renewed tensions between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah. Even with such tangible conflict along Israel’s northern border and in Syria, US-led talks continue.
Beyond Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, Iran has also threatened stability elsewhere in the Middle East. In Bahrain, there are suspicions that recent riots and uprisings against the government were spawned by local Iranian incitement. This is not out of the question, given the 2013 blame put on Iran for an arms shipment interdicted on its way to the 14 February Youth Coalition in Bahrain. In the Palestinian Territories as well, Iran has been known to provide weapons to organizations like Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This support directly opposes American interests in the region, with Iran repeatedly threatening not only to attack, but also to destroy the State of Israel. At the negotiating table, though, such rhetoric is overlooked.
In theory, of course, this is not a bad thing. Sitting down to negotiate with Iran, the American delegation has intentionally narrowed its tunnel vision to the issue at hand. It ignores the militia building in Iraq, the backing of Houthi rebels in Yemen, the support of al-Assad in Syria, the promotion of Hezbollah against Israel, and the incitement of violence in Bahrain in order to focus exclusively on nuclear nonproliferation. “Why not give Iran a chance?” the American delegation suggests. This type of regional hegemony, after all, could be a positive position for the future. As the United States redefines its role in foreign affairs and resigns its post as “global policeman,” local leadership is encouraged.
But with Iran, such influence is dangerous. As a State Department-designated sponsor of terrorism, Iran continually provokes violence in the Middle East. The investigations led by the late Alberto Nisman, who found connections between Iran and Argentina in the 1994 Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) bombing, only support this notion. As evidenced by recent cases of torture and execution, Iran also shows little consideration for international norms of human rights. Without a denouncement of violence and a respect for the rights of all individuals, Iran cannot be a responsible leader in the Middle East.
Ultimately, it is the American quest for stability that fuels this hegemony. Under the cover of continued nuclear talks, Iran has been given the latitude to build an “axis of resistance” against the West. “Our borders are no longer at Shalamcheh, Koshk or the city of Mehran,” Iranian General Mohammad Bagherzadeh recently explained, “They now extend from Yemen to the Mediterranean.” Free from full scrutiny, Iran has intentionally extended its power in the Middle East, and rather than object to this expansion, American negotiators ignore past grievances. They have given legitimacy to Iran as a rational state actor worth their efforts and engagement. Perhaps weighing his 2016 legacy, President Obama has focused exclusively on the success of these flawed talks. As advisor Ben Rhodes noted, “This is probably the biggest thing that [he] will do in his second term on foreign policy.”
Lacking revision, though, dialogue with Iran may quickly become Obama’s biggest failure. The United States is leading the Middle East down a path from which there is no return. Rather than open the door for an irresponsible Iranian hegemon, the United States should place new pressures on Iran and fully examine the actions that speak louder than the words at the other end of the negotiating table. The Obama Administration must leave its cave of ignorance and see Iranian actions as they are. The 2015 National Security Strategy released last month calls for stability against “the sectarian conflict from Beirut to Baghdad.” Entrenched in Beirut and Baghdad, along with everywhere in between, the greatest threat to stability is the expanding hegemony of Iran.