Cole reports that “some Western wire service [apparently] mistranslated the phrase as ‘wipe Israel off the map,’ which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change.” Ahmedinejad, Cole continues, would

like to see regime change (apparently via a referendum on the shape of the government ruling over geographical Palestine, in which all “original” residents of any religion would get a vote). Calling for a referendum on the dissolution of a government is not calling for genocide.… He may be saying unrealistic things; he is not advocating killing Jews qua Jews, or genocide. Note that Ahmadinejad…compares his call for an end to the Zionist regime ruling over Jerusalem to the Western call for the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Was Ronald Reagan inciting to genocide when he called for an end of the Soviet regime?

The Bush administration accuses Iran of “meddling” in Iraq by providing explosives and other supplies to Iraq’s Shia militia forces. This meddling is given as a reason for both U.S. threats of war against Iran and its continuing occupation in Iraq. Unnoticed by the media is the double standard where the U.S. claims the right to put 170,000 troops in Iraq (and 130,000 mercenaries), while Iran is considered a “foreign force,” even though it would be far more affected by events in Iraq than the United States. Imagine how U.S. politicians would react to Iran if it invaded, occupied, and started building permanent military bases in Canada and then began lecturing and even threatening the U.S. over giving aid—military or otherwise—to Canadian forces.

“For all those who ask whether the fight in Iraq is worth it, imagine an Iraq where militia groups backed by Iran control large parts of the country,” said Bush in late August to the annual convention of the American Legion. The irony is that the U.S. occupation is the cause of Iran’s expanded influence in Iraq.

“When U.S. forces ousted Saddam’s regime from the south in early April 2003, the Badr Organization infiltrated from Iran to fill the void left by the Bush administration’s failure to plan for security and governance in post-invasion Iraq,” wrote Peter Galbraith, a former policy official under Bill Clinton.

In the months that followed, the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority appointed Badr Organization leaders to key positions in Iraq’s American-created army and police. In short, George W. Bush had from the first facilitated the very event he warned would be a disastrous consequence of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq: the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia. And while the president contrasts the promise of democracy in Iraq with the tyranny in Iran, there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in southern Iraq.

When the White House started its anti-Iran campaign, six months ago, I thought it was all craziness. Now it does look like there is some selective smuggling by Iran, but much of it has been in response to American pressure and American threats—more a ‘shot across the bow’ sort of thing, to let Washington know that it was not going to get away with its threats so freely. Iran is not giving the Iraqis the good stuff—the anti-aircraft missiles that can shoot down American planes and its advanced anti-tank weapons.

Who’s threatening whom?

In late September, Newsweek reported that Dick Cheney had considered encouraging Israel to launch limited missile strikes against Iranian nuclear reactors in the hopes that Iran’s retaliation would give the U.S. the pretext to launch its own attack. But the characterization of Ahmadinejad as a madman has cemented the idea that Iran represents the real threat, not the other way around. As Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad actually has little power over foreign policy, and he remains a largely unpopular figure. In reality, he deviates little from the positions that Iran’s more moderate clerics have held for years—aside from his claims that the Holocaust didn’t happen. In the words of Hooman Majd, who served as Ahmadinejad’s interpreter during his last two UN speeches:

Although his tactics backfire as often as they succeed, he once again managed to forcefully project himself onto the world stage with the welcome assistance of the press, and accomplish much of what he set out to do within the boundaries of his authority…

Though Ahmadinejad may wish otherwise, his role in Iranian politics is in reality sharply constrained. Notwithstanding perhaps a rise in impolitic language, Iran’s foreign policy is unchanged since Ahmadinejad assumed office, despite our efforts to portray him as one who has moved Iran from an accommodating and increasingly compliant and Westward-leaning society to a belligerent, defiant and threatening rogue state of the Middle East. While Ahmadinejad’s speeches rely heavily on religious references—he seems to assume that most Americans are deeply religious and will respect his piety—very little of what he has to say, at least on issues of import, veers from what the Supreme Leader and other clerical leaders have said for years. Iran, for example, has consistently asserted that it will not be bullied into suspending or abandoning uranium enrichment, a right it has always maintained is inalienable, including under the mild-mannered, reform-minded President Khatami. Iran has also long insisted that it will never be the aggressor in any war, including against its arch-enemy Israel, a point Ahmadinejad was obliged to repeat in a press conference during this trip as well.

The U.S., moreover, has a long history as the aggressor against Iran, engineering a 1953 coup against a democratically elected leader and backing its former ally Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Since 2001, Iran’s regional influence has increased, but largely because of U.S. strategic blunders, not its own efforts. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban, Iran’s rival to the east—and then deposed Saddam Hussein, Iran’s competitor to the west.

In May 2003, after being named part of the “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea, Iran offered a deal to the U.S. that it would halt its nuclear energy program, cooperate with IAEA inspectors, support the establishment of a non-religious government in Iraq, cooperate in the fight against al-Qaeda, and end material support to Palestinian groups such as Hamas. In exchange, the U.S. was asked to remove Iran from the “axis of evil” and terrorism lists, help Iran get access to nuclear energy technology, support payment of reparations to Iran from the Iran-Iraq war, and cease support for Mojahedin-e Khalq, the anti-Iranian terrorist group based in northern Iraq. But the administration, puffed up with a sense of its own power following Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, rejected Iran’s offer out of hand.

Why Iran, why now?

Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution drove the hated U.S. puppet, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, from power, the U.S. has pursued various measures to recover from the strategic setback represented by the toppling of one of its staunchest allies. That explains U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and it also underscores why Iran’s enhanced geopolitical standing since the U.S. debacle in Iraq is so damaging.

With containing Iran now the central concern of U.S. policymakers, the Democrats and Republicans have closed ranks on support for this aim. Hence, on September 25, a majority of Senate Democrats voted for a measure sponsored by Sens. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization—and called for the U.S. government to “combat, contain and roll back the violent activities” of Iran. Never mind that Iran, unlike the U.S., has not invaded another country in the Middle East or elsewhere in its history. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment won by a wide 76–22 margin because of Democrats’ support. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted yes, and Barack Obama ducked the vote, essentially joining the majority.

As Financial Times commentator Gideon Rachman describes,

On a whole range of issues that remain very controversial even among close American allies in Europe and Asia, there is a broad American consensus [spanning] Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on the Democratic side to Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson among the Republicans. All of the main candidates want to build up the American military rather than shrink it (Senator Clinton wants to add 80,000 troops to the Army). They all agree that the U.S. has the right to take pre-emptive military action in the ‘war on terror.’…They are all strong supporters of Israel. And they are all talking tough on Iran.

Eric Ruder is a frequent contributor to the ISR. He can be reached at [email protected]