After the USSR disintegration, the United
States formed a policy to confront Islamist groups. Based on the policy,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, as well as groups such as
Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, and
al-Qaeda were named under the terrorist groups list.
Apart
from the US interpretation of them, these groups cannot be grouped
under the same heading, neither can all be named terrorism. The behavior
of each has to be viewed independently. The reasons for such naming by
the US should also be considered. This is while these groups or
countries do not interpret their behavior as such. Albeit, the behavior
of each of the groups or countries is different from the others.
Through all out cooperation from the US, Libya has preserved its political being. With its special ideology, al-Qaeda turned to opposing the US on various fronts. Islamic Jihad and HAMAS in Palestine simultaneously use political and military approaches to preserve their entity and identity. The Taliban was eliminated in the Afghanistan war. Saddam Hussein also met defeat during the US invasion of Iraq and was eliminated.
In the Darfur Peace Agreement, Sudan has been put under harsh international pressure. As for Syria, much attempt has been made so that the country is removed from the scene of Lebanon and Hezbollah’s support as well as those of Palestinian groups, and thus be dragged to negotiation table with Israel. On the other hand, the US has made much effort to kind of disarm Hezbollah, in which it has failed so far.
In regard to Iran, the US always tries to lash out at the Islamic Republic, considering the ethnic diversity in Iran. The US attempts to minimize Iran’s structural, social, and strategic capabilities each in turn. Such measures as economic sanctions, political and diplomatic pressure, threats to using force, moves to prevent progress in technology and science_ in particular nuclear technology, as well as a whole gamut of other similar measures have been on agenda with the US.
The biggest reason why Iran is the major Middle Eastern target of America’s foreign policy is the incompatibility of its policies with those of the US as well as its enmity to the Zionist regime of Israel. The Greater Middle East is trying to dissect big, powerful countries such as Iran, and thus make unstable, dependent, and impotent governments in strategic areas of the Middle East. The way to implement this in Iran by Western powers is to promote ethnic clash, which is encouraged by the geographical vastness of the country.
American policy makers use a range of models to bring damages to the Islamic Republic. During the reign of neo-conservatives, the option of using ethnic differences and diversity was warmly considered by the policy makers of the Bush administration. Thus, some security organizations based in the US made reports on Iranian ethnic groups and their capacities, the reports had been ordered by the government. Following that, articles and opinions of US researchers were published in media which belonged to neocons.
Weekly Standard magazine is a defender of the Greater Middle East plan and is close to the wing known famously as the Hawks in the Republican, Party. An article by the US air force staff deputy commander published in Weekly Standard about a hypothetic model of US attack on Iran reads: A vast military operation, backed by clandestine domestic dissidents’ operations, as was carried out in Afghanistan, can use non-Persian speaking ethnic groups to topple the Iranian regime.
Michel Roobin, a supporter of the idea of changing borders in the Middle East in an article published in the Jerusalem Post in 2007 considers using dissident groups in Iran to overturn the Islamic Republic government. It says: if the Bush administration has the political will which is based on pursuing war on terrorists and supporters, the religious government in Iran can be toppled. Through support from Azeri and Kurd groups in Iran and a vast military assault, Tehran will bear defeat.
Writing for New Yorker, Seymour Hirsch pointed to the way the US and its allies could use these groups. He explicitly suggests the dependence of ethnicity- oriented organizations and the objectives for which they were established: An advisor to the US government with close ties to the Pentagon told me: The Pentagon has made secret contacts to Azeri, Kurd, and Baluch ethnic gropus and has encouraged them to carry out measures to weaken the power of Iran in northwestern and southeastern areas. Israel has even trained Kurd groups and gives them military equipment. Following the framework of US interests, Israel has presented a list of targets in Iran which should be attacked.
American neocons also try to agitate Arabs and present Iran as a threat in order to create a unified front against Iran in Arab countries.
From an American view point, not only can the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan be used to launch attacks on Iran, the pan-Turk capacities in that country can also be used to pressurize Iran and, in a far prospect, push for disintegrating Iran.
American neocons have always adopted radical policies vis a vis Iran. They have explicitly called for changing the government system in Iran and even waging military assault on the Islamic Republic. They have tried to put these on agenda with the US foreign policy system. The peak of threats were launched after the US invasion of Iraq and the second Bush administration. During the Obama administration the approach to toppling the Iranian government changed toward the soft sphere. The incidents that followed the 10th presidential election in Iran in 2009 and financial, propaganda, and political support of the US behind internal and external oppositions, as well as all out support for dissident groups such as those of Abdolmalik Rigi and backing the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists are examples.
