What Have We Gained from the Axis of Evil Philosophy?

Bush’s second term and President Obama’s full year in office have elapsed since the term “axis of evil” was launched. From the very beginning, we have defied this idea in an article published by Al-Qabas. A quick review clearly reveals the failure in dealing with the countries concerned. It was a strategic mistake to include Syria in this view for many reasons. Meeting points between Syria and any of the other two countries — Iran and North Korea — remain marginal when compared to the fateful points that link the country to the Arab nation. Instead of increasing tensions, the Bush administration should have worked on repairing relations with Damascus, which the Obama administration is doing now, preceded by a significant improvement in Saudi-Syrian relations.

North Korea managed to build a nuclear weapon until it became a fait accompli, and nobody knows how many bombs it has now. Iran is well under way with its nuclear weapons program — it’s still my opinion that it has built one. The successive reports about the country’s rapid development in the field of uranium enrichment reinforce this view. These reports are only a prelude to unveiling a dangerous secret that the country does not want revealed all at once.

The United States was unable to budge Iran from its position by one inch, not only on nuclear programs, but on all matters. This has nothing to do with the magic ability of the Iranian leadership to the extent that it is attributed to the failure of previous U.S. administration strategies, and perhaps the present administration.

Bush’s administration should have taken firm measures against the Iranian interference in Iraq, because its success there has no less impact than manufacturing a nuclear weapon. The nuclear weapon is a deterrent, rather than a usable weapon. Its greatest danger is that it prompts the rogue powers — whoever they may be — to continue their expansionist intentions and programs, because the decision to respond to them becomes more complex.

Two days ago, Iran decided to boycott airlines that use the name “Arabian Gulf.” [Editor’s note: instead of “Persian Gulf”] Why not take this position a year ago, or ten years ago? Doesn’t this mean that the Iranian leadership is showing an excessive display of power? Should this be linked to the feeling that the country has developed a nuclear weapon?

During Obama’s first year in office, he kept his hand stretched out to Iran and did not see a positive reaction. On the contrary, extending his hand was perceived as a sign of weakness. The Iranian leaders turned their backs and covered their ears to Western demands. Even their political maneuvers and negotiations were perfunctory, used to gain time, which they already had, and nothing more.

The United States needs to reconsider its former policies, to not take positions and to identify concepts as a whole instead of case-by-case. It should not be forcing the name of an Arab state on states from a non-Arab system.