Lessons from the "Axis of Evil"

Since President Bush first declared the existence of an "Axis of Evil" comprised of Iran, Iraq and North Korea in early 2002, the world has changed immensely. The American approach to these nations in the intervening years has been vastly different in each case, with the means employed ranging from careful diplomacy to aggressive war. What has happened to this "Axis" in these 6 years, and what can we learn from the results?

Saddam Hussein is no more, hanged amidst gleeful cheers by those he once tortured and killed by the thousands. The seemingly endless war in Iraq has claimed the lives of over 4,000 Americans, and estimates of Iraqi civilians killed range widely, from 100,000 to well over 1 million. It is impossible to estimate how many young men throughout the world were inspired by the war in Iraq to take up AK-47s, RPGs, or suicide belts against America. What is sure is that the insurgency has experienced no shortage of willing "martyrs", and "al-Qaedism" -- an ideology of radical Islamist terrorism -- is now more popular than ever throughout the world.

North Korea continues its nuclear games, most recently testing a nuclear device and test-launching a long-range Taepodong-2 missile in 2006 (both tests were seen as failures). In yet another surprising reversal, North Korea then returned to the negotiating table and indicated possible willingness to abandon its nuclear programs. Only time will tell whether this apparent turn toward peace by the unpredictable nation is sincere.

The most significant change in these 6 years occurred in Iran, due in large part to unintended consequences of America's policies in Iraq. This time has seen significant growth in Iranian power and influence in the region. American conquest of Iraq removed Iran's greatest enemy and rival, elevating the Persian nation to regional primacy with only U.S.-backed Israel remaining to effectively counter the mullahs. Furthermore, Iraq's government is now controlled not by Iran-hating Baathist Sunnis, but by Shiites who are not only friendly to Shiite Iran, but see the neighboring nation as their greatest ally and the most important contributor to Iraq's future.

As Iran's regional position strengthened, America's military is tied up in the mountains of Afghanistan and cities of Iraq, both vulnerable to Iranian retaliation and incapable of presenting a credible deterrent threat. Iran was quick to recognize their favorable position. The mullahs are demonstrating an attitude of defiance regarding their nuclear programs and openly financing Hezbollah and other militant groups throughout the region.

It is hard to tell exactly to what extent rising oil prices are directly attributable to American actions in Iraq. What is sure is that regional instability and greatly reduced oil exports from the warn-torn country no doubt played a significant role in rising prices. Between 2002 and 2008, oil prices skyrocketed from around $20 to almost $120 per barrel, and Iraq's oil-exporting capacity disappeared almost overnight. The resultant windfall in Iranian coffers helped ensure stability for the economically-troubled regime and emboldened the nation's hawkish leaders, especially in their hostility to Israel. Recognizing the dependence of the West on cheap Middle Eastern oil, Iran leveraged its position as the world's second-largest oil exporter to deter its foes.

In the 6 years since President Bush saw fit to identify Iran as among the world's greatest threats, its position has improved greatly. President Ahmadinejad openly derides the United States, threatens the destruction of Israel, hosts Holocaust-denier conferences, aggressively defends his country's nuclear programs, and openly meddles in Iraqi politics. Much of what he says and does seems intended specifically to antagonize America and its allies. That which isn't merely nose-thumbing can be explained as open and shameless pursuit of Iran's ambition to be the foremost power between Cairo and Kabul, if not further.

The reason Iran has assumed this attitude is because they see themselves as virtually untouchable. Any act of aggression by America or U.S.-backed Israel, for example against Iran's nuclear facilities, would likely be met with a crippling barrage of retaliatory measures. The Straits of Hormuz could be mined, bringing worldwide oil shipments -- and much of the world economy with them -- to a grinding halt. Iran could simply cease oil exports, which would send oil prices soaring (some analysts estimate this could cause worldwide oil prices to double).

If we consider more aggressive military measures, Iran could do even more damage. Ahmadinejad could instruct Hezbollah to rain down Katyusha rockets on Israeli cities, sparking a renewal of the 2006 Lebanon War which claimed hundreds of Israeli lives. Iran could inject new life into the Iraqi insurgency with advanced weapons and training. More directly, they could deploy experienced and well-trained Revolutionary Guards to Iraq to direct attacks on U.S. forces. Either means of involvement in Iraq would result in a notable spike in U.S. casualties, which would not be well-received by the war-weary American public.

The ramifications of American policies in the Middle East are most commonly measured with hard numbers and direct results. We consider the number of casualties and the monetary costs, but neglect the wider and more important unintended consequences of U.S. actions. One of the most important and least understood consequences of the war in Iraq -- the geopolitical empowerment of Iran -- will have profound effects on world politics far into the future.

We cannot know if Iran will develop nuclear weapons, attack Israel, or act on any of its other numerous recent threats. If we are to be honest with ourselves, we must recognize the role American decisions have played in the creation the Iranian threat. As the saying goes, if we do not recognize the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them.