the “axis of evil” and iran the “axis of evil” metaphor and the restructuring of iranian...

The “Axis of Evil” and Iran

The “Axis of Evil” Metaphor and the Restructuring of Iranian Views toward the

United States

G. Matthew Bonham The Maxwell School of Syracuse University

Daniel Heradstveit

Norwegian Institute of International Affairs*

*American Scandinavian Foundation Visiting Lecturer from Norway Slide 1


The State of the Union Address

Slide 2

In his state of the Union message to Congress in January 2002, President Bushused the expression, “Axis of Evil” to include Iraq, Iran, and North Korea:

“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, theseregimes pose a grave and growing danger.”

29 January 2002


Origins of the Phrase

Slide 3

1. The phrase was constructed by David Frum, a White House speech writer,who came up with “axis of hatred” to describe the linkage between Saddam

and terrorism. 2. Frum’s boss, Michael Gerson, a self described evangelical Christian, changed it to “axis of evil” to make it sound “more sinister, even wicked.” 3. Later Rice and her deputy, Steve Hadley, suggested adding North Korea and Iran as part of the “axis.”



Slide 4

1. Hadley had second thoughts about adding Iran, but Bush liked the idea.2. “No,” the president said, “I want it in.”3. In an interview with Bob Woodward, he elaborated his reasoning: “And the fact that the president of the United States would stand up and say Iran is just like Iraq and North Korea—in other words you’ve got a problem--and the president is willing to call it, is part of how you deal with Iran. And that will inspire those who love freedom inside the country.”



Slide 5

1. In the end, the president’s senior advisors thought that the “axis of evil” was a signature phrase—”a declaration that the country now would have a great mission. It was big, new, and different.” (Woodward, p. 88.)2. Although some doubted whether it would make sense to link the three countries, the metaphor was regarded by Bush’s advisors as a “watershed” that would define the problem in “graphic, biblical terms without publicly committing to a particular solution.” (Woodward, pp. 93-94)



The Rhetoric of the “Axis of Evil”

1. Bush used “evil” five times, three times referring to enemies.2. This is a clear-cut example of demonization: calling other countries, “evil,” is not considered to be the language of diplomacy.3. Bush as a “born-again” Christian with a dualist view of life4. A struggle between Good and Evil | Us and Them

Slide 6




1. The “Axis of Evil” metaphor divides the world into two parts: Those who believe in it and those who do not. 2. However, whether one believes in it or not, it changes the ontology of the world, e.g., the targets of the metaphor do not want to be part of “evil.” 3. The metaphor also puts an end to debate once you see it. The implications for action are obvious. 4. For example, a senior advisor told a New York Times reporter that “we are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.

Slide 7




1. Empty rhetoric? The invention of speech writers?2. Contains metonymic concepts that are grounded in experience.3. Like metaphors, “structure not just our language, but our thoughts, attitudes, and actions.” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)

Slide 8




1. The important thing about the metaphor is that “evil” has no specific goal—except to produce more evil.

2. There is no way to deal with the forces of evil—negotiations are fruitless—except to destroy it.

3. Therefore the forces of evil have to be destroyed totally by the forces of good.

4. Moreover, the unity of Iran, Iran, and North Korea is not so absurd, if you agree with the Principle of the Unity of Evil. If there is only Evil, all of its incarnations are simply different forms of one force.

Slide 9


Our Research

1. How the Metaphor Restructured Iranian Views of the United States.2. Did President Bush “inspire those who love freedom” inside Iran? Did the metaphor change the way Iranians viewed the United States? 3. And, if so, it what ways did they alter their views?

Slide 10


Our Research: The Interviews

Sample: 18 members of the “oppositional” elite in Iran, including politicians, civil servants, academics, journalists In-depth Interviews lasting up to 90 minutes with open-ended questionswere conducted in April 2002

Slide 11


The Interviews

1. What do we mean by “oppositional”?

2. Iran is a strange case in that the political opposition occupied positions of power.

3. Therefore, we define “Iranian political opposition” entirely without reference to the formal structure of government, but rather in ideological terms.

Slide 12


“Bolt from the Blue”

1. The inclusion of Iran in the “Axis of Evil” came as a “bolt from the blue.”2. “When Bush used the term it was as if he hit the moderate forces in Iran with a hammer.”3. “The sense of betrayal was strong.”4. “The ‘Axis of Evil’ is a slap in the face of all those who trusted the USA.”

Slide 13


Iranian Explanations: Painful Historical Experiences

1. “History has laid the foundation for the hatred…”2. “Because Iran has a government founded on Islam, the USA hates the Iranian Islamic Republic.”

Slide 14


Iranian Explanations: Pathological Needs

1. Five respondents mentioned the American need to have enemies.

2. “The USA has a need for an enemy image...that can unite the nation politically and culturally.”

Slide 15


1. “It came as a shock and is not rational.”2. “The phrase was not founded on strategic rationality and seems

very poorly thought through.”3. “The phrase is quite irrational.”4. “Bush is behaving like a Baptist preacher with a highly provincial outlook on the world.”

Slide 16

Irrational Forces at Work


Iranian Explanations: Realpolitik

Slide 17

1. The Realpolitik aspects of the metaphor bothered our respondents most 2. The intrinsic American thirst for world domination coupled with support for Israel3. The slogan was seen as the dominance of extreme right wingers— the “hawks’4. A symbolic conflict between the US and Iran that was not related to any real conflict of interest


A War Against Iran?

Some respondents hoped for détente and thought that the USA would not attack:

“The expressions he uses—good and evil—do not suggest imminent military action.”

Others were more pessimistic:“It may be a warning that the neo-conservatives in Washington will employ

military means.”Slide 18


A War Against Iran?

1. Should the USA adopt a harder line, some felt that Iran would Quickly give way.2. “History shows that when a danger approaches, Iran yields.”3. Others thought that the consequences of a confrontation would

be more serious.4. “Were America to go to war with Iran, it would have the most

serious consequences.”Slide 19


Discussion

1. Metaphors are tied to cultural contexts: what can be effective in one culture may not convey meaning in another.

2. For example, no Iranian respondents reacted to the term, “Axis,” but “Evil,” carried even stronger negative connotations in Iran than the United States.

3. The rhetoric of the Axis of Evil was seen as illustrating symbolic conflict and not a conflict of interests.

Slide 20


Policy Implications

Slide 21

Why did Bush put Iran on the Axis of Evil list? Our respondents give offered three explanations:1. Geopolitical factors: the US desire for global hegemony.2. Domestic factors, including both an effort to promote a consensus in the US, as well as domestic support for Israel.3. Psychological factors, such as “bad blood” and irrationality.


Policy Implications (continued)

The main mistake of this metaphor is that it targets whole Countries, not their leaders. It does not differentiate betweenThe “evil” leaders and others who live in Iran.

The crafters of a rhetorical device in one cultural context haveOnly imperfect over how the device is received in another.

Slide 22

the “axis of evil” and iran the “axis of evil” metaphor and the restructuring of iranian...

Documents