The Axis of Evil
With Walter Russell Mead
Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy
Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2002; 2 p.m. EST

Is the inclusion of Iran in the "Axis of Evil" a good thing?

Walter Russell Mead, senior fellow, U.S. Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, was online Tuesday, Feb. 12 at 2 p.m. EST, to discuss American foreign policy, "the axis of evil" and the war on terrorism and his book "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World."

Mead is also a contributing editor at the Los Angeles Times and senior contributing editor of Worth Magazine. He has also written for the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, Harper's and Foreign Affairs. He is the author of "Mortal Splendor: The American Empire in Transition."

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Walter Russell Mead: It's good be here on Washington Post.com. There are a lot of questions out there so I'll do my best to get to the most frequently asked questions.

Urbana, Ill.: Ever since 1980, the government of Iran has been calling the U.S. the "Great Satan" and has encouraged its followers to chant "Death to America." Until President Bush's "axis of evil" speech, the United States government had not reciprocated those words with similar terms. It had only criticized Iran for the misguided politicies of its government. Is there any problem that the U.S. is finally getting even with Iran and is reciprocating the "Great Satan" with the "axis of evil"?

Another curious issue is that in his speech, the President was clear that his words were directed towards "an unelect few" in the government of Iran. But, the critiques of the inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil" (both inside and outside the U.S.) seem to ignore that in the same sentence, the President recognized the struggle of the people of Iran to bring democracy to their country. Should the President have been more emphatic on this important distinction?

Many thanks for considering these questions.

Walter Russell Mead: You make a good point. Those who have attacked the President's rhetoric in the State of the Union address overlook the degree to which US rhetoric is much more restrained than those of countries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea. These countries routinely pepper their statements about the United States and other free countries with outrageous accusations and hostile, bitter language. One characteristic of bad governments is an addiction to abuse as the normal vocabulary of international discourse.

You are also right that President Bush drew a distinction between the government and the people of Iran. US policy draws the same distinction between the governments and people in Iraq and North Korea. The US is currently exploring ways to reduce civilian hardship in Iraq while tightening the effect of sanctions on the government, and through North Korea's long food crisis, the US has supported efforts to feed ordinary people.

Making the distinction even clearer probably would not have silenced the critics of the speech, however. What worries many critics was precisely the way in which the speech pointed to a more focused and hostile US policy toward these governments, and putting more kind wishes toward the unfortunate citizens of these countries would not assuage these worries.

McMillan, Wis.: I am concerned that we seem to be losing our focus in the war on terrorism. With the exception of Iraq, where there is evidence of contact between its intelligence services and Mohammed Atta, I am unaware of any clear link between al-Qaeda and the other two members of the "axis of evil", Iran and North Korea. Are President Bush's comments regarding these three countries spoken in order to galvanize support for his ABM program or are they somehow related to the issue at hand?
What is the benefit of increasing tension with Iran? It seemed to me that they have been mild in their criticism of our Afghan policy. They had long opposed the Taliban. They did not obstruct the Bonn agreement on Afghanistan. Do you believe the "axis of evil" comments make the work of Iranian reformists that much more difficult?
Is Iran that big of a threat to the US or is the real issue its threat to the regional bully boy, Israel?

Walter Russell Mead: Many people in the United States and abroad share your concern that by broadening the US focus to Iran, Iraq and North Korea the President is losing focus on the main enemy, Al-Qaeda. Your fear that the attack on Iran may inflame public opinion there and undercut the moderates is also widely shared.

The dangers you mention are real, but in my opinion the President has not gone off the deep end. In previous years international society has turned something of a blind eye to states that support or sponsor terrorism. During the Cold War the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies routinely sponsored international terrorists, with few international repercussions.

President Bush believes that in the aftermath of September 11 this kind of behavior is unacceptable. International terrorists can do too much damage for the world to stand passively by and accept state sponsorship of terrorist activities as business as usual. Countries like Iran that have used terrorism as part of foreign policy must change the way they do business. Saying this frankly and openly makes many people nervous, but failing to make US intentions clear raises the chance that some countries will fail to understand just how the costs of this behavior have changed.

Arlington, Va: Isn't one of the reasons "axis of evil" has drawn the wrath of Iran is that it has been lumped in with its mortal enemy, Iraq?

Walter Russell Mead: Probably being counted in with Iraq is only a minor factor in the Iranian response.

Iowa City, Iowa: There have been reports that Fillipino troops have created death squads to
torture and execute suspected members of Abul Sayyaf -- including
civilians. Do you believe the US should be helping the Phillipines fight
Abul Sayyaf even if the Phillipines is using terrorist tactics in their
battle?

Walter Russell Mead: I haven't seen the reports about death squads so I can't comment on that. Certainly the US has faced this kind of problem many times in the past and our policies haven't always been either consistent or wise.

Westport, Conn.: Bush's reckless inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil" ignores the efforts of reformist Pres. Khatami to develop better relations with the U.S. as well as Iran's recent efforts supporting the Northern Alliance"s military campaign as well as $600m in aid to Afghanistan in support of a stable central government. Only the American government seems to have missed these positive contributions on Iran's part. According the Jan 26 issue of The Economist, Israel is promoting Iran's image as a terrorist state to the U.S. Are there any voices in the U.S. State Department who are able to distinguish our interests from those of Israel and who want better relations with Iran?

Walter Russell Mead: I don't actually think this is about Israel. While Iran was helpful vis a vis Afghanistan to a certain extent, that was about Iranian interests -- and Iranian dislike of the anti-Shia religious policies of the Taleban. Apparently, US intelligence for some time has identified Iran as one of if not the most active supporters of terrorism.

New York, N.Y.: Doesn't the phrase Axis infer that the countries are fighting together?

Walter Russell Mead: The use of the phrase Axis of Evil may have been a mistake -- not because there is no connection between the countries but because many people may erroneously make just the connection you ask about. In fact, US policy toward Iraq, Iran and North Korea is quite different in each case, and all the comments from the administration since the speech say that we will continue to treat each case individually. It was the right thing to do to highlight US concern about these countries, but this may not have been the most effective way to do it.

Alexandria, Va.: Why did we make a statement which may hurt the Reformist in Iran, when we had no need to name any country, simply ideals?

Walter Russell Mead: Good question. I think the intention may have been to help the moderates rather than hurt them. Before the speech, hard liners in Iran could take the position that Iran could go ahead and support terrorism without fear of consequences. The West would continue to make concessions in the hope that moderates would gain power, and the hard liners -- who, in spite of losing election after election still control the basic security apparatus of the Iranian state and make the final decisions -- could go ahead with antiwestern policies. If Iran now begins to feel that following hardline, confrontational policies has costs, moderates may be able to make a stronger argument that Iran's national interests would benefit from more cooperation with the west.

Windhoek, Namibia: Is the U.S. trying to be a world police? If freedom is about choices then why is the U.S. prescribing to the rest of the world what political system to follow? "It is either you are with us or against..."

Walter Russell Mead: Bush's statement that you are 'with us or against us' was not about democracy. It was about the fight against terrorism. The Bush administration is actually less engaged than the Clinton administration was in trying to spread democracy around the world. It is ready to cooperate with non-democratic countries who are prepared to work seriously to stop terrorism -- a threat to all countries whatever their form of government.

Baltimore, Md.: How undermined is the War on Terrorism by a Middle East policy apparently joined at the hip to Ariel Sharon, the leader of the Peace Never faction of Israeli politics. Even members of the Israeli Defense Force reserves are refusing to serve in Gaza and the West Bank, regarding much of the action there as tantamount to war crimes. Yes, Israel is an ally, and Sharon was democratically elected -- but so were some other renowned ethnic cleansers.

Walter Russell Mead: The US always faces a complicated political situation in the Middle East when Israel elects a Likud government. The US wants to see a compromise peace between Israel and the Palestinians based on a return to 1967 borders with a few minor adjustments and believes, strongly, that this kind of peace is in Israel's best interest. Labor governments in Israel tend to embrace this idea; Likud governments have their doubts. However, this may not affect the war on terror as much as some fear. The moderate Arab governments most likely to oppose Sharon's hard line policies are also the principal targets of the terrorists. Don't forget that Osama's main goal is the overthrow of the Saudi government, and that his top lieutenants have been involved in attempts to overthrow the Egyptian government and assassinate its leaders. These governments have strong incentives to cooperate with the war on terror regardless of what is happening on the West Bank.

Pensacola, Fla.: I find the current approach to the middle east by our government officials to be comparable to poking and proding at a hornets nest. Years of skilled diplomacy and a delicate, vulnerable emerging peace process has been thrown out the window by a single man...and his name is not Osamma. Is there anything you can say to me to assure me that the intent of this war is not to facilitate am oil/gas pipeline?

Walter Russell Mead: The one thing I would say is that anarchy and chaos in the Middle East is bad for oil pipelines. If our policy were truly guided only by a greedy desire to suck all the oil out of the region that we could, we would still in our own self interest be working toward ensuring a stable international order in that part of the world.

Washington, D.C.: The President's FY2003 proposed budget INCREASES alone for defense and intelligance -- at least $49 billion -- are more than double the TOTAL amount for diplomatic programs and ALL foreign aid, which is about $24 billion. Do you think more is needed to enhance U.S. diplomatic efforts and foreign aid as part of our war against terrorism?

Walter Russell Mead: While it is still early, I think that the ultimate result of the war on terror will be an increase in public support for carefully crafted foreign aid. After the Cold War American public opinion gradually lost interest in development aid, both because so much of it seemed to be misspent by incompetent or corrupt regimes and because without the Soviet threat there did not seem to be as much reason for providing it. Now I think Americans are likely once again to feel that our safety at home depends on events abroad, and there will be more commitment to a foreign policy that is not just strong in military terms, but also in terms of aid and diplomacy.

Alexandria, Va.: What was Iran's involvement in the bombing of US military and embassy buildings in Beirut in the 1980s? What was their involvement in the kidnapping of American citizens in Lebanon in the 1980s?

If Iran was involved are you in favor of permitting the victims of Iranian terror to sue Iran?

Walter Russell Mead: I don't know enough about the involvement of Iran in these earlier attacks to answer that part of your question. But in general I oppose US laws that allow private citizens to sue foreign governments in US courts because of terrorist attacks. Historically these claims have been handled by governments -- and, I may say, handled pretty well. In general it would be better for the US government to provide relief to victims of such attacks and then for the US government to take up the question of compensation with the foreign governments involved.

Boston, Mass.: Shouldn't Pakistan be included in the "axis if evil" when we know quite well that it was the one that created the Taliban, sheltered Al-Queda (and is still harboring the deadly terrorits) and sends terrorists in India?

Walter Russell Mead: The world seems divided between people who think Bush put too many countries in the 'axis of evil' and those who think he left too many out. While Pakistan's record is very dark, it seems that its president is working very hard to change the country's direction. Presumably the US government wants to give him a chance to turn the country around and I agree that under the circumstances this is the wisest thing to do.

Alexandria, Va.: Are you aware of any evidence that Iran has facilitated the escape of Al Qaeda or Taliban operatives from neighboring Afghanistan?

Walter Russell Mead: There have been some newspaper reports suggesting that this is the case.

Washington, D.C.: Your new book highlights how as the Cold War ended, our nation's foreign policy consensus also ended. Indeed, the US failure to explicitly articulate a new foreign policy paradigm to replace the retrograde "post-Cold War" term put us at a disadvantage and left a major void in our message and mission. This void continues and gives antagonists the opportunity to falsely malign America’s international agenda. At the end of World War II, President Truman’s said: "The American people are determined to work for PEACE on earth... What we envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic FAIR dealing." In his inaugural address, President Bush also evoked the American ideals of "FAIR dealing" and the "balance of power that favors freedom." How about a new "Fair Peace" maxim for U.S. foreign policy to update the improvident "post-Cold War" term, and put in proper perspective the latest very limiting "war on terrorism" terminology?

Walter Russell Mead: We probably are headed toward a new paradigm to describe America's engagement with the world. In my view, September 11 marked the end of the Post-Cold War period in American history. It is still not completely clear what the new era will be. It is interesting that the pressure of war has caused the Bush administration to pick up some Wilsonian themes which previously had been notably absence from its discourse. I can't be the only person who was both surprised and pleased to find that one of our war aims in the Afghan war was to assure the rights of women in Afghanistan. An international war for feminism was not what many people expected out of the Bush Administration, but as presidents attempt to build both international and domestic coalitions for war they often find themselves invoking historic American ideals. My guess is that as the war proceeds, it will be more and more important for the president to articulate a clear vision of what America is for. It is not enough to be against terrorism; we have to be for some values and principles that make sense to people here and in other countries as well.

Williamsburg, Ky.: Do you know of any evidence to suggest that the NSC, or any other organ of the foreign policy establishment, authored something like a new "NSC 68," before Sept. 11th, which called for the fight against international terrorism (as in the "Axis of Evil" speech) to serve as the new foreign-policy operating paradigm, to replace the Cold War for a government sorely in need of a new paradigm? The timing and coherence of Bush's major speeches since then suggest that something like this was in the works for some time now.

Walter Russell Mead: I don't have any evidence that the US has developed and adopted a new overall strategic approach to the world. Clearly many people have been thinking about this both before and after September 11, but I think some of the tough questions have not yet been answered.

Tampa, Fla.: In recent days, there appears to be a lot of near-ritual criticism of the Clinton Administration for not having done more to react to the terrorism that occurred on his watch. What more could the Clinton people have done to react to the attacks on our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the attack on the USS Cole? What did the Bush administration do before 11 September 2001?

Walter Russell Mead: Monday morning quarterbacking is one of the most popular sports we have, and it is not surprising that many people are blaming the Clinton Administration for not doing more. Some of this is overdone, and Clinton's concentration on achieving a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis was a noble effort toward stabilizing the region even if it failed.

However it remains a fact that Al-Qaeda was able to get organized in the nineties and inflict increasing damage on the United States without anything like an effective response from the US government. "The buck stops here," as the sign on Harry Truman's desk used to say, and historians are probably going to agree that the failure to deal with Al-Qaeda more effectively is a major black mark on the Clinton Administration's record.

Bush was lucky about the timing. Another six to eight months and people would have been asking more questions about why the Bush administration didn't see this coming and why more steps weren't taken. Certainly one of the factors driving the Administration's policies since the attacks has been a determination to ensure that if future attacks come the Administration won't be blamed for a flabby response to September 11.

San Francisco, Calif.: People keep asking about links to Al-Queda, and Iran's supportiveness of our actions in Afghanistan, and then the question from Namibia about the US trying to police the world, prompt me to want to make a comment if I may:

The US actions are not about revenge, or retribution, or imposing our views. They are about self defense. We need to do whatever we can to prevent future attacks. Getting rid of the Taliban, and in the future shutting down Al-Queda, are part of that. But those are not the only problems. We are concerned about all rogue nations, not only those ones that have an Al-Queda link, or a 9/11 link. And we are concerned about other terrorist groups, not just ones involved in 9/11. We need to defend our nation.

I think this is what is behind our (the US) actions. Do you agree? Thanks.

Walter Russell Mead: I do agree. Self defense is the basic foundation of American policy vis a vis international terrorism and we really don't have any choice about that.

Alexandria, Va.: Are there other nations you think should have been specifically condemned as supporters of terrorism? Do you think any of those may have been exempted simply out of political, economic, or strategic interest?

Walter Russell Mead: "Terrorism" is very difficult to define. Were the Concord and Lexington militias who fired on British troops terrorists or freedom fighters? What about John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859, intended to set off a revolt of slaves throughout the south? Virginia hanged him as a traitor; Massachusetts venerated him as a martyr.

When it comes to making foreign policy around ideas like terrorism, governmetns face these inescapable problems and also problems of diplomacy and tact.

To me the key here remains self defense. The United States was attacked by a non-state organization whose aim was to change our policy by terrorizing our people. We have the right and the duty to reject and oppose this, and to do our best to crush the organization that has attacked us and those states that continue to support it.

In stating our objectives and defining our strategy, we have the right to act in the ways best calculated to preserve our security and achieve our objectives. The President is not giving academic lectures about terrorism and international relations when he makes a state of the union address. If in his judgment American self defense is best served by naming countries, he should name them. If he feels it serves us best to keep silent, he should keep silent.

So the answer to your question is that the President would not have been doing his job if he failed to take 'political, economic or strategic interest' into account when making his list of supporters of terrorism.

Washington, D.C.: Should we be worried about an Iran-Iraq coalition? Given their history, it seems the only thing that could bring them together is their common and extreme hatred of the U.S.

Walter Russell Mead: Such an alliance is possible, but it is hard to see what they would get out of it if, for example, the US finds itself in a war with Iraq. Why would Iran want to jump into the line of fire?

Alexandria, Va.: When I think of Iran as a major pillar of an axis of evil, I think first and foremost of the bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994.

Recently I have seen reports of Iran providing former Argentine president Menem with ten million dollars in a Swiss bank account in order to suppress any investigation of this crime.

What was the involvement of Iran, Iranian agents within the Iranian-funded Hezbollah or Hezbollah itself in this crime, which killed about a hundred people?

If Iran was involved does that make them part of an axis of evil, or is it forgive-and-forget time once more when dealing with Mideast terrorists?

Walter Russell Mead: Iran's record of supporting terrorism does help explain why it was included on the list. As I wrote earlier, September 11 has convinced the US that 'business as usual' -- turning a blind eye to this kind of terrorism -- is no longer compatible with our national security. This is not just about the government or the administration; September 11 has made terrorism a much higher profile issue for American public opinion in general, and no US administration which was indifferent to mass terror against our friends by our enemies would prosper.

Cambridge, Mass.: Is inclusion of Iran within the "axis of evil' not simply self-indulgent sabre-rattling by Bush? If we're after results in curbing Iranian terrorism sponsorship is not the best course of action to do whatever possible to strengthen the Khatami faction? Even if it means staying silent? What purpose could Bush's comments actually? We're not contemplating attacking Iran. And we've warned them aplenty about their Hezbollah et al affiliations? Why say anything, even if accurate, that will strengthen our enemies within the Iranian govt while weakening our friends?

Walter Russell Mead: I hear this question a lot, but I'm not sure I understand the logic behind it. I am not sure why a policy of sending candy and flowers to Iran -- even as it continues to support terrorism -- strengthens the moderates. Surely the underlying message is that Iran is so important to us that we are prepared to tolerate extreme misbehavior on the part of the regime.

The trouble is that the moderates aren't winning the power struggle in Iran. They win elections, but both the Iranian constitution and the structure of the power centers in the state (especially the security forces and the judiciary) remain firmly in the hands of the hardliners. Not just the US but the whole western world has been trying to help the Iranian moderates by tolerating the misbehavior of the hardliners for a decade -- but where are the results of this policy?

For the US to look and sound weak can strengthen our enemies...

Washington, D.C.: Near end of discussion, and no talk of
America's allies!?! Pres. Bush certainly didn't mentioned them in his address;
nor did he say "Tony Blair." This weekend,
the EU Commissioner blasted Bush's speech.
No reporting on this. Why the blackout?

Walter Russell Mead: I suppose if every time someone in the EU attacked American foreign policy we reported on it, there wouldn't be much room for anything else in American newspapers.

But seriously, the French attack on US foreign policy got a great deal of press in the US and deservedly so.

The lack of coverage given to statements by EU officials in the US press does not really reflect an indifference to foreign or allied opinion. But it does reflect the widespread US belief that Brussels is not yet the place where European states make their foreign policy when it comes to vital security issues.

I do not know why Bush did not mention Blair in the State of the Union speech, but it was certainly not intended as an insult. Since September 11, Britain's support for the US has been widely and thoroughly reported in the US press and it will be long remembered.

Walter Russell Mead: Thanks to everyone for an interesting and stimulating session. I'm sorry that I could not respond to all the questions individually, but I tried to select questions that addressed themes that were of wide interest to the participants.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

The Winter Olympics at 3 p.m. EST
Wine Authors: "Love By the Glass" at 3 p.m. EST

Live Online Special Coverage: America At War

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |