Recent revelations in the US that Iranian Foreign Ministry “officials initiated a quiet effort to bolster Tehran’s image and positions on global security issues, particularly its nuclear program, by building ties with a network of influential overseas academics and researchers,” have caused controversy about how the Iran deal was sold to the public and policymakers, in an article at news site Semafor by Jay Solomon called “Inside Iran’s influence operation.”
The report builds on past revelations about great efforts that went into pushing the Iran deal back in 2014-2015. It was already known that Americans had been subjected to a huge campaign comprising of op-eds and articles designed to sway public support for a deal with Tehran, even as Iran held marches calling for “death” to America.
Tehran has become expert at getting more “bang for the buck” when it comes to its policies abroad, sending to focus on cultivating people who might be supportive – without always needing to handle those individuals directly. In essence, it gets others to run the play, and tries to invest in high-quality returns abroad, without the need for ham-handed policies, like directly funding an organization.
In the lead-up to the Iran deal, Tehran benefited from the US experiencing fatigue from an “endless war” in Iraq, as well as from Russian interests: Moscow wanted the US to stop investing in air defenses in Europe, and Iran got it to shift focus to a deal on its nuclear program.
The soft sell was that the US could reduce its forces in the Middle East if Iran was empowered, with the argument being that an empowered Iran would moderate, much as an empowered Putin would moderate once he got gas deals and the US stopped meddling in eastern Europe. The US had sunk “blood and treasure” into nation building in the Middle East, one narrative claimed, and had partnered too much with “Sunni” regimes; a correction was needed and Iran could guarantee America’s investment. To get to “yes,” Iran needed a deal on its nuclear program. READ MORE