| For over two decades U.S. policy toward Iran has consisted of containment, isolation, and the imposition of increasingly tougher sanctions. The policy aims at changing Iran's behavior in three areas of primary concern to American decision-makers: alleged state sponsorship of terrorism, pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and violent opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process. This study asks how it is possible for U.S. legislators to defend and maintain a policy which does not accomplish its goals, alienates U.S. allies, fails most cost-benefit analyses, and neglects crucial national interests. I find that U.S.-Iran relations, as reflected in Congressional hearings on Iran, are the result of a struggle to define the dominant American identity narrative, for which postrevolutionary Iran represents a radically new challenge. The 1979 overthrow of the U.S. backed-shah, Iranian Revolution, and hostage crisis were collective traumas that linger in the American psyche. For Congress and successive administrations, the Iran-Contra scandal continues to haunt disputes regarding each branch's prerogative, evokes old misgivings, and shapes U.S. policy toward Iran. Despite two decades of isolation and sanctions, Iran has refused re-incorporation into the American-led world order and continues to inspire and assist other "bad actors," especially those violently opposed to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. As Congress and the administration debate the best way to handle this "rogue" state, they attempt to define America's character and purpose, including its rights and obligations, vis-a-vis other international agents. In this sense, Iran represents the foremost challenge to American identity, if not to world security. This struggle over identity is compounded by a deeply flawed process of deliberation, which produces sub-optimal solutions and policy effects opposite to those intended. Consideration of these procedural and deliberative dysfunctions is a major part of this study. |
