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 “Axis of Evil” and Iran
The State of the Union Address
29 January 2002
In his state of the Union message to Congress in January 2002, President Bush
used 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, these
regimes pose a grave and growing danger.”
Slide 2
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
Origins of the Phrase
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 3
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
Origins of the Phrase
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 4
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
Origins of the Phrase
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)
Slide 5
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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 life
4. A struggle between Good and Evil | Us and Them
Slide 6
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
The Rhetoric of the “Axis of Evil”
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
The Rhetoric of the “Axis of Evil”
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
The Rhetoric of the “Axis of Evil”
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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 questions
were conducted in April 2002
Slide 11
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
“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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
Irrational Forces at Work
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
Iranian Explanations: Realpolitik
1. The Realpolitik aspects of the metaphor bothered our respondents most
2. The intrinsic American thirst for world domination coupled with support for
Israel
3. 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
Slide 17
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
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
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
Policy Implications
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.
Slide 21
The “Axis of Evil” and Iran
Policy Implications (continued)
The main mistake of this metaphor is that it targets whole
Countries, not their leaders. It does not differentiate between
The “evil” leaders and others who live in Iran.
The crafters of a rhetorical device in one cultural context have
Only imperfect over how the device is received in another.
Slide 22