Errors in America’s ‘Freedom Agenda’ Allow Iran to Weaponize Ideological Proxies

It has now been more than a year since the 7 October Hamas terror attack on Israel. What was the principal motivation of the attackers? Some claim Hamas was motivated solely by regional interests and ideological enmity. But is that really the whole picture, or are other factors at play?

During George W. Bush’s presidency, the two primary pillars of US foreign policy were the Global War on Terror and the promotion of democracy. In 2003, Bush sought to spread democracy through what became known as the Freedom Agenda. The US founded this Agenda on the belief that freedom and democracy would curb extremism and lead to long-term stability and security worldwide. However, as events of recent decades have shown, this Agenda, particularly in the Middle East, has produced unintended consequences. In particular, it has led to the rise of discursive anti-Western proxies that align with Iran’s anarchic interests and goals.

Fuelled by ideological shifts and postmodern relativism, the US has misinterpreted regional realities. In so doing, it has undermined its ability to address the growing threats posed by regional powers, such as Iran, which are exploiting US discourse to expand their influence.

The Freedom Agenda was a policy of ideological ambition, but it did align with US national security interests. However, America’s vision also attracted theoretical and practical criticism.

Critics argued that the Agenda was inherently flawed, primarily due to its universalist assumptions. These critics viewed liberal democracy as an American-centric concept that failed to account for diverse political and cultural contexts. Nor, they argued, did it account for the complexities of local governance in other regions. This undermined the Agenda’s effectiveness in achieving long-term stability.

In the Middle East, freedom has become ‘Americanised’ in the sense that the protection of American interests has increasingly taken on an ideological, rather than a rational, approach. Indeed, scholars have described the Freedom Agenda as dogmatic liberal idealism.

US policy-makers have tended to see the Middle East as a monolithic entity lacking in structure. They have tried to change this through top-down democratisation. Their rigid approach, however, overlooked the critical role of civil society and local political realities in fomenting instability.

America’s misguided attempt to universalise democracy has created power vacuums, particularly in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran in particular has taken advantage of these voids to expand its influence, not only through traditional military interventions but also by using discursive and ideological proxies to reshape the political landscape of the region.

This dynamic is concerning in light of Bush’s claim that the gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Iran’s ability to weaponise ideology eerily reflects Bush’s claims, revealing the unintended consequences of the US Freedom Agenda. The US strategy of democratisation, while idealistic, lacked the strategic foresight to address the current rise of postmodern relativism that is now fuelling anti-Western narratives in the region.

The events of 7 October 2023 marked a significant escalation in anti-Western and anti-Zionist sentiments. They have exposed the deep-rooted failure of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Iran’s influence in the region has grown through its ability to merge anti-colonial political Islam with an anti-Western discourse, creating a narrative that resonates with marginalised populations.

Iran’s discursive power can also be linked to the postmodern critique of Enlightenment rationality. Postmodernism rejects grand narratives and emphasises relativism. This perspective has provided fertile ground for Iran and other regional actors to challenge Western hegemony. By framing their actions as resistance to imperialism and Zionism, Iranian actors gain legitimacy, especially in a world in which Western liberalism is increasingly viewed as a form of neocolonialism.

Building on this legitimacy, Iran is trying to weaken nationalist-oriented strategies beyond its borders. Iran aims to prevent neighbouring states, already rivals since the Abraham Accords, from reaching any form of consensus. The convergence of Islam and the discourse of revolution on the basis of a non-state foreign policy or empire — for example, neo-Safavism and neo-Ottomanism — guarantees that the regime in Tehran will remain in power, building a protective shield.

In this postmodern context of relativism and multiculturalism, the emerging phenomenon of Islamo-leftism questions the universal validity of liberal democracy. This ideology provides a foundation for anti-Western movements that oppose US influence in the Middle East, advocating for a post-Bush foreign policy or even a post-American world. Within these movements, postmodernism (or postcolonialism) becomes a foreign policy model, wherein postcolonialism — or extremist relativism — asserts that all worldly problems are the fault of European imperialism alone.

The Iranian regime, Islamic states and Muslim Brotherhood have all capitalised on this intellectual shift, presenting themselves as defenders of cultural diversity and political autonomy. Through its support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran has positioned itself as a leader of the anti-Western, anti-Zionist cause, and this has destabilised the region yet further.

This instability has been exacerbated by the Freedom Agenda’s failure to consider the socio-political complexities of the Middle East. The region is now vulnerable to the rise of discursive proxies, particularly Iran’s regional policies. These proxies, empowered by postmodern relativism, have created a new form of threat, one that is not based on military action but is deeply ideological.

The removal of Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah represents a new reality, and a new threat, for the Middle East. However, we still need a fundamental revision of US foreign policy that acknowledges the discursive and ideological nature of such new threats. Without one, the region will remain a battleground for competing narratives — and Iran and other actors will continue to shape the future of the region. If it hopes to restore stability in the Middle East, the US must confront not only the military realities of this conflict, but also its ideological dimensions.

Published originally under the title “The U.S. Freedom Agenda and Its Misconception of Iran’s Discursive Proxies in the Middle East.”