Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1088676761-scaled

How ‘othering’ Iranians leads to bad policy

You don’t realize how demonization – in the media and in politics – has poisoned the relationship until you step back and look at the history.

Analysis | Middle East

Like many millions of Americans, I came of age in a post-9/11 world in which our political views and attitudes toward war were defined by its aftermath. Despite the failures and implications of America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — which illustrate an incoherent understanding of the nature of war, its purpose, or the nations that we target — hawkish voices in Washington continue to advocate for yet another war in the Middle East against Iran. As an Iranian American, war with Iran has been a persistent fear, and the ongoing hostility between the two states has shaped my experience at home in the United States.

In fact, the systematic demonization of Iran and dehumanization of Iranians, and by extension Americans of Iranian heritage, has adversely impacted U.S. policy positions on Iran, while undermining the rights of Iranian Americans at home. I examined the process of this demonization and how it permeates American political discourse, media, and popular culture in a newly-released comprehensive report, and the findings in the report are relevant to our current contretemps with Iran.

Dehumanizing Iranians

Though recent history may lead one to believe that Iran and the United States are age-old adversaries, the two states once shared a mutual admiration and history. While Iran was caught in the crossfires of Britain and Russia’s “Great Game” and the effects of European colonialism, the U.S. was seen as a revolutionary state that did not interfere in their affairs. This all changed with the U.S./British coup of 1953, when Washington not only intervened directly in Iran’s internal affairs, but actually carried out a plot from the old imperialist handbook. 

Years later, when Iranian students, fearing another U.S.-led coup to restore the Shah, seized the U.S. embassy in November 1979, the vast majority of Americans were totally unaware of the ghosts of 1953. Yet the hostage crisis itself came to define U.S. views on Iran. 

Anti-Iranian attitudes in the U.S. cannot be entirely separated from racism or Islamophobia. However, the contemporary political hostilities between the two states and the hostage crisis gave Iran a unique place in U.S. political rhetoric. The event — and the humiliation it came to symbolize — became so embedded in the American psyche that it spilled into American popular culture and continued to be used by U.S. politicians decades later to express enmity towards Iran. More than 40 years later, President Trump evoked the memory of the crisis when he threatened to attack 52 cultural sites in Iran, one for every American taken hostage in 1979.

Starting in the 1980s, film and television portrayals of Iran, and Iranian people, replayed orientalist stereotypes that turned an entire people into a caricature of villainy. From cartoonishly racist Saturday Night Live skits — where actors simply speak gibberish to imitate Persian speakers — to problematic films like Not Without My Daughter that intentionally paint Iran and Islam both as inherently backwards and fanatic, such depictions have become commonplace. 

Images of Iran and Iranians in Hollywood often reflect the political rhetoric of hawkish U.S. politicians — such as the Showtime series Homeland, which had Iran “violating” the nuclear deal before it had even been concluded in real life, or the 2014 Robocop film, which had AI “peacekeepers” unleashed on Tehran to market an arms corporation’s merchandise. Throughout these accounts, Iranians are stripped of their humanity and instead, reduced to enemy targets. 

These portrayals are reflected in the language of U.S. politicians and news media. While Sen. John McCain jovially sang a parody song about bombing Iran and his fellow “amigo,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, quipped about how terrible it would be to have Iranian genes, then-Under (and currently Deputy) Secretary of State Wendy Sherman testified in a Congressional hearing that deception is part of Iranian DNA. The mainstream media, meanwhile, often parrot official talking points on Iran that depict it as a central threat to the United States. Despite the lessons of the Iraq war and the false foundation of WMDs on which the war was publicly justified, 18 years to the day of the invasion, Yahoo News ran a piece by former CIA Director James Woolsey titled “Iran Probably Already Has the Bomb. Here’s What to Do About It.”

Policy impacts

Such zealous anti-Iran attitudes color U.S. policy decisions and influence American views toward war. It should be no surprise that research shows a positive correlation between “racial resentment” and support for military action against Iran. It is the process of dehumanization that produces policies that devastate millions of innocent people. Relying on stereotypes based on ideology reinforced by popular culture and political demagogy, as opposed to rational analysis and serious attempts to understand motivations of the “other” has led to policies that undermine U.S. and global security interests, adversely impact innocent people in Iran, and hurt the Iranian American community. 

In the 1980s, Washington supported Saddam Hussein after his illegal invasion of Iran, only to target him later in two different wars. Over the decades, different U.S. administrations have rejected overtures by various Iranian presidents to improve relations or, as in the case of the Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and “maximum pressure” policy, added insult to injury.

Though it is Iranians living in Iran who have borne the brunt of Washington’s unjust policies, Iranian Americans have also experienced discriminatory policies, an atmosphere of hostility at home, and the helplessness of watching their loved ones in Iran suffer under the collective punishment of sanctions and fears of war. 

In addition to experiences that Iranian Americans describe with prejudice in the workplace, school, airports, and more, there are real-life consequences of U.S. policies that impact their lives. Iranian Americans have had their bank accounts closed without cause or explanation, and their transactions and accounts frozen on payment apps simply for using words like “Iran” or “Persian.” 

A labyrinth of sanctions and regulations make it prohibitive for them to do simple tasks that Americans of other backgrounds take for granted, such as mailing something to their family abroad or sending money to assist them. The community has faced accusations of dual loyalty simply for being of Iranian heritage, endured discriminatory questions when entering the United States as a U.S. citizen, and suffered from immigration policies that have separated families and prevented family members from Iran from visiting them. All of these experiences have contributed to an overall sense of hostility in the country they call home. 

A way forward

From threats of war to devastating sanctions and immigration bans, our policies have often undercut U.S. interests and the values our country claims to promote. However, while U.S. policy and thinking have depicted Iran as a prime adversary for decades, a peaceful alternative is possible. But we must first acknowledge the prejudice and biased attitudes that have contributed importantly to our current state of affairs. 

By recognizing our mutual grievances and, in the U.S., by identifying the attitudes that have dominated popular thinking about Iran for so long, we can begin to move forward. We cannot simply bomb Iran’s nuclear program out of existence, nor can we afford to engage in another costly war. The United States finds itself at an inflection point, where we must decide between a path forward that will continue to be marred by racist mentalities and belligerent policies and one that will be based on coexistence and mutual respect. 


Young women in Iran (Shuttersock/Minda photos).
Analysis | Middle East
Somalia
Top image credit: U.S. forces host a range day with the Danab Brigade in Somalia, May 9, 2021. Special Operations Command Africa remains engaged with partner forces in Somalia in order to promote safety and stability across the Horn of Africa. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Zoe Russell)

Why the US can't beat al-Shabaab in Somalia

Africa

The New York Times reported earlier this month that recent gains by al-Shabaab Islamist militants in central and southern Somalia has prompted a debate within the State Department about closing the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu and withdrawing most American personnel. At the forefront of some officials’ minds, according to the Times, are memories of recent foreign policy fiascos, such as the fall of the Afghan government amid a hasty American withdrawal in 2021.

There are good reasons to question why the U.S. has been unable to defeat al-Shabaab despite nearly 20 years of U.S. military involvement in the country. But the scale of the U.S. role is drastically different than that of Afghanistan, and the U.S. cannot necessarily be described as the most significant external security actor on the ground. At the same time, the Trump administration has given no indication that it will scale down drone strikes — meaning that the U.S. will continue to privilege military solutions.

keep readingShow less
Hegseth Guam
Top photo credit: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth departs Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, March 27, 2025. (DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Madelyn Keech)

Hegseth goes to 'spear point' Guam to prep for war with China

Asia-Pacific

The Guam headlines from the recent visit of the U.S. secretary of defense are only part of Secretary Hegseth’s maiden visit to the Pacific. It is Guam’s place in the larger picture - where the island fits into U.S. strategy - that helps us understand how the “tip of the spear” is being positioned. Perhaps overlooked, the arrangement of the “Guam piece” gives us a better sense not only of Guam’s importance to the United States, but also of how the U.S. sees the larger geopolitical competition taking shape.

Before he landed on Guam, the secretary of defense circulated a secret memo that prioritized U.S. readiness for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan. At the same time, it was reported that U.S. intelligence assessed that Guam would be “a major target of Chinese missile strikes” if China launched an invasion of Taiwan.

keep readingShow less
Pope Francis' legacy of inter-faith diplomacy
Top image credit: Pope Francis met with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, one of the Muslim world's leading authorities on March 6, 2021 in Najaf, Iraq. (Vatican Media via REUTERS)

Pope Francis' legacy of inter-faith diplomacy

Global Crises

One of the most enduring tributes to Pope Francis, who passed away this Easter, would be the appreciation for his legacy of inter-religious diplomacy, a vision rooted in his humility, compassion, and a commitment to bridging divides — between faiths, cultures, and ideologies — from a standpoint of mutual respect and tolerance.

Among his most profound contributions is his historic meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf, Iraq, on March 6, 2021. What made this meeting a true landmark in inter-faith dialogue was the fact it brought together, for the first time, the spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics and one of the most revered figures in Shia Islam, with influence on tens of millions of Shia Muslims globally. In a humble, yet moving ceremony, the meeting took place in al-Sistani’s modest home in Najaf. A frail al-Sistani, who rarely receives visitors and typically remains seated, stood to greet the 84-year-old Pope and held his hand, in a gesture that underscored mutual respect.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.