In June of 2010, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain gave a rousing speech before NED, identifying the “character of the Iranian regime” as a “deeper threat to peace and freedom in our world.” McCain elaborates on what he believes the solution to this crisis to be: “I believe that it will only be a change in the Iranian regime itself—a peaceful change, chosen by and led by the people of Iran—that could finally produce the changes we seek in Iran’s policies.”[18] McCain is no stranger to speaking out against the Islamic country. During a stop on the campaign trail in 2008, McCain indulged in a grotesque parody of the Beach Boys by changing the lyrics of “Barbara Ann” to “bomb, bomb Iran.” Earlier still, John McCain’s name can be found on statements issued by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a war advocacy group known for their relentless lobbying for the toppling of Saddam Hussein. In a report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” the Project showed their thoughts on Iran:
Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.[19]
When he’s not busy running for president or hawkishly parodying pop songs, McCain chairs the IRI, the conservative program of NED. As to be expected, the IRI has many ties to groups and individuals opposing the Iranian regime. William Nojay, who was dispatched by the Institute to monitor the 2004 elections in the Ukraine (just before the breakout of the Orange Revolution) is the secretary and treasurer of the aforementioned Foundation for Democracy in Iran. David M. Denehy, a “democracy specialist” from the Institute, was slated to head up the Bush administration’s “Office of Iranian Affairs.” Though very little is known about this secretive program, it would appear to have been tied to Condoleezza Rice’s 2006 request from Congress for $75 million in funding to “promote freedom and human rights in Iran.”[20]
Despite McCain’s position as chairman of the IRI, and his apparent commitment to changing the face of Iran, the one-time presidential candidate attempted to market himself as a centrist politician. In 2008, McCain ran ads quoting speeches by Theodore Roosevelt, the founder of the Progressive Party, while seven years earlier he formed the Reform Institute, a “nonpartisan, non-profit educational organization” dedicated to divisive issues such as immigration, economic, and campaign finance reform. While the Institute’s acceptance of funding from American International Group raised a few eyebrows, the fact that the OSI donated over $50,000 was glossed over by the most part in the media.
The “Open Society” and the American Way
Just what is the “Open Society,” the ideal lurking behind the Soros and his institute? Soros adapted the name from the writings of Karl Popper, a well known British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics. For Popper, the “Open Society” was a politically transparent society built upon the foundation of civil liberty and human rights. It is the natural progression from the traditional closed societies of the past, which Popper equates with cultures based on collectivism, drawing their structure from tribal or magical thinking (according to Popper, the “vulgar Marxists” adhered to the “conspiracy theory” of worker impoverishment being due to the capitalist system[21]). In this theoretical model, the citizens of the “Open Society” would be able to remove their leaders in a series of bloodless revolutions, ensuring a ‘peaceful’ transition of ideas and power.
Popper also found himself closely aligned with the emerging thinkers of free-market theory of his day. In 1947, alongside Walter Lippman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman, Popper founded the Mont Pelerin Society; the stated goal of the organization was to mount a counterattack against the “state ascendancy and Marxist or Keynesian planning [that was] sweeping the globe.” This very idea alone would have incredible ramifications: Milton Friedman’s ideas would seem to become the domineering norm, the economic model on which America clings to, and so desperately seeks to export worldwide under the guise of “democracy promotion.” But beyond this, certain members of the Mont Pelerin Society could very well shed light on the entire philosophy behind the NED/OSI complex.
Soros and the State Department are following Popper’s ideal for an Open Society – the colors revolutions fit his blueprint calling for leaders that can be ousted in bloodless revolts – but they are augmenting it with the views of Popper’s Mont Pelerin cohort, Walter Lippmann. It was Lippmann, the “dean of American journalism,” who wrote “democracy is far too important to be left to public opinion.” To rectify this problem, Lippmann advocated an enlightened elite to manage the masses, ironing out the problems and quirks of the democratic system. Under this theory, democracy itself is a charade, requiring in itself a hierarchy to manage and manipulate public opinion for the good of all. It is by synthesizing Popper’s and Soros’ “Open Society” with Lippmann’s calls for a specialized class that we reach progressive America’s true modus operandi. The open society is a democracy built on the foundation of capitalism, but true to democracy’s presumed nature, it must be manipulated to ensure its functionality. America, in its thirst for market superiority, has idealized itself as Lippmann’s enlightened elite, taking it upon itself to bestow the gift of “democracy” to wayward countries. Soros himself has acknowledged the necessity of manipulation in realizing Popper’s vision, writing that the “principles of the open society are admirably put forth in the Declaration of Independence. But the Declaration states, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,’ whereas the principles of the open society are anything but self-evident; they need to be established by convincing arguments.”[22]
This framework also explains Soros’ framework for opposing Bush. “A matter of life and death,” Soros made his opposition to the disastrous foreign policies of the administration the “central focus” of his life.[23] However, Soros certainly has no problem with meddling in the affairs of other countries. He worked hand-in-hand with Bush’s State Department in Georgia and Ukraine. He has also invested some $100 million in the Carlyle Group, a global investment firm that has been referred to as the “military industrial complex” for its dense ties to defense contractors, war profiteers, and the Bush administration.[24] The common ground between Bush and Soros is that they both believe in American-backed regime change to enforce the modernization of a country’s economy; they fundamentally disagree on the process to achieve this end. Bush’s ideological roots are in the neoconservative camp, promulgating the idea of “peace through strength”, utilizing America’s military might to ensure its position as the dominant global superpower. Soros, and large portions of the State Department, see fully the folly of this line of thinking—blowback is inevitable and American will certainly suffer great damage in the long run. For Soros and his partners in NED, the illusionary freedoms of the open society are a far more pragmatic route that the neoconservative’s unwavering dedication to a world of eternal war presided over by the United States, playing the role of an international police force.
This isn’t to say that these two factions are mutually exclusive, for there is significant bleed-over between the two. As noted above, the OSI provided money to John McCain, who had thrown his lot in with hawkish PNAC. In addition to McCain, many other principles of NED, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Francis Fukuyama, and Vin Weber have lent their name to PNAC’s letters and statements. Seventeen members of PNAC would take key positions in the cabinet of President Bush, giving a large voice to the war hawks whose views had largely been pushed aside throughout the 1990s. Bush, however, also saw the benefits of the NED’s methods, and increased the organization’s budget by 150% after 2001.[25] Bush may have been more sympathetic to the aspirations to the ideals of the open society that Soros has given him credit for; after all, an open rift formed inside the administration when Bush disagreed with Vice President Cheney’s push for military action inside Iran.[26] Instead, the President mandated that the CIA to use “non-lethal” methods to destabilize the country.[27]
Iran: The Fundamental Question
It is the very question of Iran that helps examine the deeper ideological divisions in America’s hegemonic struggle. The neoconservative contingent is intimately intertwined with the interests of the pro-Israel lobby, with a great many of their thinkers spending time with hotbeds of Zionism such the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Israel’s policymakers are unequivocally opposed to the power of Iran, which, following the collapse of the regime in Iraq, displays the only real threat to the nation’s geopolitical supremacy in the Middle East. Thus, Israel aims to draw American foreign policy into direct confrontation with Iran. As John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write:
Israel and the lobby are fighting to prevent the United States from reversing course and seeking a rapprochement with Tehran. They continue to promote an increasingly confrontational and counter-productive policy instead.[28]
