Former US Marine Corps and Persian Gulf War veteran Kenneth Nichols O’Keefe, an American-Irish citizen and human rights activist, said his military service fundamentally reshaped his views on US foreign policy and the Middle East. During an interview with Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, O’Keefe argued that sanctions against Iran have strengthened rather than weakened the country. He criticized continued US support for Israeli genocide in Gaza, and called for greater reliance on diplomacy instead of military intervention. He also said Islamic resistance groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah should be understood within their historical and political contexts, and contended that the international system is moving toward a multipolar order. He urged Western policymakers to address the root causes of regional conflicts, including occupation, inequality and disputes over sovereignty.
The full text of the interview is as follows:
Interviewer: Welcome. Thank you for joining us. To begin, how did your journey in the US Marine Corps begin?
O’Keefe: Thank you for having me. My path to the Marine Corps was driven by a sense of duty, but over time, that duty transformed into a critical view of American foreign policy. I served with the belief that we were spreading democracy, but the reality on the ground—especially in the Middle East—often contradicted that narrative.
.
Interviewer: You speak of a contradiction in the American narrative. Looking at developments involving Iran, Gaza and Lebanon, how do you assess current US policy from the perspective of a former military officer?
O’Keefe: When you look at the strategy regarding Iran and the so-called “resistance axis,” it is clear that the United States is operating on an outdated paradigm. The sanctions on Iran haven’t broken the state; they have hardened it. In Gaza, the blind support for Israel’s military actions is not just creating a humanitarian catastrophe; it is alienating the entire region and destroying America’s soft power.
Interviewer: There is also continuing debate over Hamas and Hezbollah. Some describe them as resistance movements, while others in Washington consider them terrorist organizations. Where do you stand?
O’Keefe: I define a resistance movement by its objective—resisting occupation. Whether you agree with their methods or ideology is a different debate. Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon are geopolitical realities born out of specific conflicts—the occupation of Palestine and the history of southern Lebanon. Labeling them purely as “terrorists” ignores the sociopolitical context that created them. If you take away the occupation, the resistance naturally shifts its character.
.
Interviewer: Do you believe current US policy is capable of addressing the complexities of these issues?
O’Keefe: We are absolutely at a dead end. The current policy is captured by special interests and a refusal to acknowledge that the unipolar moment is over. Whether it’s the situation in Palestine or the tensions in the Persian Gulf, the US is doubling down on military presence rather than diplomatic engagement. It is failing to see that Iran has regional allies who are deeply integrated into their local populations. You cannot bomb away an ideology or a grassroots movement.
Interviewer: Were there particular moments that changed your perspective?
O’Keefe: Yes. Witnessing the day-to-day realities—whether it’s the impact of sanctions on ordinary people or the ground reality in places like Minab—it shifts your perspective from the abstract maps in the Pentagon to human lives. When you see that the “enemy” is just a civilian trying to live, the entire logic of our foreign intervention collapses.
.
Interviewer: You have argued that sanctions strengthened rather than weakened Iran. How should Western governments better understand the country’s internal resilience?
O’Keefe: The Western media often depicts Iran as a monolith, a purely ideological state. But what they miss is the incredible resilience of the Iranian people and the complexity of their internal social fabric. When you talk about sanctions, you’re not just talking about economic numbers; you’re talking about the disruption of lives. However, this has inadvertently unified different segments of society against external pressure. The Iranian state has learned to build an economy that can withstand significant shocks, which is something the intelligence community in Washington often underestimates.
.
Interviewer: Supporters and critics offer sharply different views of the so-called “resistance axis.” How do you reconcile those perspectives?
O’Keefe: It depends entirely on whose stability you are talking about. If you mean the stability of established regimes that rely on US support, then yes, the resistance axis is a disruptive force. But if you are talking about the stability of local populations resisting foreign-backed occupations or interventions, then they are seen as stabilizers. Look at Lebanon and the role of Hezbollah. They have provided a social and military security net that the Lebanese state itself has struggled to provide. You cannot understand the Middle East if you ignore the fact that these movements are deeply rooted in the local struggles for dignity and sovereignty.
.
Interviewer: You have also been critical of US support for Israel during the war in Gaza. How do you believe that affects prospects for peace?
O’Keefe: Absolutely. The unconditional support for Israel’s military operations in Gaza is creating a generational wound. We are seeing a level of destruction that is unprecedented in the modern era. By providing the munitions and the political cover, the US is effectively backing a policy that precludes any meaningful political solution. This isn’t just about a border dispute; it’s about the fundamental right of the Palestinian people to exist and self-determine. The long-term consequence of this is the radicalization of an entire generation that sees no future within the current international order.
Interviewer: Is there still an opportunity to rebuild relations with Iran and other regional powers?
O’Keefe: There is always a chance, but it requires a fundamental shift in mindset. You cannot achieve diplomacy through maximum pressure. Maximum pressure is a contradiction in terms; it’s actually “maximum isolation.” To engage with Iran or the regional actors, the US must move toward a multi-polar understanding. They need to recognize that their era of unilateral decision-making is over. Real engagement means acknowledging the interests of regional powers and finding a way to coexist, rather than trying to impose a specific political model through force.
Interviewer: You previously mentioned Minab in Iran. Why was that experience so significant?
O’Keefe: Yes, my time in Minab was a turning point. Before that, my understanding of the region was purely strategic—maps, logistics, and threat assessments. But being there, seeing the actual landscape, meeting the people, and understanding the local dynamics... it changed everything. You see how the presence of international sanctions affects the simplest aspects of life—the availability of medicine, the local markets, the way families interact. It makes the “strategic decisions” made in Washington feel incredibly hollow and disconnected from the human reality. Minab is a microcosm of how much the local population has to endure due to policies they had no hand in creating.
Interviewer: You have also criticized Western media coverage of the region. Why do you believe there is such a gap between events on the ground and how they are reported?
O’Keefe: Because the media in the West often operates as an extension of foreign policy rather than an independent observer. They use a specific vocabulary—words like “terrorist,” “rogue state,” or “extremist”—to frame complex historical struggles in a very simplistic, black-and-white way. This framing serves a purpose: it justifies intervention and prevents the public from questioning the morality or the efficacy of those interventions. When you talk about the “resistance axis,” the media frames it as a purely expansionist threat, ignoring the defensive and nationalistic motivations that drive these groups. It is a narrative of convenience, not a narrative of truth.
Interviewer: Finally, what message would you like to leave with viewers and policymakers in the West?
O’Keefe: My message is simple: Stop looking at the Middle East through the lens of fear and hegemony. Start looking at it through the lens of history, culture, and human rights. If you want stability, you must pursue justice. You cannot have security without addressing the root causes of instability—occupation, inequality, and the denial of sovereignty. To the decision-makers: the old playbook is broken. It is time to write a new one.