|
Sunday, August 07, 2005 Iran and US - At The Abyss I spent some time in Iran, trading for Intrafi and gleaning information for Jack Kennedy who, at that time, was a Senator. My first times there were in the late 50's. The Shah had been back on the throne since 1953. He was re-installed by violent local demonstrations backed by the British and Americans. Oil, of course, was the reason. There had been a power struggle between Mohammed Mossedgh, the Prime Minister, and the Shah. Mossedgh was nationalizing the oil industry and flirting with the Russians. The British, under Churchill, depended on Iran for oil. They asked Eisenhower for help. Kim Roosevelt of the CIA was given the job and his British counterpart was Peter Sterling. They were successful in removing Mossedgh and getting the Shah back from Italy where he had fled. There were two sides to this story, a local power struggle and the interference of foreigners from the UK and US. On my various trips there I had the opportunity to observe quite a bit of the local scene and in particular to spend time with the Shah's family. There was no question about their affection for the US. As FDR had said about Somosa (the US installed dictator of Nicaragua), "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch." However the Shah was no son-o-a-bitch. Yes, he was increasingly grand in public appearances. In most ways he was only reflecting proud side of the Iranian people. Their great Persian heritage far exceeded the history of the US and for that matter of England. After all it was only Alexander who was able to conquer that empire. Personally the Shah was quite shy and very pleasant to be with. Knowledge of English history could have helped the Shah is his struggle during the later days of his reign. Henry VIII had two great problems, the Barons and the Clergy. He took on the Clergy and won. Elizabeth had to deal with the Barons. The Shah took on the Ayatollahs and the great Landlords at the same time. He was trying to curb the power of the clergy and see a more equitable distribution of land. He was moving his country more into the secular westernized form of government. He was a great promoter, with western backing, of the advance of nuclear power, a move of great prescience. Meanwhile the clergy, many from out of Iran, were vilifying him and the Savak (interior police). They had the support of many of the liberal media over the world. When the error of the Shah's double challenges became apparent the clergy under the guise of religion began to make their moves. The US government, under Carter, stood back and as many said, pulled the rug out from under the Shah. By this time he was a very ill man and it is doubtful that he had the strength to be his usual self. Many have said that the US administration acted correctly in not going to his side as they had decades before; that we had no business in interfering in local scenes. Of course such an attitude totally ignores the constant interference of our government then and now in foreign affairs. Our adventures in overseas activities are constantly coming home in the most negative ways. Current, recent and past administrations have ignored our founding fathers warnings that we have no foreign entanglements. Look at the most recent situation, the flip flops with Saddam Hussein. So what did losing the Shah mean? To US a mortal enemy has emerged not only seizing our embassy but supporting terrorism worldwide. They have undone the relations with Israel and supported the terrorist movement there. Now they plan to build nuclear weapons which can only increase the destabilization of the area and the world. For sure let us not forget the blood bath of Iranians which has followed the clergy's rise to power. Nothing ever done by the Savak can compare with what has followed and exists nowadays in Iran. Our past, recent and current actions have created an increasingly dangerous situation for the peace of the world. I was driving once with a very knowlegeable and important editor who asked what I thought was the most serious problem in the Middle East. I said it all started with losing the Shah in Iran. He agreed. What would I have done? After exhausting every possible negotiation and maneuver and as opposed to war as I am, I would have invaded Iran instead of Iraq. If we are going to follow our strategic interests that would have been the most pragmatic action. A Bush-like administration will probably do it anyway... if we are doubtfully capable after the debacles of Afghanistan and Iraq. |
ARTICLES
OF NOTE
Eminent Domain Message From London Our Larger Middle Eastern Problem What Is Really Obscene Query From Overseas Well Off and Homeless - A Paradox Arrogance, Ignorance, Oil and the Word of God Growth Hatred ARCHIVES December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005
|
