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.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 7th, 2005 at 11:12 AM and filed under Articles. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.
I’m surprised you’d invade Iran. I think our big problems have less to do with which nation we invade but that we keep invading.
As I recall there’s another Bear tale about how you were supposed to hang out with the shah the week his palace was stormed but were not there because of a last minute polo invitation. At least that’s how I tell the story.
Posted on 08-Aug-05 at 5:45 am | PermalinkHave you read the book “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” by Stephen Kinzer? It describes the CIA-backed coup in fascinating detail and how it led to the Khomeni takeover 25 years later and to our present dilemma. History shows that undermining democracy for our own selfish ends (as we did in 1953 and many times since) and/or invading other nations will NEVER solve our problems and will ALWAYS make things worse in the long run!
Posted on 08-Aug-05 at 1:56 pm | PermalinkMICHAEL, YOU ARE ON THE MONEY RELATIVE TO IRAN. WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED THEM FIRST.
Posted on 10-Aug-05 at 12:06 pm | PermalinkAS FOR THE “DEBACLE” IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, LET’S LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE, THE REALLY BIG PICTURE.
FIRST OF ALL, I VOTED FOR GORE. THANKFULLY, HE WAS DEFEATED. IMAGINE AL IN THE SITUATION ROOM WITH HIS UNIVERSITY DEBATING TEAM PHILOSOPHIZING ABOUT HOW TO CONTAIN ALL THIS CRAZINESS IN THE RADICAL MUSLIM WORLD; SCARY!
STEP BACK INTO SPACE AND LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST, A BOILING CAULDRON OF MIXED RADICALISM THAT SPEWS VITRIOLE AND VENOM IN ALL DIRECTIONS AND IS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL.
WE NOW HAVE A ‘KIND-OF-DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ AND A SIMILAR SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN. IT’S NOT OUR KIND OF DEMOCRACY, BUT A MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM WHAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE KNOWN FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS; EVEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
IT WILL SETTLE DOWN. GERMANY AND JAPAN SETTLED DOWN AFTER WW2. IT WILL FIND ITS OWN LEVEL.
HALF THE POPULATION OF IRAN IS UNDER 25. THEY DONT REMEMBER THE HOSTAGE CRISIS AND THEY DONT WANT THE MULLAHS IN THE BACK ROOM TELLING THEM THEY CANT WATCH SATELLITE TV, GO TO DISCOS AND SMOKE. THEY DONT WANT TO BE TRUE TO SHARIA LAW FROM THE MIDDLE AGES, THEY WANT A MODERN AND EDUCATED AND LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. THIS WILL HAPPEN BY ITSELF OR WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM OUR FRIENDS IN THE REGION.
SYRIA IS NOW SHUDDERING AT THE THOUGHT OF 100 THOUSAND WELL ARMED MILITARY ON THEIR BORDER READY TO INVADE IF THEY DONT STOP THEIR SUPPORT OF FOREIGN TERRORISTS CROSSING INTO IRAQ AND CREATING PROBLEMS.
EVENTUALLY, SYRIA WILL ALSO FALL THEN THE DICTATORIAL GRIP THAT THE ASSADS AND THE BATHISTS HAVE HAD ON THE COUNTRY WILL DISAPPEAR AND THEY TOO WILL FIND THEIR OWN BRAND OF DEMOCRACY.
SO….IF WE HAVE DEMOCRACIES IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ AND IRAN AND SYRIA, THE OTHER GULF COUNTRIES WILL BE OBLIGED TO FOLLOW VOLUNTARILY OR FALL APART TRYING TO HANG ON TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS.
THOSE COUNTRIES WILL BE HESITANT TO SUPPORT TERRORISM BECAUSE SUDDENLY IT IS NOT GOOD ECONOMIC BUSINESS TO CONTINUE ON THIS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE PATH TO NOWHERE.
AND THIS NEW WAVE OF FREEDOM WILL INFILTRATE AND INFECT THE SICKNESS OF PAST GENERATIONS.
SO BACK TO OUR SPACIAL VIEW. WE NOW HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF DEMOCRACIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND FOR THE MOST PART, BEHAVING THEMSELVES.
WE HAVE OUR BEST FRIEND IN THE REGION, ISRAEL, MONITORING WITH THEIR MOSSAD GUYS ON THE GROUND EVERY MOVEMENT OF EVERY RADICAL GROUP.
IF WE ARE TO CONTINUE TO DEPEND ON THIS REGION FOR OUR LIFESUPPORT (OIL), THEN WE NEED IT TO BE FREE OF RADICALISM AND SELF HATRED.
I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT WHAT IS GOOD FOR ISRAEL IS GOOD FOR AMERICA. AFTER ALL, THEY ARE OUR ONLY DEPENDABLE LONGTIME FRIEND IN THE MIDDLE EAST. AND THEY HAVE CONTINUOUSLY SUPPLIED US WITH EXTREMEMLY VALUABLE INFORMATION ON THE MOVEMENTS OF OUR SWORN ENEMIES.
AS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT LOYAL TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY, I AM SEEING THE POSSIBILITIES OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN FROM WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE REGION.
YES, WE CAN CRITICIZE THE HOW’S AND WHEREFORES, BUT THE LIST OF MISTAKES IN WW2 AND WW1 AND THE BAY OF PIGS AND OTHER MILITARY ADVENTURES IN OUR LIFETIME IS LONG AND PAINFUL BECAUSE OF THE LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE.
BUT WHO REALLY KNOWS HOW TO PROSECUTE A WAR WITH NO CASUALTIES.
CHURCHILL WAS RIGHT…”WAR IS HELL”
BUT THINK OF THE DELIGHTFUL IRONY OF GEORGE W. BEING THE ONLY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY TO HAVE MADE A SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS.
I HOPE WHEN ALL THE DUST SETTLES, THAT IS HIS LEGACY.
AND ALL MY TO-THE-DEATH LIBERAL FRIENDS WHO BITCH ABOUT GEORGE AND HIS BAND OF ‘WAR-MONGERS, BUT NEVER HAVE EVEN ONE ALTERNATE SUGGESTION ABOUT HOW TO REACT TO TERROR ON OUR SOIL, OTHER THAN TO PACIFY THEM AND MAKE NICE, SHOULD BE GRATEFUL WE HAVE A COWBOY RUNNING THINGS FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHO WONT TAKE ANY SHIT FROM ANYONE.