The Iranian Election Crisis: Why History dictates that the United States needs to remain on the sidelines.
Over the past two weeks, President Obama has been criticized by Republicans that he has failed to respond with outrage over the Iranian Election and subsequent civil unrest, which has swept that nation. Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham have demanded that President Obama condemn the corrupted Iranian election and subsequent actions of the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi. On the other hand, Sen. Lugar presently supports the President and did not sleep through his class on American Foreign Policy, which dealt with Iran. It’s obvious that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham, as well as others did! McCain and Lieberman have gone so far as to support a Resolution in the Senate condemning Iran as has the House of Representatives. Rep. Ron Paul was the lone dissenter and obviously the only Rep with any knowledge of American/Iranian history or common sense!
Author Kenneth Pollack, in his book “The Persian Puzzle” bases the premise that “Iranians know too much of American history and Americans know too little of Iranian history.” That statement is fact! Looking back into the past one hundred years, both the United Kingdom and the United States and seriously meddled in Iranian affairs. Britain was first to get their greedy claws into Iranian affairs with the discovery of oil. William D’Arcy, a British entrepreneur, struck a deal with the hated Cossack Mohammad Ali Shah in 1901 for British concessions for oil. It was discovered in 1908 and by 1909, set up the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, later to become British Petroleum with the lion’s share of profits. By 1914, the British Government became a principal shareholder in the company, so that the British Navy sailed on Iranian oil in World War I. Persia now was threatened to be a British protectorate after WW I and in 1919, Renza Shah Pahlavi returned to establish a new dynasty, hopefully controlled by the United Kingdom and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. That was not to be the case and in 1932, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s concession was terminated. Persia was renamed Iran in 1936 and the Shah looked towards Nazi Germany as a trading partner. In 1941, Britain and the USSR invaded and occupied Iran and with the abdication of the Shah, his son Mohammad Shah was crowned, who adopted liberal reforms with the blessings of the Majlis (Parliament) and the Allies.
After WW II, a tug of war began ensued the US and the USSR as to Iran and its oil. During this period, British Petroleum was having its own tug of war over oil rights with Iran, which ended up with the Iranian Parliament voting for no further concessions to the British and they retaliated with an embargo, thus creating havoc in the Iranian economy. Out of the Iranian internal struggles emerged Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, and on April 29, 1951, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was evicted and Iranian oil was nationalized. While the fate of Iranian oil was being argued before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, The British used the potential of Soviet aggression to influence the Eisenhower Administration to initiate “Operation Ajax.” Its aim was essentially to overthrow the elected Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and the man chosen to accomplish was Kermit Roosevelt Jr., the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, a senior officer in the CIA had the advantage of operating under the cover of American innocence, as the US had previously sided with Iran with their struggles with the British over Iranian oil concessions, as the US had previously loaned the $26 million dollars in 1948. With the backing of the CIA and British Intelligence, Roosevelt was able to assist Iranian General Fazullah Zahedi’s overthrow of Prime Minister Mossedek and reinstate the Shah, who had been exiled to Italy. The US immediately loaned the Shah $45 million dollars to both stabilize the country, secure power and keep the oil flowing! With the United States’ full support, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ruled with an iron fist until his overthrow in January of 1979.
American meddling didn’t stop with the Islamic Revolution. During the Iran – Iraq War (1979-1988), The Untied States removed Iraq from the list of states that sponsor terrorism in 1982 and from a classified directive from the CIA, our policy towards Iraq was to do “whatever was necessary and legal” for Iraq to defeat Iran. That required billions of dollars of credit, providing military intelligence and the illegal sale of chemical weapons. We supplied Iraq with everything from anthrax to botulism! Saddam Hussein used these against both Iran and the Kurds in the north of Iraq! We were not the only country to sell these weapons as France, Germany and other nations participated. Millions died! To top this off, after 9/11, the United States needed the support of the Northern Alliance, if they were to pursue and defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. In December of 2001, the Iranian government under the moderate President Khatami helped to accomplish this at UN talks in Bonn, Germany. We shared a common goal as enemies of the Taliban regime and the US could not have had the assistance of the Northern Alliance without Iran’s help. What did we do to thank them…..President George W. Bush included Iran in “The Axis of Evil” in his State of the Union Speech in January 2002!
I have tried to give a brief synopsis of the relationship between the United States, Britain and Iran since the turn of the Twentieth Century. It’s ugly! President Obama must be very careful, given our interference in Iranian affairs, during these elections. The mullahs are waiting for ONE mistaken remark from Washington. With that, they can hang the entire crisis on American interference! Obviously the Republicans are either ignorant of our history with Iran, or have chosen a position to criticize the President, from which he cannot respond! We have no idea where this crisis in Iran will go. As far as any response to the Election, we must remain quiet. However, if the crisis widens, the United States will have to respond, no matter what the consequences are. Really Pissed Off will attempt to continue to set you straight on what is happening in Iran….no spin….no bullshit!
President Obama's remarks regarding the Iranian Election:
Comments
Merci. J'ai un nouveau
Merci. J'ai un nouveau projet pour la mise en machine а sous œuvre de son manque de connaissances techniques très ici. Avec l'éducation de votre vostanovlyayu aider problely!
Translated into English:
"Thank you. I have a new project for the development machine а work under its very lack of technical knowledge here." "With the education of your vostanovlyayu problely help!"
I found the original posting
I found the original posting clear, but the above comment was rough sledding. So, let me just say that I find the reluctance of the US government to stick its oar into other people's waters very refreshing. There is a hubris that we have been exuding for some time now, which needs to be tempered with some good old un-American humility. A little diplomatic discretion goes a long way.
Steve P.
http://zombietunecrypt.blogspot.com/
In this particular case, the
In this particular case, the U.S. has no other choice but to keep its distance. There may be other situations where we may intervene, but through diplomatic channels. The Bush Administration removed the word “diplomacy” from its vocabulary and the U.S. has to re-establish diplomatic relations with much of the World! As for Iran, Lenny Bruce said it best in his “Religions Inc.” bit when he said…”We still have to do business with these assholes!”
Ouch!.......That’s a cut
Ouch!.......That’s a cut to the quick! My attempt was to state the surrounding historical facts in regards to what both the United States and Britain should remain in the sidelines on the Iranian Election. I do not believe that I presented and “facts” which could not be substantiated. The article was only written as an historical synopsis over the past century. I chose not to embellish anything in the article and allow the reader to understand why Iran dislikes the United States government, as well as 10 Downing Street.
I could have turned History around to explain why it was in our best interests to initiate “Operation Ajax” as a crucial part of the Cold War and the fear that the Soviet Union might well take advantage of “situation” with the Mossadegh Government. Our best interests lay with the return of the Shah and stability to the region. With the Shah in power and in our pockets, the Soviet Union was contained. It makes perfect sense, given the state of the Cold War. But that doesn’t excuse our participation in it to the Iranian people. They had to live under the thumb of the Shah and in the shadow of the United States military presence. They didn’t like it!!
Regarding my remark of “no spin”….you forgot to address “no bullshit,” I was attempting to inform the reader that what they read was had been written using historical facts. I was having some fun by including “no spin” as everything you read today is spin…..including RPO. I spin the facts as well to make my talking points, but this time I felt that I would hold back. Apparently, you didn’t believe I did, but I cannot please everyone. If you can suggest another way of presenting the history between Iran and the United States, I would enjoy publishing it on RPO. Thanks, Tom
For nearly a year I have
For nearly a year I have avoided lists and jousts of public commentary. I find there are so many experts on everything from the economy, politics, diplomacy and gardening that the company of a good book was more soothing; the flip of a page easier on my ears. And with all those experts in bars, coffee-houses, locker-rooms, church groups and any gathering of more than one, the world shouldn't have any problems at all. After all, when we were getting to the point we are now, these experts were all right here.
When the offer to bring the world up to date on events I generally set my appreciation for the messenger. When the message is laced with visceral partisan hatred I appreciate that as well, for what it is. When reading history from direct or indirect sources or editorialized, I always remind myself that, as it’s man tracking man’s journey, it’s subject to inherent fallibility.
So when I find myself presented with, “No hype, no spin....just a fast History lesson.” I think of Churchill’s remark that “History will be good to me, for I intend to write it.”
I find the record used to portray the situation is pretty accurate. And it truly stays in the form of the Blame America First fashion and, as referred to above, employs opportunity to season the serving with visceral partisan hatred, and covers the Iranian situation of a population abiding in victimization.
So, we might have a difference. And, there are considerable interpretations that allow differences.
I’m not inclined to the Jingoism that some have shouted, nor the excuses offered for silence.
That the President had nothing say, was only prudent; frankly honest. I agree that Ron Paul acted prudently for the sake of the United States. Otherwise, I'll make no appraisal of other personalities.
But, I’ll defer to, and allow for, those who want to declare some interpretations of history as orthodoxy, and cite themselves as the primary interpreters and moral interlocutors. Take the opportunity and run with it.
I’ll leave it with attribution to part of your statement:
“No hype, no spin....just”….statecraft.
Post new comment