From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 07:46:16 MST
I originally wrote:
> I can just as easily say that the US should be blamed more for NOT
> maintaining the Shah's Peacock Throne in 1979. Especially when one
> considers that the abdication of the Shah led to the ceasing of Iran
> "as a base for force projection close to the Soviet border". With no
> more US presence in Iran, this gave the Soviets a free hand in the
> region and allowed them to proceed with their invasion of Afghanistan
> in December 1979. This led to the US and Chinese needing to support
> the Mujahadeen to expel the Soviets, which in turn led to the rise of
> Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. So, to use your logic, the rise of
> the terrorism that now threatens US and international security can be
> directly traced to our lack of support of a regime that opposed
> fundamentalist Islamic groups.
To which Sean Kenny responded:
"Iran, 1953: When the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh
nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company, the resulting sanctions on
the country – led by Great Britain and the United States – resulted in
economic hardship and political unrest. Fearing that such instability
could result in a communist takeover and concerned about the precedent
of nationalization on American oil companies elsewhere in the Middle
East, agents of the Central Intelligence Agency organized a military
coup in 1953, ousting the elected prime minister. The United States
returned the exiled Shah to Iran, where he ruled with an iron fist for
more than a quarter century. Tens of thousands of dissidents were
tortured and murdered by his dreaded SAVAK secret police, organized and
trained by the United States. The repression was largely successful in
wiping out the democratic opposition. The SAVAK was less successful in
infiltrating religious institutions, however, so when the revolution
finally took place, toppling the Shah in 1979, the formerly secular Iran
came under the leadership of virulently reactionary and anti-American
Islamists. The result of the Islamic revolution was not only the end of
one of America’s strongest economic and strategic relationships in the
Middle East, but also the hostage crisis of 1979-81, Iranian support for
anti-American terrorist groups, and a series of armed engagements in the
Persian Gulf during the 1980s. Had the United States not overthrown
Iran’s constitutional government in 1953 and replaced it with the
dictatorial Shah, there would not have been the Islamic Revolution and
its bloody aftermath."
I am appreciative of your response, Sean, but I disagree completely
with it. If we wish to continue the rotating game of assigning blame, then I
could then say this. Had not Islamic fanatics of the terrorist organization
Fedaiyan-e Islam (Devotees of Islam) assassinated then Iranian Prime Minister
Ali Razmara in 1951, Mohammed Mossadegh would never have been appointed Prime
Minister in Iran (by the Shah, who you heavily criticize, a point I will
address shortly). Razmara staunchly opposed nationalization of the oil
companies on the grounds that Iran should abide by its international
agreements and because he felt they could not run the oil fields alone.
A continued Razmara administration then would not have nationalized
the oil fields, the sanctions you speak of would never have occurred, and a
pro-western regime endorsed by the Western powers would have been continually
aided and supported Iran for the foreseeable future. Therefore, not only are
the Islamic fundamentalists to blame for the chaos in Iran in 1978-79, they
are also to blame for the difficulties which occurred in the 1950's.
Let me say now that I am partly to blame for this game of "Who did
what" oneupsmanship. In responding to Mez originally, as is seen above, I
responded more forcefully than perhaps what was appropriate. I took strong
issue with his apparent claims that US foreign policy during the Cold War was
somehow intentionally anti-democracy. In my subsequent discussions with Mez
we were able to clarify and elaborate on our positions. Though I did not
agree completely with him, I found him to be a fair, thoughtful, and
intelligent poster. But, given my initial reaction, I am not surprised that
Sean replied in the manner in which he did.
Having addressed the hyperbole on both sides, I would like now to
address my main concern with Sean's post. As I commented to Mez, I cannot
abide judgments passed on US foreign policy that make it appear these
decisions were being made in a vacuum. To "describe" the US-Iranian
relationship during the Cold War without once mentioning the Soviet Union, as
Sean does, is to simply ignore reality. I find it even more unfortunate that
he did not in his rebuttal address my point, which was that the abdication of
the Shah played a direct role in the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.
It is simply not realistic to suggest otherwise. The transformation of Iran
from a pro-western nation with US bases to a nation completely hostile to it
had a profound impact on Soviet thinking. All one need do is look at a map of
the region.
At the same time, I will acknowledge that the question of whether or
not the United States and Great Britain should have removed the regime of
Mohammed Mossadegh is one that can be debated. However, let us not make that
regime into something it was not. Mossadegh did have some "liberal" and
nationalist qualities that can be appreciated, but it had and did use the
authoritarian control at its disposal. That is not to say that under his
leadership it could not have evolved into a full-fledged democracy, but that
was not the likely outcome. In its alienation from the United States and its
camp, the most likely source of the much needed aid that would've been
required to maintain stability would've come from the Soviets. Needless to
say, the track record of the Soviet Union in spreading democracy to its
dependents during the Cold War was a decidedly bad one. Additionally, even if
one wishes to take the highly unlikely position that Iran would've somehow
remained above influence, democracies did not exactly "pop up out of nowhere"
in the third world of the 1950's and '60's. Those that somehow did found
themselves quickly ousted by military coup d'etat.
Another serious issue I have with Sean's post is his characterization of the
regime of the Shah of Iran. In his post Sean succinctly points out the
methods of repression used by the Shah, methods which would lead to the
imprisonment (and in many cases deaths) of thousands of Iranians during his
25 year regime. This was the dark side of the Pahlavi regime, and something
that should be rightfully pointed out. However, Sean in no way gives any sort
of historical context to his analysis. What third world regime of this era
did not utilize these tactics? Anwar Sadat, a man whose courage to deal with
the Israelis is something I greatly admire, was certainly guilty of this kind
of repression. Syngman Rhee executed 2000 suspected Communists in South Korea
without trial in the early 1950's. Certainly no regime in the Communist camp
could plead innocent to this barbarism. In illustrating that other regimes
operated in the same way, I do not seek to excuse or justify the Shah's
repression. I merely mean to make clear that to pretend or ignore that others
didn't is at best ridiculous. To allow unfettered dissent in such a time was
to show weakness and vulnerability and sow the seeds of one's own demise, as
the Shah would learn a quarter century later. This was the unfortunate
reality of this era. The majority of nations in the world were not
democracies during the 20th Century. A large portion of the blame for this
can be placed on the Soviet Union, which attempted to foster a climate of the
exact opposite system of government throughout the globe. To somehow blame
repression, or worse a lack of democracy, on the United States is absurd, as
it somehow suggests that the world would have had more democracies had the US
chosen a policy of inaction and less influence.
By merely describing the Shah as a heartless tyrant and brutal monster, Sean
does a great disservice to both the debate and to much needed perspective.
The Shah had many failings, yes. Aside from his authoritarianism, he was also
an eccentric who failed to realize his own limitations. But the Shah also
succeeded in bringing a quality of life to the Iranians that was not known to
anyone else in the Middle East outside of Israel. He sought to modernize his
nation and lessen its dependence on the West. In his time he was able to
succeed in ways that many Arab rulers have not to this day. And those that
would suggest he was merely a puppet of the United States choose to greatly
oversimplify matters. His role in the raising of oil prices in the 1970's
benefited his nation, not a United States beset by resulting gas shortages
and lines. He was no more of a puppet than Japan's Shigeru Yoshida, whose
foreign policy initiatives of the 1950's repeatedly frustrated Washington.
This labeling merely illustrates the moral relativism that would somehow
describe the political systems of the United States and the Soviet Union as
equals throughout the Cold War. Never is it illustrated that the proxies of
the Americans had the chance to live lives that their Soviet counterparts
could only dream of, and the descriptions of Iran are no exception.
The Shah's accomplishments, especially when compared to those of his
neighbors, remain impressive. By 1977, the average household income in Iran
was 2,200 dollars. Today in Iran it is only 1600. In Syria only 960 dollars.
This number becomes even more astounding when one considers the figure in
Iran in 1965 was only 300 dollars.
He was also determined that his people become a literate one. The
literary rate in Iran in 1977 was 85%. Today, it is only 72%, with Iraq at
58% and Egypt at 51%. Primary school attendance rose from 270,000 in 1960 to
over 10 million in 1977.
The Shah saw to it that the first major universities, hospitals, and
highways in Iran were completed. His regime approved suffrage for women in
1963, in addition to allowing them to complete university study.
66% of Iranians owned their homes by 1977, with many of them in fact
owning an apartment in addition that they would rent out to finance their
children's education in the United States and in Europe. It embittered the
Shah that he had provided a way for Iran's young to be educated abroad, only
to see them return and protest the "emptiness" of his regime.
It was a bitterness he would not suffer long. After evacuating Tehran
on January 16, 1979, the Shah would eventually spend his last days in Egypt
as a guest of his friend President Sadat. Denied asylum by the United States,
he would die of cancer in Cairo in July 1980.
Regards,
Max Plumm
"Courageous, sir? It does not take courage to stand up for a friend. I only
did what was right."
-Anwar Sadat, responding to being
told his decision to accept the Shah was 'courageous'.
"The final verdict of history is not rendered quickly. It takes not just
years but decades to be handed down. Few leaders live to hear the verdict."
-Richard Nixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 07:48:43 MST