From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 14:56:45 MST
MaxPlumm@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
According to people I know who escaped from Iran, it is quite
accurate.
> If we wish to continue the rotating game of
> assigning blame, then I could then say this.
Do you think that is all or even primarily what this is? To me
it looks more like attempting to honestly understand what
happened. It may not be the whole story but it is one important
slice of the story. If it is excluded out of discomfort or
disagreement with other takes then our understanding is poorer
and we are less likely to reach conclusions and take actions
that are actually helpful toward our deepest goals.
> 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.
>
Does this though deny the other side or add aspects and
dimensions to the unfolding story?
> 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.
>
This seems rather silly doesn't it? You are claiming one
assasination is responsible for everything?
> 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.
It is well known that we have often acted intentionally
anti-democracy in several countries in the world. It is
pointless and unhelpful to deny this.
> 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.
Do you then believe the Cold War justifies real terrorism
against societies and governments around the world? That the
end, slowing, halting and rolling back Soviet expansion,
justified any and all means? If so, then why would you have
trouble admitting just how vile some of the means were?
>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.
>
I think your point is rather minor in this fuller context
presented, don't you?
> 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.
Good.
> 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?
But how many of them were proped up so strongly by the US?
>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.
How is this even relevant? That other monsters existed did not
make the Shah, who we supported, any less monstrous.
> 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.
Would you support the US deciding this is the reality and using
such means on its own citizens? The legal instruments that
would eventually allow it are being forged even as we discuss
this.
> 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.
>
When we support and prop up governments making them much less
likely to be subject to change by their people, we act
anti-democractically and act to repress those who would change
their country toward greater democracy. Influcence and action
that increases what we do not want and gets little of what we do
want is not very wise action or influence. Historically we must
understand what we actually did and its unintended consequences.
> 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 did some great things, sure. So did the Soviet Union.
But that doesn't mean we did not also err greatly in our
support for him when we did not do more to stop his very
negative and anti-democratic aspects.
The literacy rate is sad when I think of the current only 88%
literacy rate among Caucasians in the US and the approximately
65% literacy rate of African Americans that I recently saw
reported.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 14:53:04 MST