How Obama Can Further U.S.-Iran Relations

PARIS - Iran is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its historic 1979 Islamic revolution, a seismic event that shocked Washington and changed the political landscape of the Mideast.

The prevailing view of Iran in North America is that of angry, bearded men and chador-clad women chanting 'Death to America,' and its bombastic president, Mohammed Ahmadinejad, blasting the West and Israel, and secretly working on nuclear weapons.

To understand why relations between Tehran and the West are so bitter, and Iranians so angry at the West, we must look back at the historical context.

Iran's jagged relations with the West began during World War II. In 1941, the British Empire and Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied the independent kingdom of Persia, as it was then known. This oil-motivated aggression was every bit as much wanton aggression as the German-Soviet occupation of Poland in 1939, but has been blanked out of western history texts.

The Allies deposed Iran's ruler, Reza Shah, and installed his weak, pliant son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, on the throne as the latest puppet ruler in the British Empire.

But in 1951, a highly popular Iranian democratic leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, became prime minister and promptly nationalized Iran's British-owned oil industry, ordering its profits be used to lift Iran from poverty rather than enriching Britain. The Shah and his entourage of western advisors fled.

Two years later, U.S. and British intelligence mounted a coup that overthrew Mossadegh, ending Iran's first democratic government. The Shah was restored to the Peacock Throne. Iran's oil wealth returned to British and, now, U.S. control. Washington and London proclaimed they had won an important victory against 'Communism.'

Washington and London set about turning Shah Pahlavi into the 'gendarme of the Gulf' to protect their oil interests. The Shah quickly blossomed into a megalomaniac, styling himself the 'Shah of Shahs,' and 'Imperial Light of the Aryans' (Iranians are an ancient Indo-European people), comparing himself to the ancient Persian emperors, Darius and Xerxes.

The Shah's relatives and Iran's tiny ruling, western-oriented elite looted the nation, living like pre-Revolution Russian royalty. Wives of the elite flew to Paris to have their hair done for gala parties. The nation's oil revenues went to buy large amounts of U.S. and British arms and build gaudy palaces. The rest of Iran remained mired in abject poverty as the nouveau riche royal court flaunted its wealth.

Iran's elite put on European airs and dismissed Islam as a backwards faith of superstitious peasants. In this sense, they much resembled today's so-called urban 'secular' Turks who bitterly oppose Islam.

Iranians who objected to the court's lurid ostentation, Iran's status as a Western puppet, or the looting of its oil wealth, were branded Communists or Islamic fanatics.

Savak, the vastly powerful security agency, imposed a reign of terror on Iran. American and Israeli experts advised and taught Savak. Real and imagined opponents of the Shah, the Shia clergy, and leftists all fell victim to Savak, whose tortures and brutalities were legendary, even by brutal Mideast standards.

Iran and Israel, both hostile to their Arab neighbors, became very close allies, to the fury of deeply religious Iranians and the Shia clergy, which strongly supported the Palestinians. The Shah even negotiated to buy Israeli missiles with nuclear warheads in exchange for a steady supply of oil. Dick Cheney flew to Tehran and offered to sell Iran 26 nuclear reactors.

By the late 1970s, the Shah's grandiose imperial pretensions, the arrant corruption of his family, and the elite's scorning of Islam brought Iran to a boil. In 1979, an exiled Shia religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, returned from exile in France and led a popular revolution that quickly overthrew the hated Shah. The U.S. was caught flat footed by Iran's revolution. It had relied entirely on Savak for political information.

Popular fury quickly turned against the Shah's primary supporter, the U.S. Mobs stormed the U.S. Embassy, taking hostage and bringing the two nations close to war. Shredded CIA documents patiently pieced together by Iranian women showed the amazing extent of the Central Intelligence Agency's influence over Iran. CIA's Iranian 'assets' in the military and court were shot.

Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed his nation's oil wealth would be devoted to social programs. He called on the U.S.-backed Arab oil states to follow the Koran's teachings and share their wealth with poor Muslims everywhere. He called for the overthrow of other Mideast rulers, whom he damned as illegitimate apostates, thieves, and western stooges.

Washington and London immediately began planning the overthrow of Iran's new revolutionary Islamic government which directly threatened the Anglo-American domination of the Mideast - the 'American Raj,' as I call it in my new book of the same name. CIA mounted a number of military coups. All failed. Forty percent of Iran's government leaders were assassinated by the Marxist underground group, 'People's Mujahidin.'

In 1980, when these efforts failed to overthrow the Islamic regime, the U.S., Britain and their Arab oil clients got another U.S. `gendarme,' -- Iraq's Saddam Hussein - to invade Iran.

The resulting bloody, eight year Iran-Iraq war cost Iran one million casualties, half of them dead. Iran thus suffered more dead in this war than the U.S. did in World War II. So violent and desperate was the World War I-style trench fighting that 12-year old Iranian boys and old men went forward to clear Iraqi minefields with their bodies. Iranian volunteers delivered suicidal human-wave attacks against entrenched Iraqi forces.

The U.S., Britain, and the oil Arabs financed and helped arm Iraq. Israel sold Iran a reported $5 billion in U.S. arms and spare parts. Europe supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, food and arms. U.S. satellites monitored Iran's forces and fed the vital information to Baghdad.

After the U.S. Navy entered the war on Iraq's side, Iran was forced to sue for peace. Iran lay in financial and emotional ruins, with an entire generation killed in battle or horribly maimed by Iraq's western-supplied chemical weapons that included the burning agents mustard gas and lewisite, chlorine, cyanide, and a variety of deadly nerve gases.

As I discovered in Baghdad in 1990, the U.S. and Britain were also supplying Iraq with germ weapons, notably anthrax, for use against massed Iranian formations.

Rightly or wrongly, most Iranians blame the West for their historical suffering. They see the Western powers and Israel continuing efforts to overthrow their government, isolate Iran, and seize its oil. Many Iranians expect their nuclear program to be attacked by either Israel or the U.S.

A former highly decorated, courageous commander in the Iran-Iraq War, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who led many dangerous missions behind Iraqi lines, is today the president of Iran. While Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei retains the nation's real executive power, the bombastic, anti-western Ahmadinejad speaks for much of Iran's people.

President Barack Obama, who says he wants to open serious talks with Iran and establish better relations will have his work cut out for him. His first step is to read Iran's modern history.

Comments

[bbender123]

Last continuance (look down for what I said before)

I don't think you explained enough the geopolitical of the Iran - Iraq war, and the US/Israel/West's involvement with it. I think here there is many places to lay accusations, because many parties didn't help the peace. You casually mentioned Iran purchased weapons from Israel. My question is: don't you think this deserves further explanation. Hezbollah took hostage Americans and Israelis, in exchange for their release they secured weapons. Iran also paid for weapons from the US and Israel. Iran and Israel have at times had a symbiotic relationship. True. What about this?

Furthermore, during the Iran - Iraq war, Iran was overpowered militarily. Khomeini, instead of seeking some sort of international effort to end the war, sent millions of Iranians over the border in human wave attack. Many of these Iranians were children and most did not have weapons. Khomeini sent them over to show Irans resolve and to absorb bullets.

Finally, you say in your article (rather flippantly) that "Rightly or Wrongly blame the West for their historical suffering" Well its because of the bastardization of history that you supplied here that people can solely blame the West for Iran's troubles.

[bbender123]

continuation from last comment...

When the Shah was put back in power Iran undertook many modernizing reforms. And indeed prior to 1979 in the early 70s these reforms began to take hold. The opposition to the Shah was composed of mainly three fronts. Mossadegh loyalist (nationalist); the clerical establishment (headed by Khomeini); and marxist/leninists. These three parties essentially worked together to overthrow the Shah. Which most likely wouldn't have happened if the Shah had more of his troops stationed in Tehran.

Once Khomeini came into power, he persecuted and executed many secular Iranians, and those whom he deemed were violating his set of moral codes. Many Iranians fled. While you speak of the Savak in your article, there tactics never led to the mass migration of so many Iranians as happened after Khomeini came into power. This piece of evidence alongside many other realistic accounts of how repressive the Savak was would lead us to believe that they were not as repressive as you claim.

Khomeini sanctioned the abrogation of international law when he allowed demonstrators to take hostage 444 Americans. (Vienna Convention on diplomatic Relations). It is also widely believed that Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers.

Iran has used oil wealth to help finance Hezbollah and Hamas. Besides their random attacks on innocents and combatants alike, Hamas and Hezbollah have killed opposition in many other countries in the world (like Argentina and the US).

To be continued one more time...

[bbender123]

Reading your article, it's a wonder how anyone could ever like the US or for that matter the rest of the West. I think the history of our relations is much more nuanced and detailed then what you are delivering here. While your article may be good to incite US apologist, it does little to really add to this discussion.

I can't speak with much authority on this subject, but I will add some depth to your article with a few points of my own:
The US - Iranian oil contract was much fairer than the Iranian - British oil contract. With the US granting 50% of the royalties of oil revenues to the Shah government. British granted far less, around 6%. This arrangement was similar to what the US had with Mexico.

When Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, the Iranian economy suffered because Mossadegh didn't have the foresight to realize that there is a substantial amount of technical expertise needed in operating an oil industry. After he gained control, he couldn't manage it, and the Iranian economy suffered vastly. While the terms of the British - Iranian oil deal were less than fair, history tells us that Mossadegh could have done his country a favor if he only realized that there were nicer deals out there like the one that would occur with the US.

To be continued...

[Liberterna]

"When Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, the Iranian economy suffered because Mossadegh didn't have the foresight to realize that there is a substantial amount of technical expertise needed in operating an oil industry. After he gained control, he couldn't manage it, and the Iranian economy suffered vastly.

IT WASN'T MISMANAGEMENT

The Shah signed a deal selling Iranian oil to the Anglo Persian Oil Company, which today is called British Petroleum (BP). When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to nationalize Iran's oil assets, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy.

It was the fact that Britain embargo'd Iranian Oil Ports with its navy. Commanded all the British subjects that were being offered a higher salary by the new management to stay to leave Iran or face treason charges.

Read All the Shah's Men for an American account of the events.

or for an interview jist of it watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j33TSxTMVJ8

[bbender123]

You are right with that comment, but I guess the point that I was trying to make was that Mossadegh's actions - although they were meant to help the Iranian people - actually hurt them. Mossadegh didn't take heed of the power realities of the time. If he did, he may have seen other options on the table, such as a restructuring of the deal, and a building of better ties that would help Iran become less dependent.

[Liberterna]

Thank you Mr. Margolis, a very accurate depiction of Iranian perspective.

Iranians and Americans share a commonality most imperial people do, they don't take orders well.

But luckily Iran's interests and America's are converging rapidly in the Middle East. If the Israeli Lobby allows it to happen, Iran can be a most useful ally in the mid-east. (ally not a puppet)

[RobotRockRod]

Iran, RENOUNCE terrorism!!!

united states, APOLOGIZE for history!!!

...let the friendship begin??!

[Hass]

Actually, you've seriously understated the amount and type of aid that the United States (under Reagan) provided to Saddam during the Iran-IRaq war. Iraq was in fact removed from the State Department's list of Terrorist Nations so as to ease the transfer of many "dual use" technologies including helicopters that were reportedly used to disperse chemical weapons (including over Kurdish villages, such as Halabja) The United States also brokered and financed Saddam's purchases of chemical weapons as well as cluster munitions. See the Howard Teicher affidavit at
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1413.htm

[altohone]

Too many American's only know about the hostages... and not even why that happened.

This post should be mandatory reading, and its' facts acknowledged before any neocon tries justifying another war based on lies.


The media and AIPAC are insisting that the "prevailing view is... Iran is secretly working on a nuclear weapon."

No proof of a weapons program has ever been presented, so it's not my view, and I'd bet the stimulus package most American's don't have a view on this, so I seriously doubt the accuracy of the term "prevailing" unless you're allowing the media and lobbies to decide these things now.

Since that's how we got into Iraq, I refuse to play along thank you.

I also refuse to believe that a majority of those who have a view have succumbed to the propaganda as you suggest. The saying "fool me once" came about for a reason.

Call me an optimist.

[BeeOplentee]

Your post is splendidly spot on. I do hope Obama reads your book ( or is at least briefed in depth on it).
I am one Republican who would like to see us friendly with Iran again.

[LizM]

Let's hope that President Obama has already taken a crash course in Iran's modern history - or has at least spoken in-depth with the Vice President!

Though, you may want to send a copy of War at the Top of the World AND American Raj to each of them...even at this late date...you know, just to be on the safe side.

[altohone]

Hi Liz.
Hope you're well.

[LizM]

Hey, altohone! It's always nice to hear from you...an old, friendly voice...from the early days. I'm doing fine...hope all is well with you, too!