Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?
When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
Not surprisingly, there hasn't exactly been a groundswell of popular support in the United States for President Ahmadinejad's suggestion. Just 11% of U.S. voters think America should apologize for "crimes" against Iran, according to a poll from Rasmussen.
Of course, if you know anything about the United States, you wouldn't leap to the conclusion that Americans, as a country, are a bunch of jerks who can't admit when they've done anything wrong. Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: most Americans have little knowledge about the history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As far as they know, the U.S. hasn't done anything wrong. So why should we apologize?
Unfortunately for us, outside our borders U.S. foreign policy isn't judged according to what we know, but according to what our government does and has done. And it is well known in Iran and throughout the Middle East that the U.S. (at the urging of and with the assistance of the UK) organized a coup against the democratically-elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossaedgh in 1953, in retaliation for Mossaedgh's stubborn insistence that Iran's oil belonged to Iranians. And for the next twenty-five years, the U.S. kept in power a dictatorship in Iran, actions justified in no small measure by the alleged need to protect "our oil" that God had misplaced "under their sand."
[To brush up on your history, read Stephen Kinzer's excellent account, a tour de force of accessible writing, or watch the 6 minute version here.]
If you know this history, the proposal that the U.S. apologize for overthrowing Iranian democracy seems a lot more reasonable. Imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose that in 1953, when someone who is now 65 was 10 years old, Iran, together with the British (something we have in common with Iran is the experience of Britain as a colonial power), organized a coup that overthrew the democratic government of the United States and replaced it with a dictatorship that lasted until 1979, when someone who is 39 today was ten years old. And now comes Iran talking about improved relations. Do you think that no-one in the United States would suggest that Iran acknowledge its role in the coup as a step to improving relations?
But if it is reasonable for Iranians to propose that the U.S. apologize for its role in overthrowing Iranian democracy and installing a dictatorship, would it be feasible for the U.S. to do so? I maintain that it would not only be feasible, but useful.
While 1953 is recent enough that there are people alive who remember it, it is long enough ago that those directly responsible for the coup are long gone. In this way it differs from admitting, for example, that Bush Administration officials authorized torture in violation of U.S. and international law - that admission could have immediate legal consequences for the responsible officials.
In contrast, acknowledging the U.S. role in the 1953 coup would not put anyone at risk of prosecution, and would not harm us in any way.
On the contrary, it could be a game-changer in U.S. relations with the Muslim world - indicating that there really is a new guy at the helm.
Is there a precedent? There sure is: a close one. In 1999, President Bill Clinton gave a "near-apology" for the U.S. role in Guatemala's civil war.
Guatemala City, March 10 - President Clinton expressed regret today for the U.S. role in Guatemala's 36-year civil war, saying that Washington "was wrong" to have supported Guatemalan security forces in a brutal counterinsurgency campaign that slaughtered thousands of civilians.
Clinton's statements marked the first substantive comment from the administration since an independent commission concluded last month that U.S.-backed security forces committed the vast majority of human rights abuses during the war, including torture, kidnapping and the murder of thousands of rural Mayans."It is important that I state clearly that support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression of the kind described in the report was wrong," Clinton said, reading carefully from handwritten notes. "And the United States must not repeat that mistake. We must, and we will, instead continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Guatemala."
...
Clinton's aides said the president had thought for some time about how to word his near-apology. The Guatemalan military received training and other help from the U.S. military in an era when the United States supported several Latin American rightist governments fighting leftist insurgents.
The "original sin" of the U.S. role in Guatemala's civil war was the U.S.-organized overthrow of the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 - the year after it overthrew democracy in Iran.
If President Clinton could "near-apologize" for the U.S. role in Guatemala, is it beyond the realm of imagination that President Obama could "near-apologize" for the U.S. overthrow of democracy and support of dictatorship in Iran?
If President Obama did so, mightn't it be a "game-changer" in U.S. relations with Iran? What would it cost us to merely state the truth? And doesn't the righteous man admit fault when he has the opportunity to do so?
Many Americans would be justifiably proud of President Obama if he would apologize to Iran for the 1953 overthrow of Iranian democracy on behalf of the United States. Patch Adams told me this morning: "when you write about this, please say that I support it."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Those of you who are against the idea of an apology are clearly missing the point here. It is not about getting the governments to directly accept the United States as an ally because of an apology. Rather, it is about the people of the world hearing our government admit its mistakes. THAT is the first step in leading the world to become a better place for all who inhabit it.
There is no easy fix for the strife we have created in the Middle East. But one must remember, the United States government IS NOT the United States. They are not one-in-the-same. Being patriotic does not mean blindly supporting poor policy, whether it be foreign or domestic. True patriots support the cause of liberty, ESPECIALLY when it interferes with the government's policy of interventionism.
The truth is, if the United States government were to stand up today and apologize for what we did, it would garner more support worldwide than any other bit of "humanitarian" aid we will be shelling out the next four years. As I said earlier, it is not about causing the government of Iran to instantly receive us with open arms, but it is about sending out a message to the people of Iran, and the rest of the world, that America is leading by example. Maybe, by apologizing in such a way, we can affect the next to rule over Iran and other countries.
Robert -
I completely agree that our government was wrong in whatever role it played in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran and should, at a minimum, acknowledge its error; however, Occam's razor requires that we include in the context that this was the era of the cold war, McCarthyism and Soviet expansion. This does not excuse U.S. actions, but helps us understand them. Same for the similar events in Latin America.
p.s. If Mr Obama is considering apologizing, he better find a way to save it for his second term, or he likely won't have one.
Maybe in return they will apologize for taking the hostages and for killing 10,000 Kurds and executing members of Tudeh and the Peoples' Mujahadeen and assassinating former Prime Ministers of Iran Hoveida and Bahktiar.
Someone has to start. We claim to be the leader of the free world, what better way to prove we deserve that distinction?
Who did what first should go first. No?
We can never apologize so long as this megalomaniac Ahmadinejad or any of the other hard line Islamists, including the ruling mulas, remain in power. The reason being that he/they will not accept a "near-apology," pseudo-apology, partial, apology, or anything less than a full unconditional acceptance of and apology for this incident. If we want to remain a leader in the world geo-political discussion we cannot be seen as being "bullied" by a "lesser" country (The U.S. is suppose to be one of the 3 strongest countries with China and Russia) and being forced to give a full apology would be looked upon as a sign of weakness. We also can't take the chance of giving a partial or "near" apology and having it rejected by Iran. Therefore at this time there is no way we can give this apology.
It would be really nice if Khatami would win the upcoming election. In this circumstance, I would approve of not only apology for Mosaddeq, but also America's rebuffing of Iranian overtures following 9/11. I just don't want Ahmadinejad to gain legitimacy or claim credit for America's about-face in policy.
Zeitgeist - Addendum
One has to see how much we loose by our unconditional support for Israel. Not only we provide Israel with over four billion Dollars of the tax payers money annually, we provide Israel arms and WMDs to massacre innocent women and children which consequently would create more American enemies. What a waste of financial assets, particularly with our current critical financial situation. Why is that the most press free country in the world, has the largest portion of uninformed population?! What do you expect? As long as most of us remain uninformed, we keep electing uninformed people to lead us. Even if informed, no one in Capital Hills or MSM dares to speak out the truth because they mostly look out for their own interest. They have been told in order to keep their jobs they have to follow the Special Groups guide line even if it is not in the interest of our country. Look what happened to President Carter or General Zenin! The only way out is that our brave and patriotic Jewish Citizens start a counter punch campaign to save this country from misguided leaders and politicians. Somehow I can see some trace of it these days. In the mean time Robert you keep up the good work informing people.
Good work Robert as always. I am surprised that someone as knowledgeable as you is acting so optimistic. Before you know it you will be labeled as anti-semi! The situation with China was much different than Iran. In that time Israel did not have any role and there was no opposition from powerful political groups who are focused on their own agendas no matter what happens to the our country. when it comes to the current situation with a vast groups of powerful political groups such AIPAC, American Enterprise and their associates, President Obama is powerless and appears to have followed their wish so far by assigning individuals such Dennis Ross to engage Iran. That itself appears as a joke. Anyone who is familiar with Dennis Ross should know that he has been following AIPAC's wish by running a vast propaganda campaign against Iran and her nuclear program http://www
Apologies are a waste of time and run counter to Positive Psychology, the 21st century philosophy that is fixing to lead people to the new age of green populist globalist cooperation. Obama is going to learn to apologize for nothing. The Iranians don't really want or need apologies for any thing; what they want and need is for cooperation in settling MIddle East wars started by Bush and his gang of neocons. The way to convince people of the illogic of apologies for mistakes that our ancestors make is to see the infinite list that could be made. All of human history is based in part of exploiting the powerless.
It would be stupid for us not to apologize and attempt to regain foreign trust.
Especially, over in Iran and other countries because if we can connect with them, maybe we can rid terrorism. Although, in order for that, then we may have to admit to DEPLETED URANIUM, and other toxic chemical poisoning in Iraq and Afghanista
Hopefully we can all make some resolve to all this activity with war and destructio
Thank you for a wonderful and timely article.
In Iran the CIA coup against US educated secular economist is still very much a deep and fresh wound and crime, one that resulted with decades of Reza Pahlevi's dictatorship.
Beyond a mere apology I believe that the US should compensate Iran with at least $50 to $100 B for the immesurable suffering and decades-long plundering of Iran's oil.
Who among us still remembers that the pride of UK goverment's corporations, BP (British Petroleum), is -- former Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company...
The USA will never apologize whilst the Israelis set US foreign policy. If the US sets its own course and reigns in the rogue state the world will follow and support the USA out of choice and not diktat or threat.
okay, 50 years ago the CIA attempted to manipulate Iranian governance
But with all due respect, this is just a GAME and if this administration apologizes for something that happened so long ago, then it will be thrown back in our face. I just don't believe that this is a constructive thing to do.
All countries have been engaged in nefarious acts, but only the US is going to "apologize"? Why does that seem so wrong. Did Iran apologize or pay back the US for accepting arms/money during the Iran Contra incident? NOPE
I actually think an important first step would be to apologize and see what happens. I think its actually the right thing to do, and prove that Obama's muslim outreach is more than just words. Let him be the bigger person.
Apologizing is not a sign of weakness but of morality and judgement. US could take the steam out of the oppressive regime ruling Iranians if it stopped threatening and demonizing Iran. Stop the fear mongering about Iran attacking the entire planet. Iran has not attacked a neighbor in centuries though we aided Sadam because he was our kind of guy.
The conservative right in Iran would lose leverage if that were to happen. Follow it by a Hollywood movie about Cyrus the great that didn't show Persians as mutants from beneath the earth trying enslave the world and now you got a campaign..
Thank You. I knew we were indebted to the SHAW of IRAN, I knew of the French and British WW1 and WW2 kingoms for Oil (BP).
I know this is what 911 was all about. Now, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
