Iran and the C.I.A

The Iranian ambassador to Mexico floated his trial balloon on CNN last week:

"If the CIA wants to kill some people and attribute that to the elements of the government, then choosing a girl would be something good for them because it would have much higher impact. Therefore, we believe, and we are looking into this, to find who the elements were who did this."

What? Was he really suggesting the CIA had assassinated Nega Agha-Soltan in order to use her death as a piece of propaganda against the Iranian government? No one could possibly believe anything so preposterous!

Could they?

Of course, the ambassador wasn't directing his remarks to Wolf Blitzer's home audience. He was talking to the folks back in Iran. Not the young men and women who've taken to the streets -- they certainly wouldn't believe anything so absurd. And he wasn't targeting the hardliners, either. They don't need to be convinced that America fills the role of that reliable old "Great Satan." No, the ambassador was aiming his nonsense at the vast majority of Iranians, the group that we would call the "undecideds."

This and other belligerent actions, like the recent arrest of eight employees of the British embassy for playing a "significant role" in inciting violence, should make it clear why President Obama's measured approach to the Iranian regime's actions is the right stance for the United States. A little history makes the approach even clearer.

In January of 1979 the shah succumbed to a year of protests and left the country. Two weeks later, Ayatollah Khomeini touched down in Tehran, ending his fourteen-year exile. But the Supreme Leader's appearance didn't seal the fate of the new republic. While the majority of Iranians were devoted to their spiritual leader, they weren't convinced that his dream of a fundamentalist Islamic Republic was the way to go. In the months that followed, there was a power struggle between the country's clerics, led by Khomeini, and a group of more secular, liberal-minded revolutionaries, many of whom had taken up positions in the government.

By October of that year, the more forward-looking crowd had consolidated enough power to hold talks in Algiers with a US delegation, led by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Things were moving toward normalization of US-Iranian relations, with the Ayatollah and his dream of a hard line, fundamentalist Islamic state receding into the background.

Then the US president gave the Supreme Leader a great gift.

The Carter administration's decision to allow the shah into the United States for medical treatment was just what the Ayatollah needed to swing public opinion -- those "undecideds" ­-- into his column. Everyone in Iran was well aware of Operation Ajax, the 1953 CIA-led overthrow of their democratically elected government, and they were more than ready to believe Khomeini when he told them that the shah's welcome into the states was proof that the CIA was up to its old tricks and planning another coup.

When it was leaked that the government had been in talks with the treacherous United States, passions were inflamed and, in November, the takeover of the American embassy ended any hope of detente. The Islamic Republic, as we know it, was born.

Iran has a chance over the coming weeks and months to move beyond the backward-looking politics that have defined the last three decades. It's clear that the old strategy of blaming its citizens discontent on the unseen hand of foreign forces is being dusted off and tried on again. The United States must walk a fine line between condemnation and falling into the trap of providing Ahmadinejad's camp with useful ammunition.

This revolution -- if that's what it is -- can only come from the Iranian people. As frustrating as it is, the United States must remain on the sidelines, a spectator to what could be a game changer in the Middle East and beyond. Otherwise, it could become the spoiler.

Comments

[AedaneusBurke]

Mr. Gabbay and I hold a similar position on our country's current political relations with Iran; and that is, we need to remain neutral and but supportive of the people that they may work out their own political destiny. The solutions we offered in 1979, nor the cacophony of solutions we currently offer will work for them. I agree with with Mr. Gabbay that President Obama is on the right track in our relationship with the Iranian people.

For once, we seem to have a President who doesn't think everything in the world is about us. His actions do demonstrate he does think about things here at home. The situation in Iran is not about us, and it is not about their or our religions. It is clear to those who know their history, the people of Iran are earnestly working to realize their political objectives within their cultural and religious framework. I hope they, as other nations recently before them, are successful by their own terms and measures in achieving a dynamic political amalgamation.

I also hope the zealots here won't give it their "Jimmy Carter" best and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I dread the thought of the outcome of such a disingenuous act upon our future governments. But, I do take hope in that the world is now on-line and the truth has taken up residence there, and we know it. So do the people of Iran.

Aedaneus Burke

[FogBelter]

"The Iranian ambassador to Mexico floated his trial balloon on CNN last week:

"If the CIA wants to kill some people and attribute that to the elements of the government, then choosing a girl would be something good for them because it would have much higher impact. Therefore, we believe, and we are looking into this, to find who the elements were who did this."

How is this different than the Bush Administration claiming Iraq had WMD, and supporting that by fabricating evidence to be sold to the American people? Like the Yellow Cake from Niger, the ominous metal cylinders that could have only been used for centrifuges, the roaming weapons labs, and the "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud"?

Governments lie to their own people all the time. The Iranian Government does it, the United States Goverment does it, the Governments of all Nations do it at one time or another. Commonplace.

I think the Iranian people have proven to be far more savvy then we previously gave them credit for (except for maybe Sean Penn). The Iranians know they are being BSed about the murder of Neda.

I also recall the CIA being caught with their pants down in Iran in 1979 ... I've read, at the time, they couldn't identify a student protest from a revolution before it was too late.

[Mary Romero]

I agree that we have to stay on the sidelines in this, Iran is a powder keg and would love nothing more to lay blame on us. As for the CIa killing that girl, just ridiculous. I think President Obama has taken a lot of criticism for his way of dealing with certain issues. I don't think going in strong is the answer, it will only cause this country more grief. I know a lot of people think he should hit first then talk, I would rather he talk first and then strike if necessary. I'm no bleeding heart and have no love for fundamentalist terrorists, my niece died on 9/11 and at first all I wanted our Government to do was wipe them all out but then again, that would make us like them and hurt innocent people as well. There are no easy answers to this, it's just that sometimes it best to sit back and wait and fully explore your options before acting in haste at least in some situations.

[thomas37]

What a wonderful state of affairs it is that we have a President with a knowledge of history and the good sense to know how to employ that knowledge. Few Americans know the history of U. S.- Iranian foreign policy. Anyone can acquire this knowledge and be entertained at the same time by reading the blogger's fictionalized but historically accurate account of the CIA's previous involvement in Iran. You can also see this commenter's short review of The Tehran Conviction posted on Amazon.com dated June 18, 2009.

[JBS]

Keep in mind the CIA's own history.

One constantly recurring theme is the CIA pursuing activities counter to US foreign policy objectives; putting the desires of certain "American" multi-national corporations above U.S. national interests.

The CIA's ultimate loyalty lies with Citi Group, Exxon-Mobile, Halliburton, et al rather than with the United States.

[FogBelter]

Perhaps, but I think it is actually more disturbing than that. As Sterling Seagrave points out in "Gold Warriors" one of the first thing William Casey had Ronald Reagan do was sign EO12333, which allowed the CIA to outsource operations to off book contractors. Seagrave comments that this allowed Casey to bring some of his CIA buddies that were purged from the Agency back into the fold - individuals like Edward Lansdale, and Ray Cline - with their Private Sector Intel Firms. Recently I read that 70% of the CIA's Clandestine Services is currently outsourced. So, the CIA doesn't need to compromise its loyalty to the United States ... multinational companies, and perhaps even foreign governments, likely contract with the same Intel assets as the CIA directly. Let's not be harder on the CIA than they already deserve.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12333.htm

Check out section 2.7 Contracting.

[Pye Ian - Huffpost Blogger]

The Shah was allowed into the US ultimately due to the blessings of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, who he greeted when he arrived in New York (Rockefeller's Memoirs). There is a solid school of thought that says that the Shah was essentially abandoned by his former Western friends for asserting himself and his nuclear and oil rights throughout the mid to late 1970s, that Khomeini was supposed to be his facile 'replacement', yet somewhere, someone 'dropped the ball' on the latter. I.E. Not enough due diligence was done on Khomeini, and he turned the tables.

Regarding today's events, it's an open secret in South Asia that Western intel has been supplying rebel groups in the Balochi regions of southeast Iran and Pakistan with capital and arms in order to destabilize the region (which would be the setting of a future Irano-Pakistani gas pipeline) as well as lash out against Teheran. Even Dan Rather covered this a few years ago with a story on Jundullah leader, Abdolmalek Rigi.

Should Moscow and Beijing be providing Teheran with general tactical and intel support, then it's hard to see the CIA/MI6/Mossad take a hands-off stance, indigenous protests notwithstanding...

[TommyG53]

Yes, the Rockefeller/Kissinger link is an interesting corner of the history. Kissinger was working for Rockefeller, whose Chase Manhattan bank held $16 Billion of the Shah's personal fortune ($16 billion in 1979 was a lot of money!) They were instrumental in convincing Carter to allow the Shah into the country, in spite of his better instincts. So, in a very real way, we have David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger to thank for the Islamic Republic.

I haven't seen the theory that the US supported Khomeini as a sympathetic replacement for the Shah. Where did you see that? I'd like to have a look.

[Pye Ian - Huffpost Blogger]

Tom, please see authors Roberty Dreyfuss ("Hostage To Khomeini", published in 1980) and F. William Engdahl ("A Century of War", which presumably relies on Dreyfuss somewhat).

Also, the Shah's own memoirs, "Answer to History" (published in 1980 as well), is replete with his loud ruminations - backed by verifiable events - that he was "undone" by his friends in the US. The Shah emphasized at the outset of his memoirs that English was his preferred translation for said work...

Lastly, the plethora of telling interviews with the Shah throughout the 1970s by Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, et al. beg the question over 'Shah Fatigue' in Washington, and are now conveniently available on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCMftp2bdJA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJtdEUGl9vg&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrCK6CD1dKM&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUtpc7MwNg&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66-jkx36BPc

[Pye Ian - Huffpost Blogger]

Tom, I sent you a detailed response this morning but the HuffPost editorial staff have yet to upload it for some reason...

[JBS]

"Khomeini was supposed to be his facile 'replacement',"

Sort of sounds like the CIA's 1956 - 1958 assessment of Castro in Cuba don't it.