- Image via Wikipedia
Turmoil is nothing new to Iran and the latest protests are waves created by the upheavals of the past. While Iran (once Persia) has a long history of unfortunate dealings with other countries, the country that most concerns Americans is, of course, America.
While an examination of the history shared between the United States and Iran could (and does) fill numerous books, the basic details can be quickly presented.
In 1951 the Iranian people elected Mohammed Mossadegh to the post of Prime Minister. Mohammed Mossadegh, backed by an ever growing nationalistic sentiment in Iran, decided to nationalize the oil industry. In response, the British attempted to launch a coup against him. When this failed, Churchill tried to persuade Truman to get the CIA to stage a coup of their own. Truman refused to do this.
Unfortunately for Iran, Eisenhower (perhaps worried that nationalization would lead to socialism) had no qualms about getting the United States involved in toppling a foreign ruler. In 1953 the government was overthrown and Mohammad Reza Shah was installed by the United States as ruler of the country. During the Cold War America was often quite willing to betray its ideals by supporting repressive dictatorships-as long as those dictatorships claimed to be on our side. The Soviets were equally happy to back dictatorships as well. Of course, we professed democratic ideals, so our support of such brutally undemocratic rulers was rather ironic.
The Shah proved to be a staunch American ally and also a dictator. Not surprisingly, his oppressive ways did not endear him to the people of Iran and he was famously overthrown in 1979. While there were some moderates in Iran at this time, the revolution was quickly taken over by the Fundamentalist Shiite clerics and Iran was transformed from a dictatorship propped up by America to a theocracy that professed to want death for America.
Having lost Iran as an ally, the United States was happy to help Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. During the long Iran-Iraq war, the United States aided Iraq. Ironically, America latter fought two wars with Iraq and we now occupy that country.
Given this history, it is hardly surprising that the current rulers of Iran are able to use the United States as an effective political tool. We provided them with a rather convenient Satan to use in various ways. They might have learned some of this lesson from us. After all, we used the specter of Communism as our Satan. Our current devil is, of course, terrorism.
This now leads us to the current situation. As in 1951 and 1979, a large number of Iranians are not happy with the government. The people are in the streets for protests and some people are being killed. The current rulers of Iran are obviously familiar with history, so they are no doubt concerned that they might find themselves on the other end of a revolution. Of course, the situation is currently not a revolution…but that is no doubt what the Shah thought back in 1979.
Back in 1953 we dealt with Iran by overthrowing a democratically elected leader who was standing up to Britain. This was, of course, amazingly ironic. In 1979 our puppet government was overthrown. Now in 2009 we are watching the situation in Iran, wondering what to do.
Some folks are arguing that we need to strongly condemn the government of Iran. No doubt some folks are dreaming dreams of 1953 and thinking that we have a chance for another coup. Other folks contend that we need to be careful about getting involved.
In regards to a coup, that seems to be incredibly unlikely. Even if we had a chance of pulling it off, it would be yet another betrayal of our principles and would be a disaster for US diplomacy. Fortunately, I doubt the Obama administration is even daydreaming about such an action.
In terms of taking a more active role in the situation, my view is that we are in a dilemma. On one hand, if we say nothing and do nothing, then we would seem to be betraying our ideals and leaving the protestors on their own. We would also, it might be argued, seem weak and timid to the world.
On the other hand, if we try to get involved with the protests, then we run the risk of aiding the government. After all, we are their Great Satan. They could point to US involvement as an attempt on our part to interfere with their country and use this to justify (or rationalize) cracking down on their people. They could also use this to discredit the reform movement by claiming that it is being controlled by the United States. They do, of course, have quite a history to draw upon.
The challenge is, of course, to make it through the two horns of the dilemma. Doing and saying nothing is morally unacceptable and would also waste an opportunity. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, weakening or distracting the current government of Iran is advantageous to the United States. After all, while they are dealing with their own citizens, they have less resources to use against the United States. So, we have to find a way to do something without being (or appearing to be) meddling imperialists.
Doing some of it is easy. We can do what we are doing now, namely getting information about what is happening in Iran out to the rest of the world via our media. We can also present our criticism in a way that makes it clear that our concerns are for peace, democracy, and fair elections. Working with the world community is also an excellent approach.
Obama, I think, has taken a smart approach in this regard. He has been critical, but has been careful not to hand the Supreme Leader a powerful tool. Interestingly, the Supreme Leader would no doubt be pleased if the United States strongly backed the protestors. After all, this would allow him to “prove” that the dissent has been caused by the United States (and Britain) and it is not the result of an internal desire for reform and disatisfaction with the government. That is, in fact, critical. If the Supreme Leader can cast the reform movement as a pawn of the United States or the West, then that would be a serious blow to the movement and would allow him more freedom to crack down on it.
Of course, Obama’s approach does have its risk. If, as his critics allege, we are being too timid and weak, then the Supreme Leader might feel free to do whatever he wishes. After all, if he believes that the United States and the rest of the world will simply stick with vague criticisms, then he would have no fear of meaningful responses to a harsh crackdown. That, then, is the challenge America faces: how do we help out the reformists while avoiding the appearance (and reality) of imperialism?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
“After all, we used the specter of Communism as our Satan.”
Communism may have been a specter in 1848, but was real enough in 1951.
Communism was responsible for 94 million deaths. Why do intellectuals still seem to like it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, asserts that “…Communist regimes…turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government”. He cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the “excess deaths” (decrease of the population due to lower than the expected birth rate). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:
* 65 million in the People’s Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union[3]
* 2 million in Cambodia
* 2 million in North Korea
* 1.7 million in Africa
* 1.5 million in Afghanistan
* 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
* 1 million in Vietnam[4]
* 150,000 in Latin America
* 10,000 deaths “resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power.”(p. 4)
Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor.
I bet the numbers in Africa are higher. That is a non-stop kill zone. There census is not very accurate I’m sure. It must be fun to die in a country when nobody will ever know you are gone.
To be fair and balanced, we can also tote up the deaths caused by capitalist nations. Total up the deaths in European wars, those caused in the colonial regions, and so on and you get a rather impressive death toll. Of course, capitalist nations are far less inclined to directly murder their own citizens-which is no doubt an important moral distinction.
I do agree that Communism as practiced has been a bloody and wasteful blight on the earth. Of course, the communism of such states is not communism in the sense envisioned by Marx. The closest they come to Marx is that they have a dictatorship (and not by the proletariat) and the appearance of state ownership.
Communism was still used as a specter. The fact that it is a truly scary specter makes it all the more effective. Likewise, the fact that the US staged a coup in Iran and backed up the oppression of the Shah gives the Iranian leadership a very real specter to use in their scare tactics.
“To be fair and balanced, we can also tote up the deaths caused by capitalist nations. Total up the deaths in European wars, those caused in the colonial regions, and so on and you get a rather impressive death toll. Of course, capitalist nations are far less inclined to directly murder their own citizens-which is no doubt an important moral distinction.”
To be fair and balanced the time in practice to kill ratio is pretty strong with Communism.
Yeah, the communist regimes are quite good at self destruction. That is why communism has and will continue to fail. Oversimplified, they tend to drive out their best people (if they can escape), kill many of their own people, and impair and impede their society. Of course, they are communist in name only.
“Of course, the communism of such states is not communism in the sense envisioned by Marx.”
You’re dragging that argument out again? Don’t you have to ask yourself why the “true” Marxism has never been practiced. (I’m not saying it hasn’t I’m merely challenging your assertion–which is a very old one. just because Marx didn’t cover everything possible in his little books, doesn’t mean that the communism we’ve seen isn’t his demon child) Perhaps it’s because it can’t be practiced. Marx was a terrible psychologist, really. And a bad economist. But hey–he did provide the primary impetus for committing atrocities in the name of cookie-cutter ideology: Atheism, which was Marx’s first love. And almost every regime that used some form of Marxism as a reason to crush the populace and gain absolute power, well–they were Atheists. Mao, Lenin, Guevera, Kim Jung Il, Hochi Minh.
Ooops. I guess there are a few “Catholic” communists in those Marxist utopias in South and Central America. Sorry–I forgot. Viva La religion!
Just making the philosopher’s point that there is a distinction between what is called “communism” and what Marx called “communism.” The Marxist utopia would work if people were self-regulating, self-motivating, and so on. Plus, we’d need the sort of productivity Marx hoped for. But, there are enough people who meet Hobbes’ view of humans to indicate that the state will be reality for the foreseeable future.
Atheism is not an impetus to atrocity. Nothing in the denial of God’s existence entails that one should commit atrocities. Rather, the communists use their professed belief in an inevitable future to justify what they do. In this, they are like all those who believe that the greatness of their cause justifies whatever means are required to win. It is that view that leads to the great evils. People do wicked things in the name of all sorts of causes, be this cause communism, Islam, Christianity, democracy or whatever.
As far as intellectuals liking communism, some do and some do not. When I was in grad school, I took a course on analytical Marxism and another course on the Soviet Union (taught by a world class expert). When my adviser saw I was taken the analytical Marxism class, he said “Analytical Marxism? I have no idea what that could possibly mean, other than being doubly vacuous.” He, as you might imagine, was not someone who liked Marxism.
As to the psychology of why, my experience has shown the following motivations: 1) the final phase of Communism sounds like an awesome utopia-no state, no oppression, no shortage, and so on. People really like a promise of a better world, be it an afterlife or a utopia here on earth. 2) Marxism, like Atheism, is seen as a view that intellectuals should hold to-something that distinguishes a thinker from the foolish sheep of the world. 3) It allows a person to feel like he is a dangerous revolutionary or subversive (a bad boy, if you will) without there being any real risk (at least now). 4) It provides a “mono-explanation” that intellectuals often like-the one theory to rule them all. That is why a lot of folks like evolutionary theory-it explains every damn thing.
Sounds like an episode of the Smurfs.
Hmmm. It appears Satan has some catching up to do if he wants to catch Communism as a contender for the megadeath title.
Communists work for Satan. Satan is red, Commies are red. Coincidence? I think not.
“Back in 1953 we dealt with Iran by overthrowing a democratically elected leader who was standing up to Britain. This was, of course, amazingly ironic.”
Yes, especially with all of the fraud and threats of death if you do not fall in line. This would be truly ironic if you could validate that the people actually felt free to vote for whomever they wanted. I have a hunch they voted for who they thought they were supposed to.
He seems to have been a popular and popularly chosen leader. But, perhaps he was put in office via such tactics. However, we do know for sure that the Shah was not elected and was effectively imposed on the Iranian people. Doing that clearly violates our democratic ideals. I’m all for getting rid of despots, but not for putting despots on thrones.
“Of course, Obama’s approach does have its risk. If, as his critics allege, we are being too timid and weak, then the Supreme Leader might feel free to do whatever he wishes. After all, if he believes that the United States and the rest of the world will simply stick with vague criticisms, then he would have no fear of meaningful responses to a harsh crackdown. That, then, is the challenge America faces: how do we help out the reformists while avoiding the appearance (and reality) of imperialism?”
Too late. they are already doing what they wish.