BEWARE THE DREADED IRANIAN CURSE
Washington, DC June 29, 2009
We keep making the mistake of dealing with each new foreign crisis as a distinct and unique event, rather than as part of a historical-political continuum. Here is a sad example:
 
In 1982, my old friend and Georgetown University Foreign Service School classmate, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, was executed in Tehran after mounting a failed attempt to overthrow Iran’s Islamic Republic.
 
I cite Sadegh’s death  because of the increasingly strident demands by Republicans and some pro-war Democrats for President Barack  Obama to intervene in Iran’s post-electoral crisis, and his insistence that the US is keeping its hands off.  
 
Can these legislators really be unaware the US and Britain have spent hundreds of millions in recent years trying to destabilize Iran and overthrow its elected government? Or that Western powers are conducting an unprecedented media and telecom assault on Iran’s Islamic government?   
 
Back to my old friend.
 
Iran’s former president, Abolhassan Bani Sadr, told me that Sadegh begged the Americans not to show any support for his planned coup. `If you do, we are finished.’  Sadegh’s planned coup against the government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had to appear to be internally-generated and have no links to the US or Britain.    
 
Sadegh met with a senior official of the US National Security Council, then returned to Tehran, where he was arrested and subsequently shot for treason. 
 
According to former President Bani Sadr, the US National Security Council official he met was very close to Israel. This official informed Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, of the plot.  Mossad then warned the Khomeni government through a third party of Sadegh’s coup.   If true, this piece of breathtaking cynicism occurred because Israel was in the process of negotiating the sale of $5 billion of US arms and spare parts to Iran during its bitter was with Iraq.  
 
In spite of trading public fulminations against one another,  Israel and Iran were in secret cahoots.  Money, after all, is thicker than blood.   
 
Interestingly, Sadegh also insisted senior Republicans had implored the Islamic regime not to free the US Embassy hostages it was holding before US elections.  The hostage issue sunk President Jimmy Carter’s re-election bid.    
 
The hostages were released to coincide with Ronald Reagan’s inauguration as president.
 
One of the dimmer  lights in the Republican Party’s current low-wattage ranks is South Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham, a proud advocate of torture and secret prisons.  Graham has taken the lead in demanding US intervention.   But how? Washington has no more troops and now has to borrow 50 cents from China for every dollar it spends.
 
Perhaps the warlike senator intends to dispatch the Goose CreekSouth Carolina volunteer fire department to smite the wicked I-ranians.
 
No doubt the good senator  could show those turbaned fanatics from Tehran how Americans run honest elections in Iraq and Afghanistan  – where opposition groups who oppose US occupation are barred from running in the `democratic election’ – rather, in fact, like Iran where senior clerics bar `unfit’ candidates from running for office. Or Lebanon, where Washington recently dished out a ton of cash buying votes for the pro-American coalition, which won an unexpectedly large victory.
 
There is very little Washington can or should do in IranIran’s election, in spite of significant but not decisive voting irregularities still appears to have been a victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Think of Florida’s `hanging chads,’ Ohio’s bogus voting machines, and Chicago where the legendary Mayor Daley got the dead to rise and vote for the sainted Jack Kennedy.
 
Iran has the only fairly honest elections from Morocco to India (except for Israel, whose voting is usually impeccable).  The US is in no position to cast the first stone when it comes to democratic procedures.
 
Iran has been under siege by the US, Britain, France and its Arab neighbors since the 1979 Islamic revolution.  The often tragic history of Iran is marked by the British 1941 invasion, the Anglo-American 1953 coup that overthrew the democratic Mossadegh government, and the US/British engineered war with Iraq that inflicted one million Iranian casualties.
 
The best thing the West can do is stay out of Iran’s internal affairs.  The more it intervenes, the more it gives hard-line elements an excuse to brand their opponents traitors and Western stooges.  This is why my late friend Sadegh pleaded with Washington to remain mute after his coup.
 
Iran must solve its own problems.  We’ve had enough `nation-building’ in Afghanistan and Iraq.  And how can Washington berate Iran for violence after supporting  Pakistan’s military offensive in Swat that has driven 2.5 million from their homes and his killed over 1,000?
 
Americans must not let wishful thinking and animosity toward Ahmadinejad warp their judgment and get them stuck in yet another giant mess in the Muslim world.
 
Americans are fortunate to have the cautious Barack Obama at the helm rather than those shoot-from-the-hip Republicans,   John McCain,  Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman.  The bankrupt United States can’t afford more conflicts as it faces a potential dangerous crisis with North Korea.
 
Obama should stop CIA and other US intelligence agencies from stirring the pot in Iran and organizing armed opposition.  These subversive activities could drawn the US into a new conflict for which it is not prepared.  Even Israel, which knows a thing or two about the Mideast,  is now backing Ahmadinejad.
 
America’s past involvement in Iran has too often produced fiascos, or worse.  In fact, Iran has become something of a curse for the United States.  This is one political-historical continuum we need to remember.
 
Copyright Eric S. Margolis  2009
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael Lesbowicz
Monday, June 29, 2009 3:16 PM
"Even Israel, which knows a thing or two about the Mideast, is now backing Ahmadinejad."

Duh. There are obvious reasons for that. Ahmadinejacket gives Israel a reason to confront Iran over its nuclear program. Besides, it is plain obvious that Ahmadinejacket works for Israel. He might very well be a Mossad agent. Ever since he became president in Iran, everything he has said and done has directly benefitted Israel. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Market Socialist
Monday, June 29, 2009 3:25 PM
Michael Lesbowicz, is correct in his post. Ahmadinejad needs Israel just as much as Israel needs Ahmadinejad. Mutually beneficial are thse two actors along with others that support them like the US, Russia, and China. The men behind the cutain have created AIPAC and organisations like HAMAS for the benefit of the sheeple ergo the theatrics of intellectual giants like McCain, and Leiberman. Let the masses suck back a few more Big Macs while to Power Elite pulls the strings. I know that the Iranians know what that feels like.
Lavrenti Beria
Monday, June 29, 2009 3:26 PM
"Americans are fortunate to have the cautious Barack Obama at the helm rather than those shoot-from-the-hip Republicans, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman."

You'll excuse me if I'm failing to experience a sense of gratitude for having the supposedly "cautious" Barak Obama as President. Beside the explicit calls for violence from Graham, et al., I can't discern even a syntilla of difference between them and Obama on this question. Barely an hour has passed in the last several days without some new threat, some judgement of Iran eminating from our dear savior's lips. And this is not interference? Why of course it is. Obama has made his animus toward Iran quite evident. From the dripping-with-honey cow- flop of Cairo to the clear, Bush like fulminations of the last few days, we see Obama for what he is: a meddling jackass. The President of Iran has threatened to make him eat his judgements in the days ahead and who could blame him if he were to do that?
chatman
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:15 AM
Really? Were you paying attention to what people in our government were saying, or Obama's public remarks at his Tuesday press conference? He waited over a week before speaking to the issue, and condemning the crackdown against protesters. He claims to have understood the impact of expressing early official support for opposition forces, as Eric discusses in his article.

McCain and Graham were opining on Obama's silence the moment the elections were called in Ahmadinejad's favor. The Right wing echo chamber that is Limbaugh and FOX were busy comparing Obama's response to their historical revision of Reagan's "Bring Down this Wall" speech, making good use the 24h news cycle to excoriate the man who you claim exhibits "not a scintilla (sp) of difference" from his Conservative opposition. Even when he did speak, his remarks were quite restrained in comparison to Right wing agitators.

I'm not necessarily thrilled with the way the new administration has handled matters thus far, and I am hardly an apologist or uncritical cheerleader. But lets give credit where credit is due; it wasn't until the protests had swept Tehran for over a week before Obama made a statement in support of the opposition. That meddling may have been unhelpful and unwelcome, but from Obama's perspective, it was probably politically necessary to silence domestic critics.

Ahmadinejad's bombastic calls to Obama demanding an "apology" for his Tuesday remarks are not only toothless, but also represent the height of political theater. Ahmadinejad was probably wishing that Obama's meddling remarks had come sooner, so he could've unleashed the Revolutionary Guards on a "foreign, treasonous" rebel movement a week earlier. Instead, he had to deal with a movement that was, by all official accounts, a home-grown manifestation of dissatisfaction for the clerical regime.
Lavrenti Beria
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:04 PM
chatman,

I don't know how old you are exactly but persons of even limited experience with the kind of political oafal Obama represents realize that statements by them eschewing interference in the affairs of others are in themselves interference. Those that are genuinely interested in minding their own business make no comments at all, actually. And as to comparing this reptile with his Republican twins, I'd ask you set aside the alluring phrasemaking with which you would seem so besotted and ask yourself how it came to be that 2.5 million Pakistanis are now milling about, refugees in their own land. Have we John McCain to look to for this atrocity? Peace and a peaceful foreign policy are realities that are characterized by doing not by poetry and facile wordsmithing. Finally, perhaps the last thing I'd find of importance in this context is what it might be that was seen as "politically necessary" by Obama. I mean, really, could there be a less worthy standard by which to fashion policy?
Bill
Monday, June 29, 2009 5:25 PM
There are so many agenda's at play here, it would all take Machiavelli's breath away. How to make sense of it all? Am I paranoid to see the Zionists, Jihadis and the Born Again lunatics, with a healthy sprinkling of Arms merchants, oil lobby, and the Pentagon great gamers all wrapped up in this?
-
chatman
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:02 AM
I have to wonder where Eric finds support for this claim;

"Iran has the only fairly honest elections from Morocco to India"

There is a great deal of circumstantial and actual evidence indicating that Iranian elections are neither honest nor fair. From the outset, incumbent Ahmadinejad had control over most media outlets, and on the eve of the election, his people allegedly sabotaged the opposition's communications and wireless communications avenues so that they could not coordinate. Opposition politicians could not effectively message or advertise; even so, many analysts believed that a massive turnout in the upcoming election would at least lead to a runoff. Instead, the Iranian election authorities were able to count all 40 million ballots before the polls closed, and declare Ahmadinejad the winner in every region of Iran, including the home provinces of opposition leaders. There may be a media campaign against the Islamic republic, but if these facts are true, it is difficult to imagine that Iranian elections were either fair or honest.

On this message board, there is a lot of criticism of pots calling the kettle black. I concede that we live in a world of charred pots when it comes to implementing proper election practices. However, to refer to the Iranian elections as fair and honest, even against the backdrop of openly corrupt election practices elsewhere in the world, requires more support than Eric's simple conclusory statement. I would be interested to know how he approaches the circumstantial evidence, which inspired over 10Mn Iranians to express their discontent. I can hardly believe that such a large groundswell is purely the result of the West's media war of "misinformation," or even the work of the CIA, whose assets in Iran are fairly limited.

I agree that internal Iranian political matters should be managed by Iranians, and that external assistance would only aid establishment forces. However, I would be interested to hear clarification of how Iranian elections were freer or fairer than most of its peers.
Robert
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:09 AM
I think what is going on is a religious culture that is trying to reject a godless high tech imposing seductive sterilizing western civilization that is about to implode economically and culturally. If true the arrogant intellectual western secularist does not or will not comprehend this reality.

Toqueville warned that the easy path to tyranny is to make the citizen think you champion equality. Tyranny through radical egalitarianism is the worst form of government since it directly and indirectly degrades the public morality to rule absolutely by creating a corrupt dependent majority. This is the political philosophy and aim of the west. It is new to the political landscape and more dangerous than any dictatorship since it seeks to enslave the soul and body. Iran's mullahs understand this, the Godless secular west does not which is why it fears Persia and seeks to topple governments influenced by religion. Persia has not changed much, it is the radical egalitarian and liberal ideology that has hijacked the political scene that makes Persia appear aggressive. But perhaps this aggression is justified in religious eyes. Ahmadinejab glories in this because from their religious perspective the Godless west is a threat. It is an enemy to religion, traditional family, and morals which in the end destroy nations. This is not to say that everything is hunky dory in Iran and other Muslim countries but then they have been around for thousands of years and still exist. Give them a break. America is about to implode after 200. I wonder what she will look like in say 5, 10,25, 50, years. When all is said and done it is religion and morality or the lack thereof that fuels animosity. Until we wrap our minds around this concept and put God back in the game, and strive to live by DIVINE PRINCIPLES we will continue slitting throats.
chatman
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:31 AM
You claim that godlessness is what leads people to enslavement of "body and soul?" Nonsense! Many of the world's most famous historical tyrannies are grounded in religion. Indeed, actual enslavement of people has long been justified on religious grounds. Nowadays, rather than being physically enslaved, modern religion seeks to entrap people in arbitrary authority structures based upon antiquated books and the dogma of undereducated rural bumpkins. Much of what passes for religion today denigrates critical thought while praising faith, which is nothing more than belief without rational basis, as a most admirable human quality. Indeed, I can only agree with one statement you've made here; that religion and "morality" fuels animosity. To this day, people are slitting each other's throats in the belief that they are promoting, rather than acting in opposition to, your vaunted "divine principles."

Your view of the Iranian theocracy elevates religion above all things, which is almost certainly wrong. Perhaps in its early days, the Islamic Revolution was motivated in large part by religious fervor. Thirty years later, its interests are the same as any other government; control, legitimacy, feathering its nest, and governance, in that order.

Iran's complex political system, and the strong sense of nationalism inhering in its people, are certainly influenced by Persian roots that reach far back into antiquity. Against that historical backdrop, even the Islamic religion which is so commonly identified with Iran came to Persia relatively late in its history. It is not nearly as strong a source of national identity or political foundation as you believe.
Lavrenti Beria
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:36 AM
"Nowadays, rather than being physically enslaved, modern religion seeks to entrap people in arbitrary authority structures based upon antiquated books and the dogma of undereducated rural bumpkins. Much of what passes for religion today denigrates critical thought while praising faith, which is nothing more than belief without rational basis, as a most admirable human quality."

Apart from its pure entertainment value, might we have here the distinct markings of that amoral psychopathology which attempts to pass itself off as a love of liberty and reason called "libertarianism"? Which of the dorm room discussions in your freshman or sophomore year brought you to embrace such elitist twaddle, son?

And here's genuine intellectual sophistication for you, that faith lacks a basis in reason. While I'd doubt that you're cultured enough to have even a smidgin of exposure to it, there exists in Christianity alone a 2000 year old intellectual tradition, a tradition whose contributions to Western culture have made possible even your noxious excrescences, little guy. You can take off the bedsheet now, we know who and exactly what you are.

Emerson
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:46 PM
May I ask why you have chosen such a nome de plume for your persona? You are obviously well-read with regards to you and Chatman's wordsmithing/phraseology throw-down. (You won--me thinks his silence is in line with the Roman ism Silence is Agreement? Or is his silence just saying Uncle to a superior English Major) I don't know who is right; but you win the Command-of-the-Kings-English award for sure. However a cursory look @ Wickepedia's Description of your name leaves one breathless with disgust and wonder @ why you chose it? And perhaps there is a mirror image nom-de-plume from the other side meaning an equally atrocious bad dude from the 'other camp' where he could come on and you could both debate/illuminate us all on such complex and timeless issues as tribal hatred. Truth is, as smart as we are, God left out a crucial strand of dna; that of being able to lead ourselves properly without Him. So this is what we get. I do feel that comparitively your message had more of a ring of truth than his though. But do you agree; so much intelligentsia mixed with tribalism and smackdowns here on this forumn. Proves all these smarts are for nought when clouded by animosity and smallness. I now look forwarding to now being 'schooled' and invite criticality. And since it has not been mentioned Happy Canada Day! The country we live in here that allows all this Greek style self-glorifying debate about all things in this small orb--What is the difference between Canada and Paradise as described in all the world's religions? To the most part nobody bothers you here unless you bother them. Only thing is we grow old and die--other than that it really is paradisaic-like and for that I am grateful.
Lavrenti Beria
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:03 PM
Ah, yes, my friend Emerson, whose obvious good taste speaks volumes. :-)

Now to the nome de plume, Lavrenti Beria. Beria was, of course, the head of the Soviet internal security aparatus in the Stalin years and, as you so most aptly describe him, a truly repellant cus. Seated at a state dinner on one occasion to Tito's right with Josef Stalin to the Yugoslav dictator's left, and after having witnessed Stalin flummox Tito by asking him how many death's his revolution had caused, Beria was asked the same question of the USSR's. The emotionless reply came back, "four million". People pay attention to fellows like Beria. One gets a certain sense of the profound when his name is mentioned. :-)

And you are most correct to point out that we are rudderless without God. Like it or not, we are created with a built in relation to Him - the so-called "natural desire" - which properly understood makes it possible to explain why it is that one can experience suffering. When one suffers he or she does so as a kind of privation, in an awareness before the fact that there is something better to which the suffering points: The reality of God and the promise He offers. Not even atheism, which relies so heavily on the force of complaints about human suffering -
and which, in any event, offers no solution to it - can rob the human being of the dignity of this fundamental connectedness.
Emerson
Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:01 PM
True enough Lavy (if I may): suffering exists in any state as as a contrast to comfort and relief, which as you brought out ultimately points by default to relief God offers all Humanity. Up to us if we accept or buy into the whole world's insistence that there is no God. It's been said the greatest single act Lucifer committed against man was his convincing humans of his and God's non-existence. Yet the Bible is the number 1 selling book in the world still, saying God does exist and is so wise that we may never know all the things of God. Like it or not we are uniquely hard-wired for this 'natural desire' as you say. No other lifeform in existence we know of wonders about these things.
Lavrenti Beria
Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:03 PM
In the middle decades of the twentieth century there was, within Catholicism, a very profound disagreement about how one might understand this idea of the "natural desire", all having a most important impact eventually on the theology of the relation of nature and grace. Exponents of the older neo-scholasticism saw the idea as potentially imperiling the freedom of God while the Nouvelle School, led by du Lubac, saw it as an essential expression of the faith with roots going back to the ancient Fathers. The view of the Nouvelle School prevailed and the notion of man that emerged in the documents of the Second Vatican Council was importantly influenced by their scholarship. It seems to me that any discussion of humankind is enriched by a familiarity with this construct.
Musaddiq Virk
Saturday, July 04, 2009 8:53 AM
There are certain sins which human nature doesn't like to get involved in.If there is no fear of a super being, Why not to lie all the times? What are the reasons that keep them away? If they do not feel the power of some unseen, then they should do whatever pleases them. Then truth and lie and justice and oppression should be all the same for them. Its only God's fear that is ruling on their hearts. Although their mind does not acknowledge the existence of God but the human nature created by God cannot defy it. So even an atheist at heart holds some view about God and judgment day. While in distress, everybody pray to a super-Being for relief. Why so, if they don't believe in that super-being, whom we call God?
Lavrenti Beria
Saturday, July 04, 2009 1:14 PM
Musaddiq,

You hit upon an interesting point, Musaddiq. While I think there are many atheists who are quite comfortable in their disbelief, I think their are many more who are insecure in it and who, like chatman above, lacking a ground in a personal experience of God, find it necessary to drive away the demon of faith by launching into bold, caustic assertions about it. Characterizing faith as anti-rational is a telling sign of this pathology. What is revealed in the course of such tirades, typically, is the presence of a perverse form of faith, oddly, a unsuspected faith in reason, which properly understood, is no more than a faith in oneself and in the ultimacy of one's native capabilities. And here we have as central to this illusion a belief in oneself as God, don't we? Many atheists live in a kind of denial about this self-as-God business usually out of the most profound ignorance of self. But Holy Scrpture testifies to how common a malady this illusion really is. Why It sees it as the very definition of original sin:

"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:5

Eating of it, of course, refers to one's decision to rely upon reason alone in guiding one's behavior. Never allow an atheist to tell you he hasn't a God, Musadiq. He does, and it's himself.


BAK
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:02 AM
Great article Eric!!
rayyan
Monday, July 06, 2009 4:41 AM
you are wrong about the Lebanese elections.In Lebanon,people voted across secterian lines.the sunni-druze-christian coalition won over shiite-christian(splinter faction) coalition.According to the voter registration lists,sunnis are the most numerous group and the shiites are a close second.I know what I'm talking about.Both saudia arabia and iran supported their co-religionists.In Iran,Mossavi won BECAUSE THE Iranian republican guards stuffed the ballot boxes with votes for Ahmadinejad.In certain districts the number of votes was more than the number of actual voters!!!

Israel is not a democracy.The Arab minority in Israel is dicriminated against in many fields.
dan
Monday, July 06, 2009 2:58 PM
Good article Eric and fair and honest analysis as usual, Please keep up the good work.
Regarding the recent event , a lot of young people in Iran do not understand what American CIA and British agents did to Iran back in 1953 by overthrowing the popular and democratically elected Mosadegh.
If USA and British did not interfere in Iran's internal affairs, and did not steal their oil, By now Iran would have been one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
I think the history is repeating itself , USA, Britain and Israel are interfering in Iranian internal affairs again,
This time they want to destabilise Iran because the most important foreign policy of US and Israel is to prevent Iran from becoming a super power in the Middle East.
They biggest and the most destructive powers in the world are Jewish lobby organisations in America and Britain. , they control the media and the world and they have the most influential people both in American Senate and British Parliament.

Their sole aim is to protect Israel at any cost and in doing so they don't care if they destroy Iran.
I think the biggest threat to Iran is not from within but from outside.
There has been an unfair economic sanction against Iran by the west for the past 30 years, furthermore Iran was involved in a 10 year American backed war with Iraq which destroyed Iran's economy and progress
Iranian people must hold the west accountable for their dir economic situation and reject the west interference on their internal affairs altogether.
There are currently 19 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category