IRAN AND THE WEST: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
February 16, 2009
Iran is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its historic Islamic revolution after three decades of siege warfare by the western powers. To understand why relations between Tehran and the West are so bitter, we must understand their 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 criminal 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, US 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, US 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 US 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 `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. Washington offered to sell Iran 26 nuclear reactors.
 
By the late 1970’s, the Shah’s imperial pretensions, the arrant corruption of his corrupt 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 US 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 US. Mobs stormed the US 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 CIA’s influence over Iran. All CIA’s networks were rolled up.
 
Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed his nation’s oil wealth would be devoted to social programs. He called on the US-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 and western puppets.
 
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 – what I call in my new book , the American Raj. CIA sought to mount a number of   military coups. Forty percent of Iran’s government leaders were assassinated by the Marxist `People’s Mujahidin.’ 
 
In 1980, when these efforts failed to overthrow the Islamic regime, the US, Britain and their Arab oil clients got another US `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 suffered more dead in this war than the US 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.   
 
The US, Britain, and the oil Arabs financed and helped arm Iraq.  Israel sold Iran a reported $5 billion in US arms and spare parts.   Europe supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, food and arms. 
 
After the US Navy entered the war on Iraq’s side, Iran was forced to sued 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 modern nerve gases.
 
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. Or even launch a long-awaited air blitz against Iran’s so-far civilian nuclear program.
 
A former 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.
 
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009
 
 
 
Calvin
Monday, February 16, 2009 11:32 AM
Thanks for another insightful column, Eric. Your insightful stories on the reasons why things are going on in the world are, at times, scary, derpessing, controversial and always thought provoking. Your points on how the U.S., Britain and the rest of Europe propped up Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in order to subjugate Iran is right in line with history. It amazes me, the short lived memory of America, with regard to the recent past. How Saddam was looked upon as a hero back in the eighties when he was warring with Iran. How former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sat in the same room chatting with Saddam like they were old golfing buddies. Then, the minute Saddam trespassed unto U.S. interests, he was branded as the Devil himself. Amazing. True, Saddam Hussein was no angel, but not completely what U.S. propaganda machine made him out to be. He was a man, aided with money, weapons and armaments, when it was convenient to do so, and discarded when he no longer was in western favor. And the stories that he was in cahoots with Al Qaeda are total garbage. As far as Iran is concerned, they have every right to be angry at the U.S. The plundering of their oil wealth far the betterment of foreign interests, is in a word, disgusting. The former Shah of Iran got what he deserved. As for current President Obama? He's to busy borrowing the U.S. into oblivion to be much good.
Salam
Monday, February 16, 2009 5:45 PM
Dear Calvin I cannot agree more. Mr. Eric Margolis your thorough and enticing analysis is always refreshing. Eric if I may say so you are my political analyst hero of all times, I admire you and please be as critical as you ought to be on every topic you choose to write about. I will try to read your books as soon as I get the chance. I think in my humble opinion the relationship between the Middle East and the West (Europe and the US) will never be at peace because it is not meant to be. The US aims at destabilizing the region by interfering in Arabic political affairs because it is the only way it can continue to take advantage of the chaos and political unrest which suits Israel and Europe's supremacy. Imagine if Israel was established in Europe somewhere far from the Middle East or just imagine a Jewish state living side by side with other Arab nations in peace and prosperity, I think Arabs will outnumber the Jews in the Middle East; and sooner than later the Jews will have to integrate with the rest of the Arab people. What is going on is perhaps ironic, due to constant unrest, Arabs are immigrating to Europe and to the USA and to other nations. This kind of immigration is meant to prohibit Arabs from unifying into an Arabic national union similar to the European Union. I bleed with tears whenever I see lives being sacrificed. The word: Democracy has become an empty shell, meaningless and an obvious excuse to wage unjust wars in the region. Is Iraq more peacefull than in Sadam's era? is the United States much safer now? Will there ever be a lasting peace in the Middle East and if so at what cost. How can the Arabs believe in a just war when we see corruption and American influence in every political system? It is stupid to expect a just peace after years of war and killings. The American government can no longer lie to its people or to the world about weapons of mass destruction because the Iraqi invasion has proven to be part of a mass deception. I also blame Arabs for being just as corrupt as the Americans who are supporting Arab dictators to continue to reign for eternity. Corruption leads to more corruption war will lead to more conflict; let us hope Mr. Eric Margolis can write about a cure to this Middle Eastern ailment. Please keep writing... never stop.
tiamo
Monday, February 16, 2009 7:01 PM
Respectfully, I think "Mohammed Mossadegh" was a political disaster (mind knowing how sincere and noble his cause was). He reminds me most of President Obama. Anyway, in 1951, the rise of Communism and the world wheeling out of a depression that was mainly caused by trade blocks between European Nations. The last thing Westerners would have wanted a bully on their door steps aligning himself with the Commies.

Should he had been more flexible, allowed free market and foreign investments, Iran would likely have prospered as a modern, rich democratic nation. It'd just take a little bit of giving and taking.

His situation may not have been that simple, but I'm sure the Western Powers wouldn't mind a democratic Iran as long as they've shares in the profits. it is a bully strategy, but to the victor belong the spoils.

What I learned from history it is that for everything there is a time and a place. Mohammed Mossadegh ideology would be a perfect match in the 80s, 90s or nowadays, but a pure bad policy in 1950s
Steven
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:51 AM
Tiamo:

Agreed completely. The British couldn't afford to give in to Mossy's demand that they completely leave Iran, because it would have set a precedent for the rulers of the Southern Gulf. The British and in particular Americans bent over backwards to try to reach a deal, but Mossadeq was intransigent and unwilling to compromise; at some point people began to suspect he didn't want a deal.
Hawk
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:22 AM
Steven:

Your comment is predicated on the idea that the British had some kind of right to be in the area and profit from the natural resources that wasn't theirs to begin with.

If someone steals your money you would be rightfully angry. When you take back your money and the thief "negotiates" with you to get half of it back on pain of beating you to a pulp, you would be rightfully indignant. When you refuse and the thief then beats you up, takes all your money and then subjugates your family under a brutal regime, you would be rightfully more than angry.

So this business about the British and Americans bending over backawards to reach a deal is utter nonsense. The British and Americans had and have no business whatsoever being in the Middle East. The countries of the Middle East are simply not British and American. If the Iranian people reject British and American "deals" over the resources in Iran, that is their business. For the British and Americans to overthrow a government of a country and subject the that country to oppressive rule just because that country wouldn't make a deal pleasing to the British and Americans is simply immoral. The Iranians, and specifically Mossadeq, are and were not responsible for the immorality and brutality of British and Americans.
tiamo
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:35 PM
"If someone steals your money you would be rightfully angry. When you take back your money and the thief "negotiates" with you to get half of it back on pain of beating you to a pulp, you would be rightfully indignant."

You're presuming the Brits stole Iranian oil. Quite the contrary. Mr. Mossadegh at the time broke agreements with Britain in regard to oil exploration and sales. Britain then withdrew its technical and research team from Iran, causing Iran oil industry to stop completely.

The Brits took it a step further and took legal action in the UN Security counsel, and notified any states willing to buy Iranian oil that they would possibly be legally liable. Thus, Iranians couldn't produce and even if they could, they couldn't sell like Mr. Mossadegh had envisioned.

Lets look at it this way, Britain brought to Iran a new revenue stream. Britain would invest money, talent and skills in exchange for shares in oil revenue. The Iranians agreed, Britain put billions in investments (todays dollars) just to be told by its president that any previous arrangements are no longer honored. What should the Brits do? Forget their billions invested? or fight to keep their investment safe and secure?

Now that is lying, deceiving and dictatorship. Should Mr. Mossadegh had a bit more patience, Iran would have been now more rich than Saudi, and quite possibly the only true democratic nation in the Middle East. Instead, his short sightedness caused pain and suffering to his people then and until today's date.

Let me put it in a different way. The US owes Japan & China a huge amount of money. If a US President decides one day they want to dictate their new payment terms without any consequence to currency devalue, what do you think the Chinese/Japanese should be doing? Forgive the trillions they've loaned and start a new chapter?
itsaboutlag
Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:52 PM
Chinese/Japanese's CIA's equivalent agency should overthrow US government, then put Bush II back as dictator for life who only answer to the huge Chinese/Japanese embassy built in Washington, DC.
Reggie
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:06 AM
Hank, I agree with you. I don't understand Steve's assertions. Why capitulate to someone or country who has no rights to to anything at all. I guess Steve feel it's okay to bully someone or country out of what's their. I respect Iran for standing up against the tyrants. I hope Pres. Obama stands fast as an independent thinker and not turn into a sheep like ex-pres. Bush who was lead around like a puppy dog by Chaney.
012009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:12 PM
The blog comments are interesting and insightful. Margolis has a lot of historical fact on his side but unfortunately these are facts that are repressed in the west because they are, in my opinion, inconvenient truths.

Just what should Obama say to Iran? Or what should he do to win respect and rapport so that the countries could work together to solve some of their longstanding differences - keeping in mind of course, the real and honest historical context presented in the Margolis article.

Conversely, what should Ahmadinejad (or the Grand Ayatollah) say to Obama, to start a meaningful dialogue which could possibly lead to a better understanding between the two nations?
Hawk
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:19 PM
tiamo:

The arguments you present are predicated on agreements put in place by force and graft. You seem to believe that Britain, and America following it, had the right to subject Iran and its people to brutal oppression for the breaking an agreement with a previous authoritarian government that had no interest in the general well being of the people of Iran.

The British did steal Iranian oil. They invaded Persia, bought off puppets and militarily supported a regime which did not have any interest in transferring any of the wealth to the general populous of Iran. The British knew this and did not care. Only their own wealth interested them. Mossadeq rose to power on a democratic vote on the principle that he would break British, and American, control of their country for the benefit of more than just the rulers. Democracy is about the will of the people, not about the deals made with corrupt, self-serving regimes who were in control of Iran before Mossadeq.

Mossadeq's actions did not cause the pain and suffering of his people then until now. The brutality and selfishness of western powers caused this. Britain and America could have easily chosen to allow Iran to grow as a nation and then deal with them as an equal. Instead, they chose the path of oppression and violence.

Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of the result of Western appeasement. An elite few enjoy the benefits of oil revenue; the poor and oppressed majority despise Saudi royalty for the corrupt sycophants they are.
tiamo
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:33 AM
"Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of the result of Western appeasement. An elite few enjoy the benefits of oil revenue; the poor and oppressed majority despise Saudi royalty for the corrupt sycophants they are."

Let me simplify the matter. Do you think Saudi, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain are in much better position now than they were in 50 years ago? Further, is Saudi a more stable and prosperous country today compared to Iran?

Most Saudis enjoy a very comfortable life. The one that every Westerner would dream for. Social services, paid allowances, free health care, child support, free housing, interest free loans, free education. You'd hear some Saudis are poor for two reasons: 1) Saudis don't like to work in any position other than a manager (they're spoiled kids). 2) Cheap Foreign labour and no minimum wage standards make it impossible for Saudis to work in low paying jobs. All of this is about to change gradually.

Politics is a nasty game that has no winners. Mr. Mossadeq rose to power on the back of Gen. Haj-Ali Razmara assassination (who was strong proponent for the nationalization of Iranian Oil Company). Furthermore, Mr. Mossadeq had no plan as how to deal with the nationalization of AIOC, thus when the Brits pulled their experts out, Iran was virtually left in the dark (that is until the Soviets stepped in). In the 2 years following Mr. Mossadeq election, there had not occurred any improvement in the economy (as he promised), while many critics even argue that Iran ended up worse under Mossadeq rule than his predecessor.

We all love the stories of Castro, Mossadeq and those who stood against the symbolism of Capitalism. But these men allowed their emotions, not their common sense to dictate their actions.

Personally, I prefer the example of Western Germany, Japan who though they were conquered, they've chosen the right paths to build strong economies.
Prof. Dr. Sher Alam
Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:35 AM
Tiamo: Let me tell you a golden rule, of judging any situation: Use the same YARDSTICK as you would for yourself, as for others, and try to be consistent. Now let us look at some points you asserted:
Point 1: First of all Saudia oil is very cheap to drill-Moreover Saudi Leaders sold their souls to
people in power in the world-you can easily find that on the internet- So they are allowed the peace and stability-obviously there are many other reasons.
Point 2: Japan and Germany were subjugated! There is such a thing as Dignity-Most Japanese
politicians shake in boots before American military and politicians and US uses japan
to siphon money for its White Elephant =Military Industrial Complex-
Point 3: The same as japan is true for germany, except since they are "white" they are more respected-

Before you say this is all emotional, it is not, Dignity is important. And People SHOULD be given a CHOICE to make their own MINDS about issues-and You cannot KILL PEOPLE and force them
your own way, as happened to native Indians by the terrorist "settlers" etc

And capitalism if it grows " at the rate it is now" with its overstretched greed, it will be end of the earth- Simple example Cancer is fatal when cells grow uncontrollably- You get my point
ALL CHANGE is not automatically GooD!-we have to think about the Consequences-which cannot be the trivial capitalism-and we cannot follow cliches and propaganda-
tiamo
Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:13 AM
Prof:
I'm not disagreeing on whether some people have `Dignity`, but if this `Dignity` is as selfish as it yields no value to the majority, then let away with it. This is what I refer to as `Stubbornness`. Mr. Mossadegh position is noble, no argument about that. But his my way or the highway mentality (reminds you of another President recently?) proved to be a disaster. Based on that, I question the worthiness of `Dignity` and `Principles` if they do not provide for advancing our cause as human.

You also said, I quote:
"Point 2: Japan and Germany were subjugated! There is such a thing as Dignity-Most Japanese
politicians shake in boots before American military and politicians and US uses japan
to siphon money for its White Elephant =Military Industrial Complex-"

The US owes Japan over 500 Billion Dollars, they probably had made over a Trillion Dollar in loans through their life time. How else wouldn't they be getting their dirty hands in US policies? If I loan you money to buy guns and food, and you use that to feed and kill people, would I be an accomplice or not?

How about this one, are US Taxpayers liable for their government borrowing spree? If in 10 yrs from now, the US military runs over the US government and decides to tell China/Japan that they no longer have any notes owed to them because the interest rates are too high, would you think that is appropriate?
Market Socialist
Saturday, February 21, 2009 3:38 PM
Let us be clear, the same powers that are supposed to be promoters of the "free market" are in effect trying to get resources that belong to some other peoples for close to free of charge. Of course Iran, or even the so called terrorists would sell oil and gas to the US for a fair price. The problem with that is that those huge profit margins for Exxon Mobil et al would evaporate.
tiamo
Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:07 PM
I agree with the first statement. However, I find the latter statement harder to digest. OPEC was mainly created to increase oil revenue for its member states. However, due to free market pressures from Russia, Gulf of Mexico and Canada, the prices of oil remained relatively stable for a long time since 1973 oil embargo incident. Exxon can only sell its oil for the same as the market dictate, while if a hostile government takes control of Oil reserves, they might decide to sell less quantity of oil at higher price. Free-Market is basic demand and supply. Oil is the driving vehicle for our today's world, and 70% of the oil reserves are located in less than 10% of the world. Do we have real alternative to Oil? No. Then, we have to pay for it whatever price it goes up to as a way to maintain our life. The latest example is the $150 Oil barrel. Which I believe was an experiment by few to find out how high will people pay to maintain their lifestyle.

In short, I don't think you can put a price tag on Oil, unless we want to go back to the Middle Age. In the mean time, If OPEC decided one day they want to triple their prices, we'll have no option but to buy into it, of course, unless we muscle their arm.
Prof. Dr. Sher Alam
Monday, February 23, 2009 9:53 PM
Exactly-excellent point-thanks
oldfan1
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 12:20 AM
It’s amazing how you Limey dogs have your own version of history to justify your devious lust for the treasures of others. All this rubbish about Mossaddeq not being patient is complete hogwash.
The brits and yanks having installed their puppet were busy raping and pillaging the people of Iran of their national treasures in preferential and loaded contracts. The Americans are doing the same today in Iraq. Mossaddeq was not compliant so you Limeys and your wretched cousins wrapped him in a red flag and sold him as a commie and disposed of him.
Well, well along came a feeble old man Khomeini in 1979 and gave you a big stick up your proverbial behind, thank goodness for that.
Tiamo, you are a classic retrograde, stop hiding behind the moniker of Love. It is exactly the type of thinking you and your likes espouse that democracy has been set back a 100 years in the Middle East. Your avarice and lust for the property of others and your deviously grand rationalizations to justify your misdeeds is breathtaking.
You can fool and console yourself along with your cronies, but no one else is falling for the sickening crap that you are peddling here. What a bloody shyster you are!
tiamo
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:44 AM
"All this rubbish about Mossaddeq not being patient is complete hogwash. "

FYI, Saudi owns 100% of Aramco since 1980s. If Mossaddeq had a little bit of patience back in 1951, Iran would likely have had full ownership of AIOC much before Saudi and would have been more prosperous than any other Middle Eastern nation.

I love this passion. I used to think the same way, but age, experience and more reading enlightened me to a new direction. You're right, the brits & yanks interfered in many countries businesses but that wasn't for no reason, nor for pure economic reason only. There were a real fear of Communism in the West and that fear may have pushed some of the policies too far.

Yet, those nations that had embraced Western model are much better now than those embraced Soviet model. I can think of many examples, Egypt pre-1965 and post-1965, Syria compare that to Jordan. Japan compared to China. West Germany compared to East Germany, Cuba compared to Panama or Monaco. N. Korea compared to S. Korea. Saudi compared to Iraq?

On which basis are you trying to convince me that British & American policies were the cause of people suffering? I see it the other way around, people bring suffering upon themselves by supporting and allowing close-minded regimes to rule their country (e.g. Khomini revolution - even the moderates who supported Khomini's rise admit now that it was a costly miscalculation).

We all cheer and fly the flags to hear the rhetoric, but we never think for one second that actions are worth a thousand word. Thus, why I take a conservative approach with President Obama, he speaks well, but I don't think there is a real grasp of the material.
Unknown Man
Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:24 AM
So Tiamo you seem to be a big fan of western imperialism and supremacy, since all their intentions are so good, which poor defenseless Middle Eastern country do you suggest the west bombs, invades, rapes and pillages next?
Muckdisturber
Friday, February 20, 2009 11:38 AM
"...age, experience and more reading enlightened me to a new direction.....people bring suffering upon themselves by supporting and allowing close-minded regimes to rule their country " - Tiamo

My advice to you Tiamo is to keep on reading. The 'closed minded regimes' you speak of have in most cases been installed and are supported by the Western powers, particularly the British and Americans. To use your example of Egypt, Mubarak is a western backed puppet dictator who is kept in power by the violent ruthless suppression of any political opposition to his rule, is this the people "bringing suffering upon themselves"? Do you honestly think the obscenely greedy Saudi royalty enjoys the support of the Saudi people? No, without western support they would have been finished long ago. The ongoing western backing of these dictatorial regimes for self interest has (and is) preventing the democratic evolution of the region as a whole much to the detriment of the vast majority of its inhabitants.
tiamo
Friday, February 20, 2009 9:37 PM
Where do you get your sources for the Saudi claim? I believe have much more insight into the current affairs of Saudi Arabia than most people in here. I'll tell it loud and clear, as far as I've seen and heard, Saudis `adore` King Abdullah in a level that I've never seen since King Faisal's assassination. Yes, there are some dissenters, but can you guess why they that want to overthrow the kingdom? They're mostly religious clerks and Muslim extremists who think the `Salafi` faith is the only way to bring peace to earth, and that the sword is its only arsenal. In general, they're considered a `troubling` minority in Saudi. Do you want these people to be in control of oil?

In regard to Egypt, have you seen what happened to Sadat? He was assassinated by the same group that now wishes to tumble the throne of Mubarak. I ain't saying Mubarak is a good president, and he'll never be. He is definitely corrupt and oppressive, but his oppression is probably the only thing that kept him in power for so long. The other choice for Egypt is a coup by the Muslim Brothers which is very active in Egypt.

I want to know why the example Jordan is never considered in these conversations. They have a monarchy, they have a parliament and very liberal. They are also aligned with Western Powers. The reason why Jordan is much better than its neighbor because its King chosen long time ago to be allied with the West and maintained that `friendship`.

The Middle East in my opinion is a place where it is extremely difficult to build a democracy. The nature of the people there and the relation of the army to the government always leads to a coup at a certain point. Take Syria for example, from 1946, its independence until 1956 , they had 20 different cabinets and 4 different constitutions. It wasn't until 1967 and the arrival of Al-Assad dictatorship that the political climate had stabilized.

p.s. Saudi & other gulf countries have armies, if people were really unhappy why has it never occurred that their armies attempted not even a single coup since 1945? Compare that to other dictatorships around them, or even to Iran.

In my opinion the reason why Western Powers support some dictators, because that is the only option available. The choices are either extremists who want life to end, power hungry dictators that are careless for their country but willing to share natural wealth with Westerners or nationalists that stand for `principles`, inexperienced and unwilling to compromise with the West.
oldfan1
Monday, February 23, 2009 10:55 PM
You are TOTALLY full of CRAP. Whatever claims you have to your insights are probably from wining and dining with your privileged class acquaintainces while you were in Saudi.

Faisal to date was probably the only gem that came out of that barrel of rotten apples called the Saudi family. His policies of self-reliance and emphasis to gain more independence from the americans caused his life to be pre-maturely snuffed out.
His assasin who co-incidently had recently returned from america (surprise, surprise) was labelled insane by the authorities and summarily executed without a proper trial very shortly thereafter.
Another puppet was quickly installed by your progressive friends, the americans. A little pre-emptive house cleaning was done and the world was a wonderful place again.

You can like a moron go about creating your own reality, but where do you think that the extremists popped out from.....thin air?
It is the repression and progressive amounts of it perpetrated by Western installed puppet regimes through the years that has unleashed the extremist genie which now cannot be put back in the bottle.
I know pompous racist mentality such as yours, that ascribes democracy only for the West and finds other cultures incapable of it.
The reality is the West prefers to deal with dictators because it is in their interest to do so, they are much easier to subvert, corrupt and deal with than are democracies.
So spare us the rotten propaganda and your unsophisticated pretensions about the Middle East, as I said before you are a classic retrograde.
tiamo
Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:48 PM
Spare me your rhetoric and word mongering. Obviously, you seem to read alot of `conspiracy theories` editorials and have little knowledge of the world around you.

Allow me to enlighten you on few facts:

1) Faisal alone didn't cut Oil production to the US in 1973, it was the whole OPEC organization including all Gulf Countries plus Algeria, Libya and other members who unilaterally reduced Oil production and prevented shipments to certain Western countries that had supported Israel. This was in response to the US interference in the 1973 war. Therefore, if the US had a `grudge` against those who caused the oil to skyrocket, it'd have not just been Saudi Arabia, but OPEC as a whole. Additionally, 1970s were turbulent times in World Economics. The move out of the Bretton Woods system, Oil Embargo, Stock Market Crash all contributed for a long recession and extreme inflation.

Most Economists concluded the Oil Embargo helped nobody. It led Western nations to find alternative energy sources (US drilling in Gulf of Mexico) causing Oil prices to tremble in the 80s, leading to huge deficits for Gulf nations. The inflation during 70s led to the collapse of many developing nations economies such as Syria, Lebanon who had all their own share of internal instability right after.

2) King Faisal is popular NOW but wasn't as popular during his serving year. In fact, in a conservative 1960/1970s Saudi, he was the one who brought TV (an evil in their opinion), allowed girls to go to school and brought many moderate reforms. His popularity only surged when he initiated the Oil Embargo along with fellow OPEC members. The other cause for his popularity is the assumption that he was assassinated because he stood up to the West.

Current King Abdullah is beloved to a great degree by his people. He is bringing to Saudi similar reforms in magnitude that King Faisal had brought in 1960s/1970s, but the Saudis are now more liberal in their views and would be more acceptable of these reforms compared to 1970.

3) There is no single shred of evidence that CIA, US or Israel had anything to do with his assassination. His assassin was Bedouin and revenge is a matter of honor to them. The assassin brother was killed by Saudi Defense Forces under a direct order of King Faisal, and thus it is reasonable to relate that to the assassination. Yet, I'm not here to say the US had nothing to do with it. I'm only saying there is no evidence yet to suggest otherwise and unless you want to build on some conspiracy theories, there is no reason for you to make such claim.

It is easy to blame the finger at someone or something else. Afterall, That is what the Nazis did in 1930s when they blamed the Jews for their suffering, and that is exactly what the Middle Easterns doing now, blaming their suffering on the West (Christians & Jews).

I'm not denying that the West had a cause in Middle East suffering, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the blame lies on the Middle Easterns themselves.
rayyan
Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:49 AM


Few corrections to Mr. Margolis cliche and wrong analysis of Iran...


*You say:"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".

This is vey wrong.SHIA Persians DO NOT HATE JEWS.
During the Iran-Iraq war , the US and Israel supplied Shiite - Khomienist Iran with weapons
and spare parts in what came to be known as Iran-Contra affair or Iran Gate.(Israel was
supporting Khomieni at time when the ayatollah was calling -decievingly - the Jewish
state the "lesser Satan"!!!).Moreover, on June 7 ,1981 , Israel bombed Iraq's Osiraq Nuclear reactor which Iran tried to destroy earlier but failed.Had the Israelis not attacked the Osirak reactor ,Saddam would have had enough plutonium for a nuclear bomb by 1983-4 and would've been able to deter both the Persians and the Jews.The Persians , for your own information , hate Arabs the most because they consider that Muslim Arabs have ended the Sassanid Empire after the Battle of Qaddissiyya.Today,the largest Jewish Community in the middle east outside Palestine is in IRAN.Please tell me Mr. Margolis how many wars have the Persians fought against Israel which you claim Iranians hate?During the latest Gaza War, the Palestinians recieved from the Persians only words .Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to wipe out Israel off the map.Why didn't he fire a single Shahab-3 missiles to help Hamas?Can You answer this?


*You say:"Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed his nation’s oil wealth would be devoted to
social programs. He called on the US-backed Arab oil states to follow the Koran’s teachings
and share their wealth with poor Muslims everywhere".

This is wrong.Khomieni wanted to
spread Persian infleunce under the guise of spreading the Shiite revolution to the Shiite minorities in the Arab world.Saddam stood against him.Khomienist Iran is not a bastion for economic progress and transparency.Corruption in Iran is rampant.Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is called "Mr Cashew Nuts" because he monopolizes the trade of this commodity.
Other Shiite Clerics have massed huge fortunes by collecting the "Khumus taxes".
In Khomienist Iran , the unemployment rate is 20% , inflation is 30% , and 2 million Iranians are Heroin addicts. Living Standards and per capita income in the Arab Gulf States are much better than those in Iran..



*You Say:"In 1980, when these efforts failed to overthrow the Islamic regime, the US, Britain
and their Arab oil clients got another US `gendarme,’ – Iraq’s Saddam Hussein – to invade Iran".

This is wrong..
By trying to instigate revolution among Iraq's shias ,Khomieni was attacking Iraq.Plus the Official
US policy towards Iraq and Iran during the Iran-iraq war was "Dual Containment" ,a term coined by the Australian-American Jew Martin Indyk.It means preventing anyone of the 2 countries
from achieving a victory over the other and prolonging the war as much as possible.



*You Say"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."

Why did France , a western nation , permit Khmoieni , (an enemy of the US as you wrongly claim),to return
to Iran?I'll tell you why.Because in 1979,the Soviets entered Afganistan and the leftists and Communists in Iran were very powerful and on the verge of toppling the Shah.The US and the West preferred Khomieni who managed with his supporters to sideline ALL THE LEFTISTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE REVOLUTION AGAINST THE SHAH.As a result ,thousands of Iranian Communists and Leftists were killed by the "Islamists".This is WHY THE WEST PERMITTED KHOMIENI TO RETRUN.If he was their enemy , as you foolishly claim ,the western nations would have prevented him from setting a foot in Tehran.


Finally,Iran is a Multi ethnic entity.If Iraq has 4 million restless Kurds , Iran has 8.Thirty five
percent of Iranians(at least) are of Turkic descent(Azeris ,Uzbeks ,Turkmens,Qashqai).Not to mention the Lurs , Mazandarani ,Gilani ,Arabs,Balouch..Some estimates say that only 40% of Iranians are Persian.These reside mainly in central Iran.All the border areas are occupied by one of the previously mentioned groups.Hit the Persian Core and everything will fall.Azeris will join their brothers across the boarder in Azerbijan.Turkmens will dothe same.So will
the Balouch,Arabs,Kurds,..etcc..

I know the Iranians..The USA ,NeoCons, and GW Bush are the biggest allies of Khaminie and Ahmadinejad despite all the rhetoric.It is these guys that have empowered them by removing Saddam and hitting the Taliban.Both used to make the Persian heart tremble in fear..

Reggie
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:41 AM
Rayyan, if Israel is such a good friend of the Iranian people, then explain why Israel want to destroy Iran so bad.
rayyan
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:41 AM
Can U name a war in which Iran and Israel fought against each other?
It is all rhetoric.Both Persian Shiites and Jewish Zionists are minorities in the predominantly Sunni Arab Middle East.It is the alliance of minorities..I give examples and facts..Give me some examples where the Israelis and Iranians agressively fought one another..
Can U?
oldfan1
Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:22 AM
Rayyan, your friends the Saudis, Egyptians and the Jordanians are far more in bed with the zionists than the Iranians. You as a Salafi have a hate on for the Iranians because they happen to be Shiites. So go on admit it that you are a subscriber to the Salafi idealogy and be a man about it, simple case closed.
InquiringMind
Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:09 PM
Thank you for the overview of recent Persian/Iranian history.

Your blog is quite useful because it is outside the mainstream media and is, therefore, impervious to influences from special interest groups.

The Eric Margolis blog helps me to understand geopolitical influences from a relatively unbiased point of view. The world is a giant jigs-saw puzzle and Iran and its neighbours are merely part of the global puzzle.

I came across this Youtube lecture passed on through a comment through a Toronto newspaper blog last week.

If you have a bit of time and the inclination, look at these 9 minute Youtube pieces of a lecture in Toronto by Professor Halper, an Israeli academic and Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

It’s quite an eye-opener and is consistent with the reporting of Eric Margolis on the entire Middle East including Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and beyond. Items 2 and 3 reveal a new perspective on the Middle East conflict. Shocking really. Try to catch the entire lecture if you can.

Stay with it to the end if you can.

1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Z6pkvKWUI&feature=related

2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKd7PuLBLdw&feature=related

3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbDC_TlFAZ4&feature=related

4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqsiSDac5Kg&feature=related

5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNO3y7AVUew&feature=related

6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIvF-RJKD3s&feature=related

7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrS5LmwCS_E&feature=related

8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95W2Yg_-NXw&feature=related

9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbqkkabaIdU&feature=related

10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXZZNS-2u_U&feature=related

ys
Saturday, February 21, 2009 11:08 PM
Wow, he talks about "Planet of Slums" in Part 8.

Thats a very important book for Pakistani's, Indians and Bangladeshi's.
Rampart
Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:21 AM
˙əɔuɐlɐq ɟo əsuəs sıɥ puɐ sıloƃɹɐɯ ɥʇıʍ ssəɯ oʇ sıɥʇ ƃuıop ʎluo ɯɐ ı ˙ɔıdoʇ sıɥʇ uo ʎɐs oʇ ƃuıɥʇou əʌɐɥ ı
ys
Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:10 PM
You spend too much time on the internet.
Rampart
Saturday, February 21, 2009 11:56 PM

˙pəɔıʇou ʇ,upɐɥ ı ¿op ı
Musaddiq Virk
Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:30 PM
The sense of close affinity persisted beyond the Iranian Revolution, and prompted even hard-headed Israeli politicians of the right – including prime minister Menachem Begin – to reach out to the new Iranian leadership. Ayatollah Khomeini’s pragmatism in foreign policy was read by Israelis as evidence that the revolution had been an aberration. Iran, surrounded by Arab hostility, understood only too well its need for Israeli friendship – and the technological advantages it could bestow on its friends. Yossi Alpher, a former Mossad official, noted that the periphery doctrine was so “thoroughly ingrained” in the Israeli mindset that it had become “instinctive”. It was out of this conviction that Israel inveigled the US to sell weapons to Iran in the mid-1980s, a prelude to the Iran-Contra scandal.

In reality, it was the West’s materialist “modernity”, on which Israel’s doctrine was justified, which repelled Iranian leaders the most. But though they were at odds with the US and Israel over their vision of society and their efforts to spread a culture of secular, materialist and free-market society across the region (which many Iranians saw in turn as archaic, and even colonialist), they did not want to defeat Israel militarily. The revolution was not conceived with an aggressive regional ambition; it did not threaten Israel or the US in conventional military terms.
ys
Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:12 PM
I'm glad somebody mentioned the invasion of Iran by the Soviets and British in World War II.

Although not all problems are of the West's creation.
DoDaCanaDa
Sunday, February 22, 2009 12:49 PM
Just reading this clear and concise revelation of the machinations of power hidden from Public scrutiny now for the first time, is timely. I posted this in my Facebook Group last Thursday in the thread ´The most horrendous thing I read this week.´

Good work, Eric!

You wrote on February 19, 2009 at 8:23pm
When the CIA overthrew the Democratically elected government in Iran, they placed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. His coronation was attended by all the American elite. They made a deal of oil for weapons.

There was no religious leader to crown him in 1941, so he took the crown brought to him on a velvet pillow and he crowned himself ¨King of Kings¨ Enlarge the image.

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Portrait-of-the-Shah-of-Iran-Taken-During-Coronation-Ceremonies-Gulistan-Palace-Tehran-Iran-Posters_i2690988_.htm

The brutality of Savak, his secret police, was among the worst of all the Dictatorships the self-proclaimed leader of Democracy put in power and supported.

Meanwhile in the land of ignorance is bliss, the American Brand of Christianity was consolidating the view that America, like the Jews, were God´s special, chosen people, superior to everyone else around them.

But they were asleep at the switch. The title ¨King of Kings¨ belongs to God alone. Savak was brutal quashing the first signs of dissent.

In this World of a changing face of power, it is totally logical the regime that replaced his would be an angry Theocracy.

What I find interesting about the downfall of the Shah, it was not in a violent revolution. He was just washed away like a castle built on sand.

America´s enemies always say they are not against the American people. They are against the power structure ruling over them, I call it the late, great end to the 3600 year old Biblical Babylonian Imperial Power that has changed face so many times in those thousands of years.
Unknown Man
Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:15 PM
Everyone keeps talking about the Shah as an evil dictator and his repressive regime, but not one single mention is made of the current terror regime of the mullahs. Why? Because nobody cares. In fact, the western world was perfectly happy with the Iranian revolution knocking back Iran a few hundred centuries in development. The Iran of today resembles more a European country of the dark ages. Nobody in the west wanted a powerful and modern imperial Iran. The only thing they don't like is that the mullahs are not willing to bow down and take orders from the west. Western countries do not care about brutal oppressive regimes that terrorize their own people as long as such regimes are obedient to the west.

The mullahs today are worse dictators than the Shah ever was. There is no personal or political freedom in Iran anymore. Life in Iran is a nightmare. The economy is in shambles. Inflation is through the roof. Prostitution, drug abuse and crime is out of control. Margolis talks about Savak but without one mention of similar torture and terror being carried out by the current regime's secret police. People are regularly tortured and executed in Iran for crimes that in other countries would get you a fine at the very most.

Rayyan is right. There was western involvement in the Islamic revolution. There is no such thing as a completely natural and internal regime change. All regime changes are fingered from the outside.

And don't you just love how when western media do reports on Iran they always show the poorest, ugliest and most run-down neighborhoods and parts of town in Tehran for example?
DoDaCanaDa
Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:30 PM
Prostitution, drug abuse and crime is out of control in America too.

The fundamental problem is because of the idols built up in the minds of the people. The Vision the World is pursuing is service and worship of the almighty dollar rather than serving and worshiping Almighty God. If people served Almighty God, in effect in time, they would find they are serving themselves and their own best interests.

The World will soon see what Almighty means.
tiamo
Monday, February 23, 2009 3:43 PM
soon, they'll be worshiping their Almighty Mullahs, Priests and Rabbis. After which like you've revealed some prophet will descend from up above on a flying horse.
DoDaCanaDa
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:24 AM
Material contraction is a necessary prerequisite to Spiritual growth. If the Mullahs, Priests and Rabbis are not filled with their own sense of self importance, they will magnify the Most High.
Musaddiq Virk
Sunday, February 22, 2009 4:18 PM
I visited Iran few years ago and I was under surveillance 24/7, I asked one of my friends at local newspaper about this and he told me they do it with every foreigner.

And nobody mentioned about the young girls being arrested for not covering their heads.
Unknown Man
Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:23 PM
Professor of Western Imperialism Tiamo, has still not answered: since it is in their own best interest for third world countries to be bombed, invaded, conquered and colonized by western imperialist powers, and since their intentions are so good, which poor defenseless Middle Eastern country does he suggest the mighty west subjugates next? Is it not selfish to resist western imperialism and invasion???
Jan WIklund
Monday, March 02, 2009 3:54 AM
Well, I think it began long before that, in the 19th century when the British and the Russians began to carve out "spheres of influence" where they secured themselves monopolies that sold dear to the Iranians.

The Iranians tried to relieve themselves from this in a democratic revolution in 1906, but the British helped the military adventurer Reza Khan to impose a military dictatorship and got oil concessions in return.
There are currently 42 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category