History
between the United States and Iran has been fraught with violence going all the
way back to the early 1950s when the CIA "assisted" in the removal of Iran's
popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. From recent remarks made by
the current Trump Administration's foreign affairs spokesperson, Rex
Tillerson, we can see that little has changed in the intervening six decade
period.
Mohammad
Mossadegh became the Prime Minister of Iran in 1951 and took a stand against
the British-owned oil company, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now part of British
Petroleum), that had made huge profits from Iran's oil while paying Iran only
16 percent of profits, a problem that led to Mossadegh partially nationalizing
its own oil reserves and splitting the profits on a 50/50 basis. In
October 1952, Mossadegh declared that Britain was an enemy state after the
British government planned to remove him from power in response to the
nationalization and cut all diplomatic ties. After Dwight Eisenhower was
elected U.S. President in 1952, the U.S. and Britain agreed to work together to
remove Mossadegh from power. The two nations jointly created Operation
Ajax, a coup d'état which saw the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi better known in
the West as the Shah of Iran, dismiss Mossadegh from office and strengthen the
monarchy which he headed.
Here is a quote about the incident from
Lewis Hoffacker, the Third Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran from 1951 to
1953:
"The Shah was on the throne. It was rather shaky because
[Mohammad] Mossadegh, the Prime Minister,
was hanky-panking with the Commies. And we, Uncle Sam, could not tolerate any
of that. Iran was too important. And Mossadegh was vulnerable. He thought he
could contain the Communists, but they were all over the place.
So our goal was to support the Shah and
to try to contain Mossadegh, who had certain crazy qualities, or what some
people would call crazy qualities. He was unbalanced, to say the least.
[Ambassador] Loy Henderson, who succeeded Grady, was the
greatest ambassador. So I was lucky working under him.
It came to the point where the CIA
became very prominent in the process of supporting the Shah and
of containing Mossadegh. Mossadegh exiled the Shah and the Shah had to come
back. And the Shah was a gentle man, very gentle. We called him a “weak reed”
because he needed a lot of guidance.
He was my age, which would have been —
maybe 30? thereabouts. And he needed a lot of help, and we helped him, gladly.
Of course, he changed to something different later on, and that was a problem,
in a way. He was talking about creating a “white revolution,” trying to bring
Iran into the 20th century with heavy foreign aid. And we were heavy in foreign
aid and heavy in military aid.
There was no problem with the CIA
trying to bring down a government or bringing in a government. We did that more
or less routinely; this was the pattern in Iran. And it was easy to justify,
because you couldn’t give Iran to the Commies, who were there already. The
British were kicked out, and we were filling that gap.
I was there when the British were
kicked out. It was during that great petroleum crisis.…He [Mossadegh]
nationalized oil, and we were caught in the middle of that. [Special
Envoy] Averell Harriman came out, and everybody
was trying to set up the consortium and so forth."
In
2013, the sixtieth anniversary of the coup, the CIA released a
treasure trove of declassified CIA documents that outlined the role that the
United States played in the planning and execution of Mossadegh's ouster. Here is one of the key formerly top secret
documents that outlines the campaign in its entirety. The document, still
heavily redacted, which was written shortly after the coup took place (note
that there is a date of 11 July 1953 on the top of the document, a date that
predates the coup by over a month):
Note
the handwritten addition:
"These
actions resulted in literal revolt of the population.....military and security
forces joined the populace, Radio Tehran was taken over and Mosasadeq was force
to flee on 17 (sic) Aug 53."
Now,
let's move to the present. Speaking to the House Foreign Affairs
Committee on June 14, 2017, here's what U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson,
had to say about Iran in response to this question from Representative Ted Poe (R - TX 2nd District at the 1 hour and 29 minute point of this
video:
"I
would like to know what the policy is in the U.S. toward Iran. Do we
support the current regime? Do we support a philosophy of a peaceful
regime change? There are Iranians in exile all over the world, some are
here and then there are Iranians in Iran who do now support the totalitarian
state. It is U.S. position to leave things as they are or support a
peaceful long-term regime change?"
Here's
the Secretary's response at the 1 hour, 30 minute and 53 second mark:
"Our
Iranian policy is under development, it has not yet been presented to the
President. But I will tell you that we certainly recognize Iran's
continued destabilizing presence in the region, their payment of foreign
fighters, their export of militia forces in Syria and Iraq. In Yemen,
their support for Hezbollah. We are taking action to respond to Iran's
hegemony. Additional sanctions have been put in place against
individuals and others. We continually review the merits, both from the
standpoint of diplomatic and international consequences of designating the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard in its entirety as a terrorist organization, as you
know, we have designated the Quds (Revolutionary Guard special forces
unit responsible for operations outside of Iran). Our policy towards
Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop
obviously nuclear weapons and to work toward support of those elements inside
of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.
These elements are there certainly as we know." (my bold)
If
you are interested, here
is the link to the entire
testimony question and answer period by Rex Tillerson and the House Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Obviously,
Iran is not taking this threat without response. This is what Iran's Foreign Minister, Javad
Zarif, had to say:
4|4 For their own sake, US officials should worry more about saving their own regime than changing Iran’s, where 75% of people just voted.— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) June 15, 2017
1|4 Before reverting to unlawful & delusional regime-change policy towards #Iran, US Administration should study and learn from history.— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) June 15, 2017
Apparently, not only Donald Trump can use Twitter to send a message to another nation!
As
well, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Bahram Qassemi, stated
that:
"New authorities in the US seem to have forgotten that
recently their predecessors were forced to apologize to the great nation of
Iran for their moves to overthrow the popular and national government of Iran
[in 1953] and also for their support for the dictatorial and tyrannical
establishment [of Shah], and at the same time for their political slogans to
promote democratic values in the years following the 1953 coup.
This has been proven by huge turnout of the great nation
of Iran in many elections in which they exercised democracy at the ballot box.
During the consolidation years of the Iranian revolution
and at the time of the imposed war [in the 1980s] and illegal sanctions against
the country, the Iranian government and nation proved that they stand out to
protect their country, the Establishment and its ideals with rationality,
wisdom and unity.
“These baseless and fanciful remarks are despised and
rejected by Iranians from all walks of life who are educated and resisting.”
“The only option for them [US officials] is to have a
clear understanding of the realities in Iran and the region, and not to make
idle threats.”
“They should know that like security and sustainable
stability, the historical, geographical, and cultural realities are far beyond
doing business with and milking the regional countries. Wisdom, understanding
and thinking is needed."
Apparently, the newly
minted Trump Administration is reluctant to learn from America's long
involvement in Iran and the geopolitical instability that the United States actions have
created in the region. Then again, there's nothing like floating a trial balloon so that you can judge the public's response to waging yet another war.
No comments:
Post a Comment