The Iran Agenda

President Bush's State of the Union Address in 2002 included the infamous use of the term "Axis of Evil", which was used to describe Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Personally I felt that categorizing whole nations as "evil" was irresponsible and incredibly undiplomatic. Soon after Bush's pronouncement a number of nations also expressed alarm at this statement. Mohammed Khatami, who was President of Iran at the time, had made a concerted effort to tone down hostile rhetoric toward the U.S. as part of a more pragmatic foreign policy, but he condemned Bush's demonizing of Iran as "meddling, warmongering, insulting and a repetition of old propaganda."

Many Iranians expressed sorrow and support for the United States after 9/11. There were even candlelight vigils held by Iranians.  What was also very fascinating to read in a book by Reese Erlich called The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis is how "the Iranian government cooperated with the United States in its efforts to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan.  This may come as a surprise to those who think of Islamic fundamentalists as all in cahoots, but Iran solidy opposed Taliban rule.  The Taliban murdered nine Iranian diplomats in 1998, almost leading the two countries to war.  Iran had supported the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban."  Iran was going to assist in the alliance to invade Afghanistan. The US initially praised Iran's "contructive role" in the meetings.  "In January 2002, Iran pledged $560 million for Afghan reconstruction aid, the largest amount offered from a third world country."  According to the author Erlich, Iranian officials told him "that they expected the United States to extend the contacts over Afghanistan into a wider dialogue about U.S.-Iranian relations."  Instead President Bush proceeded to denouce Iran later that same month as part of the "axis of evil" and this effectively shut down relations.

Iran is often referred to as a "rogue nation" by the American media, which in my opinion, is a direct result of how the current administration wants the public to view Iran. An organization called Just Foreign Policy includes on their web site the following statement: "The Bush Administration has deployed a rhetoric of confrontation against Iran, including the threat of military force without United Nations or even Congressional authorization. Many of the Bush Administration's claims that Iran is a threat echo claims used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq and rest on similarly dubious evidence. Policies have been approved, such as authorizing the killing of Iranian officials in Iraq, that could easily escalate into a broader military confrontation."  In addition they state "Americans are being told that Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons, supports terrorism, is helping to kill American soldiers in Iraq, and is determined to destroy Israel. Therefore, the reasoning goes, we must prepare to attack Iran."

Stephen Kinzer, the award winning author and former foreign correspondent for the New York Times rejects this argument. He, along with a diverse group of other experts on Iran, Congressional leaders and military experts have been traveling across the country to present other perspectives and options for a more rational foreign policy towards Iran. You can read more about their ideas at the web site The Folly of Attacking Iran, which is also part of the Just Foreign Policy organization.

I just finished reading Stephen Kinzer's gripping book called All The Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. In great detail the book shows how the United States has played an active role in Iran for decades, often in ways resented by Iranians. The USA organized a coup in 1953 against the popular and democratically elected Prime-Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had been considered a problem by the British for many years. The British over the years had gained control of various assets of Iran, including their oil. While the British in Iran lived in beautiful homes with manicured lawns and enjoyed swimming pools and such, the Iranians who worked for the oil company lived in squalor. Repeated requests to the British to share the profits more equitably with Iran and to improve conditions and wages for the workers were always met with disdain and no change.

As Iran began to question the British involvement in their county things grew more heated. The British were unwilling to be diplomatic or negotiate. They even tried to convince President Truman to help them overthrow Mossadegh so they could replace him with someone they could control. President Truman wanted no part in their imperialistic desires. The British were almost ready to just attack and take over Iran but world opinion kept them at bay a bit longer. When Truman didn't run for office again and President Eisenhower was elected the British suspected the USA might be more amenable to involve themselves in Iran. They were correct. Certain members of Eisenhower's administration were very open to the idea of choreographing regime change. The overthrow of Iran in 1953 is considered to be the very first coup that the American CIA organized.

After the coup, the monarchy of the Shah was reinstated and supported by the United States. There are many who believe that Iran could well have continued on the path of democracy if it wasn't for the meddling of the USA and Great Britain. The irony is that America is supposed to be the great supporter of democracy and yet it overthrew a democratic prime minister in order to give a monarch full control of the nation.

Years later the people of Iran rose up to remove the Shah, who some say ruled with an iron fist. Under his rule he created a domestic security and intelligence organization called Savak. According to articles in Federation of American Scientists and TIME magazine, SAVAK "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents. It has been described as Iran's "most hated and feared institution" prior to revolution of 1979, for its association with the foreign CIA intelligence organization, and its torture and execution of regime opponents. It's "torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails." After the 1979 revolution, a CIA film was found which had been made for Savak security forces on how to torture women.

Alarming headlines are in the paper regularly as the Bush administration continues to make accusations that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. Iran however consistently maintains that they are only seeking nuclear power to improve conditions in their country and they are adamant in insisting that other countries have no right to dictate that they cannot do so. I found it interesting to listen to Condolleza Rice respond to a question about Israel and her response was that the US does not control Israel because they are a sovereign nation. Why then does there appear to be a different litmus test for Iran? Isn't Iran a sovereign nation too?

I also thought that Stephen Kinzer made a very good point in the the following statement in the preface to his book "The only way Iran can reasonably be expected to curb its nuclear ambitions would be through some kind of 'grand bargain' in which its own security concerns would be addresed.  That would probably require a solution that goes beyond Iran's borders and creates a new security architecture for the Middle East.  It is not reasonable to expect Iran to abandon its nuclear program as long as its main regional enemy, Israel, and its main world enemy, the United States, are nuclear-armed and issuing a stream of barely veiled threats to Iran."

I have always wondered if the axis of evil speech made the leaders of North Korea and Iran think seriously about needing to ramp up their military in order to prepare for a US attack, espcially after the US attacked Iraq.  I think it is realistic to consider that both nations considered they might be next.  On October 9, 2006, the North Korean government issued an announcement that it had successfully conducted a nuclear test for the first time. It is also reasonable to deduct that since the US has undermined Iran's government in the past for its own selfish reasons that Iran may still not trust the US government.   Based on this lack of trust and a sense that they are being threatened, Iran may have come to believe that they actually need nuclear weapons in order to ensure they will not be invaded.

I think that the Just Foreign Policy organization summed it up well when they stated the following "The recent history of relations between the United States and Iran has been marked by misunderstanding and mistrust shaped by the unjust use of violence and threats of violence. Violent conflict has not served the interests of either country. Military threats deepen hostilities and resentment and future conflict becomes more likely. Serious diplomacy between our two countries is needed."

Here is a video about the CIA organized coup in Iran in 1953 and includes interviews with a variety of speakers, including Stephen Kinzer, the author of All the Shah's Men.