Ten Days That Changed The World

John Reed wrote his most famous book about the Russian revolution of 1917 titled “Ten  Days That Shook The World”. In Iranian history, there are ten days that shook Iran, and subsequently, changed the politics of the world forever. These ten days are the day Khomeini entered Iran on the first of February 1979, until 11 February 1979, the day that Shah’s last Prime Minister, Shahpour Bakhtiar, abdicated his office and left Iran to an exile in France, to be assassinated by Khomeini’s thugs on August 6, 1991. If Bakhtiar, who was originally encouraged to accept the position of Prime Minister by the opposition (in spite of being expelled from his own party), was able to create a coalition between himself and Khomeini’s regime during those ten days, the world would have looked differently today!

There is a hidden, powerful, and unofficial entity above the government in any nation, except when that entity is the government itself, which is called by some the invisible government. This entity, whether we name it the establishment, or the regime, or the institution, nominates and selects not only the president, but also members of various governmental institutions, such as the legislative body, and as a result, the judiciary. One may think there is nominally more than one strong party on either side of the political establishment that constitutes the government, which is fairly elected by the majority of voters. There are two parties in the US which form a government in turns. The difference between these parties is negligible, as they represent different fractions of the same establishment. The same is true in many “Western democracies”. For example, François Hollande, the French president, was nominated by the Labor party. His pro-corporate and anti-labor policies do not need further discussion. The same is true with Conservative and Labour Parties of Britain. In monarchies of the Middle East, the establishment is the royal family. In religious governments such as in Iran, the establishment is Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, and in capitalist countries such as almost all Western nations, the establishment is the amalgamation of capitalists. As it was mentioned earlier, in all “democracies” elections are imperative parts of the political process, and people vote for parties of their choice. But since only a few (generally two) parties are supported by the establishment, those parties receive financial and moral support from them, and thus people are roused to vote for either of those parties. There are certain times that someone elevates from a party, who does not have the support of the establishment, or the party in which he or she claims to be a member of! In the US election of 2016, two of such people received popular support, but not support of the parties that nominated them; Bernie Sanders from Democratic Party and Donald Trump from Republican Party. Democratic Party successfully ousted the non-establishment renegade, but Republican Party did not succeed to such an achievement. Members of the Establishment are not united either, and they are divided in supporting either of the two parties, both of which benefit the establishment as a whole, and their benefactors in particular. As Trump became the nominee of the Republican Party, many of the members of the establishment who supported that Party, changed side. But another astounding episode transpired, as the candidate who was not selected by the establishment was eventually elected. Between the time when votes were counted and the winner was determined, and the time when delegates casted their votes, the whole establishment machinery worked hard to discredit the person they did not select, by even calling him a Russian spy, and hoping he would either submit or be forced to relinquish that office. The same thing happened in Iran in in 2009 when Mousavi was not the choice of the establishment, but the most popular candidate for presidency. In that case, the name of the candidate supported by the establishment came out of the ballot box, simply by the order of the Supreme Leader! This is the only difference between the dictatorship and “democracy”, as far as the politics is concerned. In a dictatorship the tyranny is visible and direct, but in a “democracy” the tyranny is invisible and acts in various indirect forms.

Donald Trump’s presidency has been very controversial, to say the least. He has confused many on both sides of the isle. He pushed people with several decades of progressive ideas, such as Noam Chomsky, and popular figures such as Amy Goodman and Robert Reich, in support of Hillary Clinton. Many prominent people on the Right became also confused as how to read this man. Before even he occupies the office, there have been numerous demonstrations against him. As soon as he utters a single word, he is challenged from the Right and the Left. As he has claimed many times, he is different from those politicians people are accustomed to. Since he has not been groomed by the establishment, he expresses whatsoever he desires freely and without a second thought (or no thought at all). He liberally expresses his racist and homophobic, anti-poor and neglected, sexist, and anti-immigrant ideas, and he has no shame in making conflicting statements. Of course beating Clinton in the election did not require much sophisticated policies, as she was disliked equally. It seems Trump challenging the establishment is not only in words, but following a plan. Military technology is the pinnacle of American power and control. It is the largest and the most sophisticated military in the world. Pentagon and CIA have been reshaping many countries through their military power, for almost a century. There had been at least 52 covert operations destabilizing other nationalist or socialist governments, and replacing them with puppet régimes. At the end of the cold war, this policy was of course changed to a “Lone Ranger” approach, when it was decided that there was no need for covert operations and United States could unilaterally attack other countries overtly and with impunity, starting with Afghanistan. One of the keystones of the policy of the establishment has been inventing enemies. Another cold war with Russia has been adopted as a policy, since that government stopped US hegemony in changing governments in the Middle-East and Africa, countries that do not completely submit to the wishes of the US and its allies. McCain called Vladimir Putin a murderer and a thug, since Russia had stopped total destruction of Syria. Trump on the other hand, talks about friendly relationship with Putin. In fact, the world may be surprised in a couple of years witnessing Trump’s policies. Of course, considering the choices he has made for his cabinet so far, this seems to be nothing but well wishes.

In order to understand what led to the election of Donald Trump, one must go back 37 years and remember the aftermath of Iranian revolution. As it has been the case with many US installed governments, as soon as the dictator loses its grips on people and falls, US government initiates a deal with the successive regime. Jimmy Carter was the last president of the United States who envisioned a just world, in spite of the fact that Taliban was sponsored by Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, his National Security Advisor. After Carter realized that the Shah of Iran could no longer keep his power, he sent his emissaries to France to meet with Khomeini. By recent disclosure of some unclassified documents, it is clear now that Khomeini was confident that he had the backing of the West, especially when he made his first speech after he returned. In his first speech in Tehran cemetery, when he spoke of changing the Prime Minister, he was apparently promised the throne! One of Khomeini’s aids, Ebrahim Yazdi, acted as a translator for Khomeini in Paris. Before joining Khomeini, he directed a group of Islamic Iranian students against the regime of the Shah called “Freedom Movement of Iran”. He was known to have relationship with some of the prominent American diplomats, some who worked for the CIA. Released documents are evident that Khomeini had received “green light” from the US, whose agents were corresponding with him through Yazdi during the time he was in Paris. During the hostage crisis, Republican Party was in support of the hard-liner clergies warranting detention of hostages in Iran for the entire presidency of Carter. Moreover, mullahs in Iran have historically been pro-Republican. Carter explains in his memoire how happy he was to learn that Republican Party nominated an uneducated and naïve person such as Reagan, believing that Americans would never accept such a character as their president. What he did not know at the time was the issue of hostages and how the public was engaged and watchful of his lack of command to bring the hostages back. He did also not know that the Republican Party was contriving with Khomeini’s regime to keep the hostages. If nothing, this policy of Khomeini proved successful in safeguarding Reagan’s presidency.

Reagan was an actor, a popular figure, and a figurehead for GOP. Some of his followers, such as Pat Buchanan who is a critic of Neo-Cons, do not realize that Reagan was a stepping stone for the Neo-Liberal group, who exploited the working class to such a degree that resulted in the presidency of an anti-establishment. Reagan’s cabinet consisted of many who initiated Neo-Conservative ideas and became important administrators during the George W. Bush’s presidency. Reagan, along with Margaret Thatcher of England, sought demolition of social welfare and unions, and initiation of a policy of control of wealth by a few. Since Reagan, US government as the wealthiest and the most influential country in the world, economically and militarily, has impacted on many other nations to follow the suit and adopt more conservative, oligopolistic, and anti-social policies. Reagan started a war against the newly established government of Sandinista in Nicaragua. The CIA director and Reagan’s Vice President, George H.W. Bush was able to replace him as the US president for another four years. Although the new administration after Bush was from the other party, Clinton continued Right-Wing conservative programs of his predecessors. George W. and Obama carried the torch and handed it to Trump, reluctantly. After the dark years of second Bush, Obama promised a bright future, and continued Bush’s doctrine. Let’s go back and review their undertakings. Reagan vetoed anti-apartheid act (finally passed), reduced regulations on commerce, increased rate of poverty, increased income of the 5% on the top of the economic pyramid, dropped personal tax bracket from 70% to 28%, made several tax cuts for the rich, created a massive budget deficit, destroyed workers unions, made large increases in military spending, never considered environment as an issue and removed solar panels that his predecessor, Carter, had installed on the roof of the White House, reduced Federal spending on education by half, opposed Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, never addressed AIDS epidemic that started during his presidency, and WARN act became the law without Reagan’s signature or he would have vetoed it. In order to finance the army which Reagan created against Nicaraguan government, he sold arms to Iran through Israel which after disclosure, became an embarrassing point in his presidency, called Iran-Contra affair. Bush continued more or less Reagan’s policies, Except NAFTA that was ratified with the help of Clinton, a treaty that destroyed Mexican economy and agriculture. The most important event during Bush presidency was collapse of the Soviet Union in last days of 1991. A coup orchestrated by Bush replaced Gorbachev with Boris Yeltsin. Although Gorbachev was promised by Bush that if he dismantled Warsaw pact, the US would do away with NATO, this organization became an international police force of the US. On the other hand, by dismantling the Warsaw Pact, Gorbachev weakened the system by leaving Eastern European allies, who had been depending on the Soviet Union since the Second World War, and ignited a long lasting war in Eastern Europe. The ever-drunk Yeltsin by introducing the most ruthless brand of capitalism destroyed the fabric of the Soviet social, economic, and cultural system, the story of which can be found in Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”. Books were written about the end of the cold war, and introduction of the most powerful country in the world, with no competing power, one that can dictate its supremacy to the rest of the world, without any repercussion. As Reagan flexed his muscles in Granada, Bush did the same in Panama and Iraq. Bringing to submission of other countries was left to Bill Clinton. With Eastern Europe in a war of identity and independence, after Soviet collapse, Clinton was able to support those who were submissive to US demands militarily, and join them into NATO. Clinton in fact accomplished many Right-Wing undertakings that Reagan and Bush initiated, but did not have the constituency to do so, such as NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall act. He reshaped welfare by reducing many of its benefits. His support of the Wall Street made him and his family’s name a part of Forbes magazine’s list of the richest families. His government completed any conservative agenda his two previous predecessors could not finalize. By the beginning of the new century, with the political conservatism spread out around the world, and a new far-right conservative group calling themselves “The Tea Party”, Right-Wing agenda multiplied and “The Neo-Conservatives” who have been growing strength in the past two decades, gained power in the White House with the presidency of George W. Bush. Their first act was to swindle on election vote counts in order to ensure his presidency. Calling America exceptional and indispensable, Bush gave himself the right to attack any government he desired, especially those seven countries which were designated to be destroyed by “A Clean Break” and “The Project for the New American Century”. His direct attack on Iraq and Afghanistan stemmed from his exceptionalism theory that gives American government cart-blanch to attack any government that does not totally submit to desires of the imperialist. He also attacked Somalia through Ethiopia. He left other countries designated for destruction such as Yemen, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, and Iran, for his successors to take care of. President Obama followed Bush’s agenda, and with a push from Israel and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, supported attacks on Libya and Sudan, and through his friendly dictator in the area, Saudi Arabia, destroyed Syria and Yemen, both very ancient civilizations.

Neo-Liberal policies may have come to an end by the president elect Trump. Noam Chomsky said about Neo-Liberals that they were neither new nor liberal, however they created such an intensifying wealth disparity that trusts of the government reached its all-time low among Americans. According to a study released by Pew Research Center in November 2015, only 19 percent of Americans confirmed they trusted the government "always or most of the time." It sufficed for half of the other 81 percent to vote for Trump and guarantee his presidency. If we check all the events since 1979 as cause and effect, we realize that the advent of Trump was no accident (or as a result of Russian hacking, as the establishment claims) and mentioned events have followed each other like a chain link. American governments since Carter have had a tendency of becoming more and more conservative and they have followed conservative agendas, Republican or Democrat. It is almost impossible to accurately predict what would happen if a historical event did not take place. However, we can judge by the trend of the history since 1980 that if it was not because of the hostages, Carter would have won another term in the office, and the country would have followed a different direction. This direction would not have removed the establishment from people, and as a result, election of someone like Trump might not have been possible. If Bakhtiar could stay in the office and secured a mutual understanding with Khomeini during those ten days, the world would have looked differently today.