“When Henry Luce penned ‘the American Century’ in February
1941, there was much to be worried about, both in the United States and in the
world.”(1) David Mason is speaking of the Second World War and US economy of the
early to mid-century. However, as Henry Luce foresaw, 20th century
turned out to be an American Century, and what he might not have predicted that
the same century ended to be as such, at least for the second half of the
century. In his book, David Mason details the reasons he believes that American
century had completed its course in the final years of the century and the 21st
century would definitely be the demise of the US imperialism. Government after
government, since the beginning of this nation, had worked hard in order for
the US leadership to become a reality. “Why does a strong nation strike against
a weaker one? Usually because it seeks to impose its ideology, increase its
power, or gain control of valuable resources. Shifting combination of these
three factors motivated the United States as it extended its global reach over
the past century and more.”(2) After beginning
with such introduction, Kinzer accounts for the overthrow of the governments in
Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and CIA sponsored or encouraged
overthrow of the governments of Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam,
Chile, Granada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq, through coups d'état and other means. Of course Libya and Syria are
missing from this list, as the book predates those operations. When Tom Paine
distributed his revolutionary “Common Sense” in early 1776, he advocated a
separate and self-governing state for the territories with the acknowledgement
of the role of the government: “Society in every state is a blessing, but
Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil.”(3) Whether it is the government that becomes corrupted, due
to its enormous power and wealth, or those who represent a government, can be
interpreted variedly in each society. “The problem of democracy in the
post-Revolutionary society was not, however, the Constitutional limitation on
voting. It lay deeper, beyond the Constitution, in the division of society into
rich and poor.”(4) When the rich is running the government, a class society
based on wealth is the outcome. “The United States was the richest country in
the world, with 5 percent of the earth’s population yet consuming 30 percent of
what was produced worldwide. But only a tiny portion of the American population
benefited; this richest 1 percent of the population saw its wealth increase
enormously starting in the late 1970s. As a result of changes in the tax
structure, by 1995 that richest 1 percent had gained over $1 trillion and now
owned over 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.”(5) In order
for those who are wealthy in this country to consume 25 percent more of the
share of global production, a massive army and a tested tactic are needed. Every
elected official in the high office, Democrat or Republican, has maintained
these two important factors.
According to Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute’s yearbook of 2013 the largest military
budget of all the countries belongs to the United States (36.6% of the total global
military spending).(6) The tested tactic was Islam, as it was previously
discussed in detail. “Iran deserves special mention here, simply because it is
at the intersection of so many areas and issues of importance to the United
States, including oil, Iraq, nuclear technology, and Islamic revival. With 70
million people, Iran is by far the most populous country in the Middle East and
a gold mine of energy resources: it has the second-largest reserves of oil in
the world, is the fourth-largest producer of oil, and is the fifth-largest
producer of natural gas.”(7). As the US government came to the realization that the
Shah was no longer beneficial in protecting Western governments’ gains in the
Middle East, Khomeini was approached. Khomeini seemed to be the best option in returning
the ever modernizing and developing Iran a dozen centuries back. “Whereas the
Shah sought suzerainty in the Persian Gulf and parts of the Indian Ocean
regions, while hoping to make Iran the Japan of western Asia, the Khomeini
government sought leadership in the entire Islamic world.”(8) Khomeini
and fundamental Islam in general, have been proven to be the best tool in
fighting Soviet Union’s imperialistic adventures in Afghanistan, and in turning
Soviet’s southern provinces against Kremlin. Iranian opposition was so much
involved in studying and scrutinizing regimes tactics and reactions that they
did not have time to analyze Khomeini’s writings. He was forward about his
views and the government he had in mind, which was the present Islamic regime
of Iran; a regime that brutally suppresses any ideology that does not match the
fundamental teachings of the Shia branch of Islam. In the first decade after
the establishment of the Islamic regime, all organizations and even individual
thinking of the left, and the nationalist and liberal were rooted out, leaving
people in state of trepidation and bafflement. However, the US government
officials had read Khomeini’s pronouncements and knew exactly what kind of
government he would create to replace the Shah’s. “There is a great difference
between all the various manmade forms of government in the world, on the one
hand- whatever their precise nature- and a divine government, on the other hand,
which follows divine law…. Divine governments, however, set themselves the task
of making man into what he should be. In his unredeemed state, man is like an
animal, even worse than the other animals.”(9) Before Khomeini flew
to Iran and while he was still in France as a deportee, US government contacted
him and ambiguously announced its support of the Ayatollah. Only a few close
allies of Khomeini knew the new direction the US was adopting in Iran. However,
after the war with Iraq and the disclosure of Iran-Contra Affair, Iranians witnessed
the double standard of the regime in rhetoric against the US and Israel, and
its back-alley deals with both of these governments. The triangular
relationship between Iran and Israel and the US is the subject of Parsi’s book
published in 2007.(10) When Iranian government decided to continue the
discontinued nuclear material enrichment, the relationship was changed, as the
Israeli government felt the threat of having another nuclear power country in
the region. Considering reactions of Western governments with the leadership
that the US imposed on them towards Iran, perhaps examination of sociological
and sociopolitical aspects of the critical actions of the Iranian government,
such as the revolution of 1979, hostage crisis, war with Iraq, people’s Green
Movement, and finally the nuclear crisis should be examined.
US and major Western governments in dealing with 1979
revolution- It was previously
detailed how Western governments concluded that a religious based government
would protect their achievements in the Middle-East better than the monarchy.
The final decision was made in the meeting in Guadalupe in January 3, 1979. “The Guadalupe Conference was Western countries
consensus to abandon Muhammad Reza Pahlavi at the middle of a crisis he was
unable to handle. Westerners had found, considering the widespread protests,
that even their presence could not do anything to help the Pahlavi Regime, so
Muhammad Reza Shah lost foreign support as one of the pillars of his crown. His
evacuation of Iran, unlike 25 years ago, had no return.”(11) There were of course constituents in Carter’s circle (such as Richard
Nixon and Henry Kissinger(12)) who
were in favor of the Pahlavi regime and keeping the Shah in power. However, a
fundamental Islam seemed to be more useful at the time, not only for Iran, but
also for the US supported and funded emerging Taliban clan in Pakistan, to be
trained in military camps in order to take over Afghan government. This was
also the beginning of a surge of fundamental Islamist from Middle East to Africa,
and recently to European countries. Western governments, in an ambition to turn
unfavorable states into their domains, received financial help from Saudi
Arabia in promoting fundamental Islam in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, with
disastrous outcome. Sometimes they are called Islamists or Fundamentalists,
however “the actions of Muslims will affect the Western choice of terms. But
Western perceptions, hopes, and prejudices will play an equal or greater role.
Debate over terminology has always surrounded the West's relations with Islam,
and its outcome has been as much a barometer of the West's needs as a
description of the actual state of Islam.”(13) Whether a change in the policy in Guadalupe to support and strengthen
the Shah in order for the regime to combat revolutionary forces would avoid
emergence of fundamentalist Islam, is not known.
Hostage Crisis-
Supporting of the post revolution government in Iran by the US government did
not last long after the second attempt of occupying US embassy in Tehran in
opposition to treatment of the deposed Shah in the US. American embassy in
Tehran was taken over by militant students on November 4 1979 that lasted for
444 days and ended in January 20 1981. Carter made an unsuccessful attempt to
free the hostages, which cost him his presidency and at the same time, made dealing
with Khomeini regarding the release of the hostage much more difficult. The
first post-revolutionary government of Iran (Bazargan’s National Front government)
objected to the takeover of the embassy and in disappointment with Khomeini who
sided with the hostage takers, resigned from their posts. This gave Khomeini an
opportunity to demolish liberals who were in strategic positions, and establish
a more conservative and reactionary government. It is important to mention that
if Carter was able to bring the hostages back to the US before the presidential
elections of 1979, he may have secured his second term. It was clear that
Khomeini, with absolute power at this point, was the greatest factor in
Reagan’s presidency. He did not even release the hostages, even though
agreements were made, until the day of Reagan’s inauguration. If President
Carter came to an agreement with the nationalist government in Iran and the
hostages were released before the election, not only the more moderate Iranian government
may have stayed in power, but the emergence of the ultra-conservative
governments (Democrats and Republicans alike) in the US would have been
prevented. It is clear that since the beginning
of 1980s and with the leaderships of Reagan and Thatcher governments in the US
and in England, a wave of ultra conservative and neoliberal surrounded policies
of most of the western countries. As a result, two important groups documented
two new policies for the US government, which were considered during the
Clinton presidency. These two documents became the government’s policy from
second Bush’s presidency to this day. The first document is titled: A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm “commonly known as the ‘Clean Break’ report is a policy document that was
prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard
Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to
solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on ‘Western values’. It
has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the
removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting
their possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’"(14). Since the plan was heavily relied on US cooperation, it
could not be accomplished until the presidency of the second Bush. The plan
included Turkey and Jordan as main ground assistants against other Arab
nations, especially those who may pose a threat towards Israel; and a clean break
for Israel by achieving peace through strength! Two of the objectives of this
plan were removal of Saddam Hussein, which caused destruction of Iraq, one of
the oldest civilizations, and removal of Bashar Assad from Syria, the most
multi-cultural multi-religion country in the Middle-East and another one of the
oldest civilizations in the world, which is underway. The second document is
titled: Project for the New American Century (PNAC) “The
Project for the New American Century intends,
through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and
seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also
strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American
international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and
defense policy and America's role in the world.”(15) This plan was written by a group headed by William Kristol
with the goal of “promoting American global leadership” in1997. The instrument
to achieve this goal was mainly strengthening militarily and leading the world
through military achievements. This policy was again possible to be taken off
the ground during the presidency of the second Bush. Attacking the sovereign
states of Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by Libya and Syria are pursuant to
this policy. PNAC members asked Clinton in 1997 for removal of Saddam Hussein,
which was approved by Clinton. This resulted in UN sanctions against Iraq.
Iran-Iraq
war- There are many documents
testifying that Khomeini in his grandiose plan of exporting his revolution to
other nations, even before returning to Iran, spoke of expanding into Iraq (location
of Shias pilgrimage of the tombs of their religious leaders). On the other
side, Saddam Hussein received green lights from the west that an invasion of Iran
and annexing Iran’s southern oil-rich territories to Iraq would be supported. The
war was formally declared on 22 September 1980 and lasted through 20 July 1988.
At the time, the destiny of American hostages was uncertain. In addition and as
it was mentioned before, the Shah had purchased large amount of US made
military ammunition, which had to be expended before Iranian government would
use it against Western allies. “The more ideological elements of the Iranian
regime believed that the Ba’ath Party and Iraq were fighting Iran on behalf of
Washington and Tel Aviv. Saddam’s invasion of Iran was believed to have been
encouraged by Washington, and as a result all U.S. allies, including Israel,
were viewed with great suspicion.”(16) The war ended with half
to one million people killed, in addition to many others with permanent
physical and mental injuries. Soon after Iraqi forces were pushed back to their
borders, and Iranian army continued moving into Iraqi territory, Saddam realized
that he could not win the war. Asking for truce, some Arab nations agreed to
pay reparation to Iranian government if Iranians stopped advancing. Khomeini,
with the Pan-Islamic ideas in mind, and without any military knowledge, not
only rejected Saddam’s peace proposal, he did not listen to Iranian advisors, a
great majority of whom advised him against continuation of the war. As a
result, the war lasted for close to eight years, when Khomeini’s speech (nicknamed
the poison goblet speech) was broadcasted, when he announced that in order to
stop more damages on Iranian public he was willing to stop the war which was
like drinking from a goblet of poison! At this time, Iranian people’s moral was
diminished and the regime did not look as promising as it did a decade earlier.
Another factor that made Iranians suspecting the nature of the Islamic regime
was the Contra Affair. Ronald Reagan created an army to fight the newly
empowered Sandinista government in Nicaragua. In order to finance this army, an
underground route was created for Israel to sell military ammunitions purchased
from the US to Iran, through arm dealers. The Zionist government did not desire
for Iraqis to win the war, and they knew that Iranian government was less of a
threat to their national security than Saddam Hussein was. As Reagan claimed he
did not know anything about the conspiracy, so did Khomeini! However, when this
affair was disclosed, Iranian people became totally disenchanted with the
Islamic regime. Young Iranians who had volunteered to go to the war in order to
save the mother country, and lost everything during the long lasting war, felt
cheated. Several oppositions erupted from different parts of Iran, which were
brutally put down. “In the summer of 1988, when its revolution was nearly a
decade old and the disastrous war with Iraq was winding down, the Iranian
government killed around 5,000 political prisoners. The event is not
particularly well known, partly because Iran went to considerable effort to
make sure this was so, and partly because there was so much going on elsewhere
at the time: the Soviet Union began pulling out of Afghanistan in May and a
year later the Berlin Wall came down. A tribunal sitting in London until June
22nd is attempting to fill in the gaps, hearing testimony from survivors of the
purge and from the relatives of those who went missing.”(17) Whether Western governments could stop the war is
not clear. However, it is clear that the two mentioned events, the hostages and
the war, solidified Khomeini’s rule in Iran. Hostage crisis enabled Khomeini to
sweep away all non-fundamentalist groups and imprison anyone who objected to
his rule. The war made people finding a common enemy by awakening the spirit of
patriotism in Iranian youth. As a result, these two factors congealed the
Islamic regime. There are many theories that without these factors the Islamic
regime could not survive, and a more moderate government would be in power
during the past three and a half decade of its existence.
The Green Movement- After four years of disastrous
presidency of Ahmadinejad, majority of qualified voters in Iran elected a more
moderate candidate who soon became very popular with Iranian people considering
his platform. However, his ideas would question the justification of having a spiritual
leader, among other things. This was a threat to the residing leader, and upon
his order, ballot boxes were rigged and some votes were fraudulently removed
and changed and Ahmadinejad was reported the winner of the election. Those who
knew popularity of their candidate, the contender, arranged a massive protest which
shocked the leadership. For several days afterwards, armed guards and plain
clothes armed thugs attacked demonstrators and more than hundred people were
killed and over 500 others were arrested. “The mass
protests followed a weekend of street demonstrations, rioting and other
expressions of discontent. These events were brought to the world in real time
through social-media networks and online video. Tehran’s authoritarian leaders
clearly were caught off-guard. They had managed to take down the telephone
system opposition supporters used for texting but for some reason were slow to
eliminate other social media. As open defiance of the election results broke
out, citizen journalists used new media to spread the word. And the whole Web
was watching. Iran is a highly computer-literate society with a large
number of bloggers and hackers. The hackers in particular were active in
helping keep channels open as the regime blocked them, and they spread the word
about functioning proxy portals. Hackers also reportedly took down Mr.
Ahmadinejad’s Web site in an act of cyber disobedience.”(18) This event
shook the leadership down to its core. The two candidates who people believed
to have received the most number of votes, and if the election was not rigged
they would be first and second in the election process, were arrested after the
revolt was suppressed, who are still in house arrest after six years. During
the presidency of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the controversy over the nuclear issue
erupted to its boiling points. It is widely believed that if the candidate that
was truly elected by people (Mir Hossein Musavi) became the president, the
nuclear issue would have been easily resolved and the controversy over uranium
enrichment by Iran would not have reached its present impasse. Another impact that
the green movement had internationally, was fueling other revolts which began
as peace movements (such as the Green Movement) and ended up to what was later
called as “The Arab Spring”. None of these movements however succeeded in their
demands and they were brutally suppressed, as was the Iranian Green Movement.
Nuclear Issue- Iran began a civilian nuclear program during the
1950s. In 1968, Iran signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. An atomic
energy body was created in 1973 by, then, the Shah of Iran. In 1974, a West
German company started construction of two light water reactors in Iran. Since
these constructions were damaged during the Iran-Iraq war, Khomeini consulted
the German company in 1984 about repairing the damaged facilities. In the late
1980s Iran bought uranium enrichment technology from a Pakistani scientist. Upon
a 1995 deal, construction of the reactor was completed by Russia in 2010. In
1996, President Clinton imposed sanctions for investment in Iran, with
understanding that Iran might secretly be trying to build a nuclear weapon. In
2002, a political dissident group (MEK) obtained documents revealing three
nuclear plants in Iran. In 2002, Iran agreed to halt enrichment of uranium,
however it was disclosed in 2004 that Iran disregarded the promise, and a new
agreement that was verified by I.A.E.A was put in place. In 2005, American officials
claimed that a stolen laptop from Iran contained documents about the nuclear
program, the source of which was not disclosed. Upon the presidency of
Ahmadinejad and his refusal of halting Iran’s nuclear program, some facilities
started their operations in 2006. In December of that year, sanctions against
Iran was put in place by the Security Council. In 2008 and upon a joint program
between the US and Israel, a cyber-attack of Iranian nuclear facilities began.
A negotiation about the issue between Iran and international representatives
ended in deadlock in 2008. Iran denied a 2009 claim of the US and Britain and
France about covertly building a new facility in the mountains. In 2010, UN
nuclear inspectors warned of Iranian military actively working on constructing
nuclear warheads, and approved new sanctions. In the same year, a computer worm
destroyed 1,000 centrifuges, a nuclear scientist was killed with a bomb in
Iran, and another nuclear scientist decides to defect to the west, but then
changed his mind! A stealth reconnaissance drone crashed in Iran and it was
captured by Iranian military. A bomb killed another nuclear scientist in Iran
in 2012, while Iranian government claimed to have built 3,000 new advanced
uranium centrifuges. Oil embargo and other sanctions were placed on Iranian
economy while Netanyahu spoke in the UN by drawing a red line on Iran’s nuclear
activities. A new round of sanctions were put in place in 2013. US blacklisted
Iranian businesses over violation of sanctions in 2013, and imposed sanctions
on those aiding Iran. In September of the same year, with a new moderate
Iranian president, US began direct talk with Iranian officials regarding
nuclear issues. Rounds of talks continued through 2015.(19) Nuclear issue has been the longest impediment
between Iran and the West for the past decade. Not only Iranian economy has
been hurting as a result of the sanctions, these sanctions have been hurting oil
importing nations as well. Having Netanyahu’s ranting and brandishing a Damocles’
sword, the US government has to tiptoe its policies towards Iran. Dr.
Christopher Bolan, who teaches national security policies in US Army War
College believes that there are some myths about Iran’s nuclear activities
which have to be understood. These myths are categorized as follows:
1. Iran is an irrational actor.
2. Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
3. Iranian civilian nuclear activities are a cover for
nuclear weapons program.
4. Iran has sufficient nuclear fuel to build a bomb.
5. Iran is on the brink of producing a nuclear weapon.
6. Iran’s enrichment activities are a violation of
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Not only these myths are explained in detail in an article
he posted online(20), some assumptions as
a result of these myths are also discussed and rescinded. Iranian nuclear
program has also been a tool in the hands of the US government in order to
receive cooperation in the areas which are vital to US policies. For instance,
Iran assisted US strategically in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In the case of
Syria, Iran’s submission would greatly move the negotiation forward. “’The U.S.
and its closest allies are on the brink of a historic deal that will both
prevent an Iranian bomb and war with Iran, and Congressional hawks are orchestrating
political stunts with foreign leaders to try to kill it,’ said NIAC President
Trita Parsi. ‘The American people do not want another senseless military
adventure and certainly don’t consider Benjamin Netanyahu to be their commander
in chief. The statement also reminds us of this episode:...in one of the most
critical national security debates of our time – the decision of whether to
invade Iraq – Netanyahu was brought to testify before Congress. In his remarks
he advocated strongly for the war, telling lawmakers ‘if you take out Saddam’s
regime, I guarantee you it will have enormous positive reverberations on the
region.’”(21) Although Iranian officials
have not relinquished their support of Syria (as Iran would be next in line to
be attacked according to the above documents), the latest negotiations have
apparently been optimistic. “Thus in the shadow of a deadly game now played
between the globalized U.S. empire and its nemesis, the equally globalized al
Qaeda, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presided over a discredited Islamic Republic, held
together against the collective will of its own citizens. The catastrophic
prospect of a nuclear Islamic republic would seal the fate of some seventy
million people held hostage within their own homeland. Furthermore, Iran is
surrounded by four nuclear powers- Israel to its west, Pakistan to its east,
Russia to its north, and the United States to its south in the Persian Gulf.
None of these four states is in a moral or even a military position to point
the finger at a sovereign nation-state and object to its pursuing of a nuclear
program. Least of all can a Jewish state (itself sitting on a massive stockpile
of nuclear arms) find fault with an Islamic republic or vice versa. The Jewish
state and the Islamic Republic are in fact mirror images of each other.”(22)
One of the most advanced methods of the US government in
ensuring American people’s acceptance of its policies is through what Noam
Chomsky coined as “Manufacturing Consent”. In 2007, BBC broadcasted a series of
films produced by Adam Curtis called “Century of the Self”.(23) This film was widely received by audiences as it
demonstrated how brain washing through media was discovered by a relative of
Sigmund Freud, and later used by
American government. As the hegemonic thirst of the US government has been
dwindling (due to internal economic problems) which is evident from South
American countries enjoying more independence from the US, people in countries
under sanction or any other inhuman treatment will be less threatened in facing
despotic or dictatorial regimes. It is clear from the history of Iranian
politics with the US involvement that in the absence of a great power
supporting the despotic government, people of Iran have the ability to remove
the theocratic or despotic regimes, and replace them with a secular and more
public-in-mind government. This has been the ideal since early 1950s with
nationalization of the oil movement. On the other hand, the democracy that we
witness in the US, is not true to the real meaning of the word (people
governing). It is more of a corporatocracy or perhaps militacracy than a
democracy. ‘One man one vote’ slogan is in practice ‘one $,000 one vote’. The
democratic regime that the US government is broadcasting to export to other
countries, should be examined in the US first. “The abiding fact that
determines the cosmopolitanism I propose here and shape the anticolonial
modernity that becomes the breeding ground of historical agency is history
itself. For much of the rest of the world, those with the patience of a solemn
river running quietly through the elongated valleys of any notion of home and
habitat, history has not ended. For them history has just begun- for they have
just entered it, for they never exited it. Them is also us- for the
anticolonial modernity I propose here embraces as much the disenfranchised and
racialized minorities within the so-called Metropolitan West as much as it does
the rest of the world- and thus the only way that Americans can help promote democracy
in Iran or anywhere else in the world is by first and foremost restoring and
safeguarding it in their own country.”(24)
1. David
Mason: The End of the American Century; 2009 Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc. P.2
2. Stephen
Kinzer: Overthrow; 2006 Henry Holt and Company, LLC; P. 1
3. Howard Zinn: A People’s History of the United
States; 2003 HarperCollins Publishers P.69
4. IBID P.96
5. IBID P.662
7. David
Mason: The End of the American Century; 2009 Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc. P.201
8. Trita
Parsi; Treacherous Alliance- The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S.;
2007 Yale University; P.3
9.
Translated and Annotated by Hamid Algar: Islam and Revolution; Writings and
Declarations of Imam Khomeini; 1981 Mizan Press, Berkeley; P.330
10. Trita
Parsi; Treacherous Alliance- The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S.;
2007 Yale University
16. Trita Parsi; Treacherous Alliance- The Secret
Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S.; 2007 Yale University; P.304
20. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/Summer_2013/8_Bolan_Article.pdf
22. Hamid
Dabashi: Iran, A People Interrupted; 2007 The New Press; P.240
24. Hamid
Dabashi: Iran, A People Interrupted; 2007 The New Press; P.263
