Iran is an ancient country with a long history. “In geological
terms, the Iranian plateau is late formation. As late as the Mesozoic era, most
of the land was covered by a large sea called the Sea of Tetis. This sea
eventually was drained and its remainders became the Caspian and the Black Sea.
The lasting effect of the Tetis has been the persistence of salt deserts in
Iran and the existence of at least one highly condensed salt lake, Urumiyah.
Caspian, the largest lake in the world, also has one of the highest amounts of
salt in cubic meter in the world.”(1) Before the government
of Iran was established in this region, there had been several other
governments in various parts of today’s Iran, and beyond. “The country called
Iran is only a part of the historical domain of Iranian cultural....
Historically, people of modern Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, western
Pakistan, Caucasus, Iraq, and southern coast of the Persian Gulf have at one
point or another been part of the greater Iranian cultural domain. This culture
has not been necessarily centred in Iran, and thus does not; in anyway, suggest
a chauvinistic or nationalistic view. It is indeed true that many times during
the history of Iran and its people, the centres of Iranian culture, and even
political power, have lied outside its current borders.”(2)
The term “Iran,” which was pronounced differently in various
languages of the ancient times, is translated by some linguistic scholars to
mean “the land of Aryans”. This translation was used by some for political
gains. For instance, during the Second World War, the government of Germany
used this phrase to make an alliance with the king of Iran. Prior to the
Iranian’s movement southward from the Caucuses, many other tribes called the
land their homes. One of the largest groups were Persians. “By the 600s BC,
the Persians had settled in the region in the southwestern portion of
the Iranian plateau, in what came to be known
as Persis ("city of Persians") bounded on the west by
the Tigris River and on the south by the Persian Gulf; this
region came to be their heartland..... At the height of its power after the
conquest of ancient Egypt, the empire encompassed approximately 8 million
square kilometers spanning three continents: Asia, Europe and Africa. At
its greatest extent, the empire included the modern territories of Iran,
Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, all
significant population centers of ancient Egypt as far west as Libya,
Thrace and the ancient kingdom of Macedonia, much of the Black Sea
coastal regions, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbajan, much of Central
Asia, Afghanistan, China, northern Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
and parts of Oman and the UAE. In 480 BC, it is estimated that 50
million people lived in the Achaemenid Empire. According to Guinness
World Records, the empire at its peak ruled over 44% of the world's population,
the highest such figure for any empire in history.”(3) The first established government that called itself “Iran” was
the kingdom of Cyrus (Kourosh in modern Iran). “By 546 B.C., Cyrus had defeated
Croesus, the Lydian king of fabled wealth, and had secured control of the
Aegean coast of Asia Minor, Armenia, and the Greek colonies along the Levant.
Moving east, he took Parthia (land of the Arsacids, not to be confused with
Parsa, which was to the southwest), Chorasmia (Khwarezm), and Bactria. He
besieged and captured Babylon in 539 B.C. and released the Jews who had been
held captive there, thus earning his immortalization in the Book of Isaiah.”(4)
Ancient Iranians, such as the people of Greek and Roman empires,
practiced polytheism for centuries. One of the last known polytheist religions
of the time, that spread throughout Iranian plateau and ancient Europe, was
Mithraism. “Mithra is an ancient Indo-Iranian god who was worshipped in
polytheistic Persia at least as early as the second millenium B.C., and who was
almost certainly related to the Vedic Mitra worshipped in India”(5) Some believe that Persian Mithra was a different deity than
Indian and Roman Mithras. “The story of Mithras is remarkable and paradoxical.
It is remarkable, because this god, who was alien to the pantheon of the Greeks
and Romans, had not been so to their distant Indo-European ancestors.”(6) It is believed to have shared many of its rituals and teachings
with Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. “In Persian, Mithra was the protector god of
many tribal societies for centuries, before Zarathushtra (commonly known in the
West by his Greek name of Zoroaster) brought about the reformation of Persian
polytheism.”(7) Zoroastrianism became the first monotheist
religion in the region for several centuries, or perhaps millennias. “But
before the first mentions of the Iranians and their kings appear in the
records, another important historical figure lived- Zoroaster or Zarathustra
(modern Persian Zardosht)... His dates are unknown and experts have disagreed
radically about when he lived… For example, there is the story that at birth
the infant Zoroaster did not cry, but laughed.”(8) The religious practice
of Zoroaster continued until the Arabs conquered Iran and forced their new
religion, Islam, on Iranians in 651 (the first attack on 631 was lost, and the
second attack in 633 was won by Arabs that began the end of Sassanid dynasty).
“The beduin Arabs who toppled the Sassanid Empire were propelled not only by a
desire for conquest but also by a new religion, Islam. The Prophet Mohammad, a
member of the Hashimite clan of the powerful tribe of Quraysh, proclaimed his
prophetic mission in Arabia in 612 and eventually won over the city of his
birth, Mecca, to the new faith. Within one year of Muhammad's death in 632,
Arabia itself was secure enough to allow his secular successor, Abu Bakr, the first
caliph, to begin the campaign against the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. Abu
Bakr defeated the Byzantine army at Damascus in 635 and then began his conquest
of Iran. In 637 the Arab forces occupied the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon
(which they renamed Madain), and in 641-42 they defeated the Sassanid army at
Nahavand. After that, Iran lay open to the invaders. The Islamic conquest was
aided by the material and social bankruptcy of the Sassanids; the native
populations had little to lose by cooperating with the conquering power.
Moreover, the Muslims offered relative religious tolerance and fair treatment
to populations that accepted Islamic rule without resistance. It was not until
around 650, however, that resistance in Iran was quelled. Conversion to Islam,
which offered certain advantages, was fairly rapid among the urban population
but slower among the peasantry and the dihqans [farmers]. The majority of
Iranians did not become Muslim until the ninth century.”(9) It is however crucial to mention that after Arabs had their tight
hold on the entire land, many uprisings in various parts of the country made
governing difficult for them. In the following three to five hundred years,
various Arab empires were shaken from their roots in many parts of the country.
Eventually, in order to live peacefully, Iranians had no other choice but to
accept Islam. However, they never submitted to the Arab’s form of religious
government dictated by Islam, and created their own versions of Islam. Whenever
Arabs defeated any of those Protestant-like branches, Iranians created new
versions, up to very recent times. That makes Iranian religion, culture, and
language non-Arab and unique throughout the Middle-East. Eventually Iranians
were able to rule the country themselves after many centuries of different Arab
and Turk empires governing various parts, or all, of the land. Many of the
Turks were of Persian origin and started Iranian style governments beginning
with the late tenth century.
Modern Iran started with the first revolution for constitutional
monarchy in 1905. It was won and the constitution was signed by the king.
However a new dynasty took over twenty years later and the supposed
constitutional monarch, Reza Shah, was a despot in practice. Reza Shah was
installed by the British government in 1925. He was a follower of Ataturk
(father of the Turks) and copied many of Ataturk’s policies. He had an iron
fist, and like Ataturk, he wanted to modernize Iran and knew that the first
step in modernizing was to cut the hands of the religious leaders from the
government. During the Second World War he claimed to be neutral, but
sympathized with the Nazi Germany “Partly because he needed a foreign friend
who shared his growing enmity toward Britain and the Soviet Union, Reza Shah
developed great sympathy for the German cause. When World War II broke out, he
declared a policy of neutrality that tilted decidedly toward Germany. He
allowed hundreds of German agents to operate in Iran. Many worked to build
support networks among regional warlords. Western leaders feared that the Nazis
were planning to use Iran as a platform for an attack across the Soviet Union’s
southern border that would greatly complicate the Allied war effort. To prevent
that, British and Soviet troops entered Iran on August 25, 1941. Their planes
dropped leaflets over Tehran. ‘We have decided that the Germans must go,’ they
said, ‘and if Iran will not deport them, then the English and the Russians
will.’”(10) As a result, Reza Shah was removed by the
allies and his son, Mohammad Reza, was installed in power by the allies. The
son, who is better known in the west as “The Shah”, was also a supporter of
modernizing the country and used the profits from natural resources to pay for
it. However, he did not have his father’s boldness to confront religious
leaders, while maintaining the welfare of his benefactors, the West. The Shah’s
popular prime minister, Mossadegh, was the first leader of an oil producing
country to struggle for nationalizing its mineral resources.This did not appeal
to British Petroleum that controlled production and shipment of Iranian oil. In
1953, with the help of the Shah, Mossadegh was deposed through a coup d'etat
operated by CIA and with the help of the British Intelligence Service. “Despite
his historic misjudgments, however, Mossadegh can hardly be considered to have
been a failure as prime minister. His achievements were profound and even
earth-shattering. He set his people off on what would be a long and difficult
voyage toward democracy and self-sufficiency, forever altering not only their
history but the way they viewed themselves and the world around them. He dealt
a devastating blow to the imperial system and hastened its final collapse. He
inspired people around the world who believe that nations can and must struggle
for the right to govern themselves in freedom. He towers over Iranian history,
Middle Eastern history, and the history of anticolonialism. No account of the
twentieth century is complete without a chapter about him.”(11) That was the first challenge that the Shah had to face, since he
opposed nationalization in order to bend to the wishes of British and the US
governments, who would lose control of Iranian oil if it was nationalized. “In
the years to come, the CIA carried out strikingly similar coups in Guatemala,
Indonesia, and Chile. Some resulted in mass killings on a genocidal scale. The
killing fields of Guatemala and Indonesia could well match the best known
horrors of the twentieth century. Conversely, it led many to suspect that the
United States was planning coups here, there, and everywhere. Whenever
governments- whether in the Congo, Brazil, Argentina, South Vietnam, Cambodia,
Iraq, or Pakistan-were overthrown by their military, suspicion automatically
fell on the CIA.”(12) The lesson for the young Shah was to rely on
the US for support, and crack down on any opposition brutally. From that time
on US military products were flowing into Iran along with American military and
security advisors. The Shah was a religious person. He believed that he was
chosen by divine right of Islam. He miscalculated the power of the religious
figures in Iran, and because of his religious beliefs, in conjunction with his
fear of communism, he thought that religion could save the day. Any political
party that did not follow his policies was banned. Religious leaders, who were
rooted among common people, had a good audience to preach about their
opposition to some of modernizations of the Shah. The most prominent was
Ayatollah Khomeini, who became famous after some of his bold and charismatic
speeches. He was deported after one of his speeches. However, he did not kept
silent and he continued his venomous criticism against the Shah.
“Ayatollah Khomeini had been able to keep in closer touch with his
supporters inside Iran. Tapes of his sermons attaching the regime were smuggled
in with increasing frequency and he was well able to exploit the regime’s more
tolerant attitude towards mosque pronouncements in mid-1977.”(13) The anti-regime elements, mostly with the religious faction, were
able to bring massive crowds to the streets. Jimmy Carter noted from his
meetings in Guadeloupe: “My three associates at Guadeloupe never had any
sympathy for the shah and continued to be more compatible with the revolutionary
forces than I. Later, it was difficult for me to induce them to support our
embargo when American hostages were being held captive in Iran. They valued
their trade relationships, especially access to oil supplies.”(14) With the help of Europeans and the US (through their agent/
advisor Richard Cottam who had been well acquainted with Iranian politics since
early 50s), Khomeini was assured of their support in assuming power in Iran.
“In 1971, when the Shah seemed most secure on his throne, the CIA noticed his
growing estrangement from reality and warned of its consequences. As the Shah’s
power grew, according to the agency’s analysis, so did his isolation. This
combination, the CIA suggested, was likely to ensure that he would ‘fail to
comprehend the intensity of, say, a political protest movement.’ This failure,
in turn,would inevitably increase ‘the chances for miscalculation in dealing
with’ such a movement. The price of the Shah’s miscalculation would turn out to
be the end of the short-lived Pahlavi dynasty and an end to the almost
2,500-year-old tradition of monarchy in Iran.”(15) Ervand Abrahamian in
his well documented book, “Iran Between Two Revolutions”, considers three
factors as fatal elements in the downfall of the Shah. After the uprising of
November 1978, when about ten percent of the population marched in the streets,
many of the government buildings were damaged and some were burned to the
ground. This event coupled with the strikes of many government employees shook
the regime to its core. This was the first sign of the collapse of the regime.
The second factor was lack of participation of military personnel (mostly
drafted to serve a two year term) to fight with their countrymen. The third and
the most important factor was lack of Washington’s trust in the Shah, as they
concluded that he was no longer able to lead the country.(16)
The decision made by the western governments to replace the Shah
with Khomeini was not just a hasty decision due to lack of choices. It was
rooted in the more than a century old British, and then US, governments’
realization that fundamentalist and militarist Islam was the best way to keep
oil rich countries backward and prone to exploitation. Later, it became evident
that empowering fundamentalists could be used as a defense against the East
Block. In 1885, the British Intelligence Service met with Jamal Eddin
al-Afghani, a Persian-Afghan Muslim fundamentalist, in order to create a
Pan-Islamic government in the region. The ideology of fundamentalist Islam’s support
by the west has continued to this day. “Were we to construct a biblical
genealogy of right-wing Islamism, it would read like this: Afghani begat
Mohammed Abduh...begat Mohammed Rashid Rida...begat Hassan al-Banna (the
founder of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt)...begat Said Ramadan...begat Osama bin
Laden.”(17) The relationship between the British and
fundamentalist Islam continued, and with the advent of US hegemonic power, the
affiliation was passed on to the US. “While both Britain and the United States
were playing with fire, mobilizing assassins from the Muslim Brotherhood
against Nasser, there is also evidence that the Brotherhood was cooperating
with a violent, assassination-prone Islamist group from Iran, the so-called
Devotees of Islam, one of whose founders was an Iranian ayatollah who worked
with the CIA in toppling Mossadegh.”(18) The ayatollah whom
Dreyfuss is speaking of is ayatollah Kashani who was a Protégé of Khomeini. The
Iranian government after the revolution was a key factor in assisting the US in
destabilizing the government of Taliban in Afghanistan, and later, the
government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, as it will be explained below when the
effect of the Iranian revolution in the global war against terror is discussed.
“In going to war, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, and in declaring the
start of a global war on terrorism with no end in sight, President Bush was
careful not to embrace fully the Lewis-Huntington theory of a civilizational
clash. In speech after speech- and despite an initial clumsy reference to the
campaign in the Middle East as a ‘crusade’- the president insisted that the
United States was engaged in a war against terrorists, not a war against the
people of the Koran. In fact, however, Bush’s war on terrorism is merely an
excuse to implement a radical new approach to the Middle East and Central Asia.
It is not a policy toward Islam, or Islamic fundamentalism, or even toward
terrorism, Islamic or otherwise.”(19)
The revolution caused many repercussions in Iran and in
the rest of the world. During the revolution and Carter’s presidency, when the
Shah was exiled from Iran and the US let him come to the country for medical
help and sanctuary, the Iranians were not happy about the US’s decision to once
again interfere with their issues. “On November
4, 1979, an angry mob of young Islamic revolutionaries overran the U.S. Embassy
in Tehran, taking more than 60 Americans hostage. ‘From the moment the hostages
were seized until they were released minutes after Ronald Reagan took the oath
of office as president 444 days later,’ wrote historian Gaddis Smith, ‘the
crisis absorbed more concentrated effort by American officials and had more
extensive coverage on television and in the press than any other event since
World War II.’”(20) This was the second time that
some fanatics, who called themselves “followers of Imam [Khomeini] line’s
students,” invaded the American embassy. The first time, the administration was
controlled by secular liberals, and they were successful in preventing the mob
from taking over the embassy and capturing the occupants. By the time the
second attempt was made, Khomeini had full control of the government, with his
clergies in some sensitive government posts. The Islamic government was the
first government who challenged the authority of the US by this action, and the
event introduced the world to the face of militarist and/or terrorist Islam.
The impact of this action on future US policies was indescribable.
On September 22, 1980 Iraqis invaded the borders of an
unsuspecting Iran starting the Iran-Iraq war that would last eight years. “Iraq wanted to seize control of the rich oil-producing
Iranian border region of Khūzestān, a
territory inhabited largely by ethnic Arabs over which Iraq sought to extend
some form of suzerainty. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein wanted to reassert his
country’s sovereignty over both banks of the Shatt al-ʿArab, a river formed by
the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that was historically the
border between the two countries. Saddam was also concerned over attempts by
Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government to incite rebellion among Iraq’s
Shiʿite majority.”(21) Although Iranians were unprepared,
it only took them the first two years of the war to win back all of the
territory they had initially lost to the Iraqis. By 1982 the Iranians were on
the offensive and the Iraqis were desperately trying to call a ceasefire. “When Saddam Hussein, president
of Iraq, quite deliberately started the war, he miscalculated on two counts:
first, in attacking a country greatly disorganized by revolution but also
greatly energized by it-and whose regime could be consolidated only by a long
“patriotic” war, as with all revolutionary regimes; and second, at the level of
theater strategy, in launching a surprise invasion against a very large country
whose strategic depth he was not even trying to penetrate.”(22) In
fact, Saddam had received acknowledgement from the US before attacking Iran.
Considering the amount of weaponry that the Shah had purchased from the US and
amassed in corners of the country, and considering that hostage takers were not
trusted, getting rid of its military along with its hardware altogether by
another government (Iraqi) with another stockpile, the US believed a war would
get rid of them all. During the war, not only did they weaken each other’s
military to almost nil, they destroyed each others’ cities as well. “Moreover,
competition for control of oil supplies has recently led to two wars in the
Persian Gulf-the 1980-1990 Iran-Iraq War and the 1990-1991 Gulf War-which
forced consumer countries to increase defense spending and intervene militarily
to protect supplies in the region.”(29) Reconstructing
all the damages required selling more of their natural resources, which both
countries had much to spare, and the West could benefit after all.
So how did this war last so long? The American
government was selling arms to both sides, Iran in secret, in a large plan that
became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. In the same year as the Iranian
revolution, there was another revolution going on in Nicaragua against a
dictatorship that had been supported by the US. A new government was established,
“Reforms
started to be held in order to take the country out of the post war disaster
and to promote social justice at all levels. Banks were nationalized and
properties were expropriated from the Somoza family and their allies.
Furthermore, as a sign of total victory a National Crusade of Alphabetization
(an illiteracy campaign) was organized, reducing the illiteracy rate from 53%
to 12%. This program was admired worldwide.”(23) The US
government did not support a communist-like government so they started an
economic blockade in Nicaragua and looked for a way to fund the rebels, who
were mostly Honduran “Contras.” Also, American hostages were being held in
Lebanon, and the US government thought the Iranians might have enough influence
to release them. “[The Iran Contra Affair] consisted of three interconnected parts: The
Reagan administration sold arms to Iran, a country desperate for material
during its lengthy war with Iraq; in exchange for the arms, Iran was to use its
influence to help gain the release of Americans held hostage in Lebanon; and
the arms were purchased at high prices, with the excess profits diverted to
fund the Reagan-favored "contras" fighting the Sandinista government
in Nicaragua.”(24) The arms were channelled to
Iran through Israel.
Nuclear
power in Iran started with help from the
US government in the time of the Shah, but after the revolution in 1979,
Khomeini disbanded the creation and research of nuclear power in Iran, but it
started again in 1982. “The most controversial
dimension of the program to many in the international community has been Iran's
effort to build up its enrichment capabilities, which could be used to produce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.”(25) Iran’s nuclear ambition
started many years after the revolution, however it was not disclosed to the
world yet and the government of Iran treated it as a clandestine operation.
“There are basically four views in Iran with respect to weapons development and
a potential nuclear program. The first group consists of those who believe Iran
does not need nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons capability at all, but their
number is very small. The second group consists of those who maintain that Iran
is entitled to have peaceful nuclear technology and that it should not give up
its right to exploit the merits of peaceful nuclear energy applications. The
third group consists of those who believe that Iran needs to develop nuclear
weapons capability, but not right away. They say that Iran cannot trust the
international community and, remembering the experience of chemical weapons use
during the Iran-Iraq war, they point out that nobody thought the world would
allow Iraq to cross the weapons of mass destruction threshold. When chemical
weapons were put into use, however, the West watched and did nothing. The
fourth group consists of hard-liners who strongly argue for withdrawal from the
NPT and the development of nuclear weapons as soon as possible.”(26) Issues between
the US and Iran over nuclear development still go on today. Periodically news
will surface of the US trying to stop the Iranian government from continuing
its nuclear programs through “nuclear talks.” A recent article stated: “Iranian
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced on Sunday that he now opposes the signing of a
“political framework agreement” that would, according to the Obama administration,
establish the basic terms of a nuclear deal with Tehran prior to the conclusion
of detailed final agreement. By ruling out the framework, Khamenei is reversing
a commitment made by his own negotiating team in November.”(27) The American government
comes up with punishments for the Iranians when these nuclear deals aren’t met.
“The only proven way to rebuild American
leverage is to let Khamenei know that his regime will face punishing sanctions
if it continues to negotiate in bad faith. Obama has admitted many times that
tougher sanctions played a decisive role in bringing Iran to the negotiating
table.”(28)
The Iranian revolution was
ignited in an oil and gas rich country, surrounded by other oil and gas rich
countries. It became a religious government established in a region with the
same ideology (with different factions of Islam). The Islamic governments in
Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, created the
best buffer zone against the USSR. It also
created some internal turbulence in parts
of the USSR after it was crumpled. Many religious
wars began in the East Block after the demise of
the Soviet Union. The use of fundamentalist Islam was the best option at the
time, as the result was benefiting the West through Al-qaeda, the Taliban,
ISIS, and many others which were brought into power by the Western budget and a
military advisor. The Iranian Hostage Crisis made the US policymaker rethink
and remap the whole region. The Iran-Iraq war energized military ammunition
factories of the west to produce more, with western government allocating more
budget for their militaries. It also enabled the Reagan government to
finance a dirty war against its southern hemisphere countries to prevent
further socialism in the region. Finally, the nuclear issue with Iran strengthened
one of the biggest allies of the US in the Middle-East, Israel. More
importantly, with the absence of the Eastern Block countries and Warsaw Treaty,
a new international enemy was created for the west, called Islam. The Iranian revolution influenced the world,
specifically Western governments’ policies in
many ways, and made changes in how the world perceived
Islam and Middle East. These changes are still continuing today.
___________________________________________________
(1) Ironology.com (http://iranologie.com/the-history-page/the-land-of-iran-and-early-civilisations/)
(2) Ibid
(4) Iran, a country study-
Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Edited by Glenn E. Curtis and
Eric Hooglund (P.7) (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/pdf/CS_Iran.pdf)
(5) Payam Nabarz, Caitlin
Matthews: The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief That Shaped the Christian
World; 2005 Inner Tradition/Bear & Company; P. 10
(6) Ibid; P. 17
(7) Ibid; P. 10
(8) Michael Axworthy: A
History of Iran: Empire of the Mind; 2010 Paperback by Basic Books; P. 6
(10) Stephen Kinzer: All
the Shah’s Men; 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; P. 45
(11) Ibid; P. 207
(12) Ervand Abrahamian: The
Coup; 2013 The New Press, New York; P. 205
(13) Robert Graham: Iran
The Illusion of Power; 1979 St. Martin’s Press, Inc.; P.219
(14) Jimmy Carter: White
House Diary; 2010 Farrar, Straus and Giroux; P. 275
(15) Abbas Milani:
The Shah; 2012 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN; P. 3
(16) Ervand Abrahamian:
Iran Between Two Revolutions; 1982 Princeton University press
(17) Robert Dreyfuss:
Devil’s Game; 2005 Metropolitan Books; P. 20
(18) Ibid; P. 102
(19) Ibid; P.335
(20) The Iranian Hostage
Crisis (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-hostage-crisis)
(23) Sandinista Revolution
(https://vianica.com/go/specials/15-sandinista-revolution-in-nicaragua.html)
(24) The Iran-Contra Affair
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/iran.htm)
(26) Kaveh. L. Afrasiabi:
Iran’s Nuclear Program; 2006 BookSurge, LLC; P. 2
(28) Ibid
(29) Robert K. Schaeffer:
Understanding Globalization; 2003 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; P.194
