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.
