Iranian Revolution - and the role played by USA

[Michael]

U.S. policies may have contributed to Iran revolution, study says

By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 17, 2008

BEIRUT -- A new report based on previously classified documents suggests that the Nixon and Ford administrations created conditions that helped destabilize Iran in the late 1970s and contributed to the country's Islamic Revolution.

A trove of transcripts, memos and other correspondence show sharp differences over rising oil prices developing between the Republican administrations and Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi in the mid-1970s, says a report to be published today in the fall issue of Middle East Journal, an academic journal published by the Washington-based Middle East Institute, a think tank.

The report, after two years of research by scholar Andrew Scott Cooper, zeros in on the role of White House policymakers -- including Donald H. Rumsfeld, then a top aide to President Ford -- hoping to roll back oil prices and curb the shah's ambitions, despite warnings by then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that such a move might precipitate the rise of a "radical regime" in Iran.

Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-shah17-2008oct17,0,7636765.story)

Well, it only took thirty years for the American media to catch up with what many people outside the USA have known for a long time. The carefully constructed headline is priceless - as if they are still quite unsure if it is even possible for the USA to screw up foreign policy this badly.

I personally thought it was common knowledge that the USA created the percursor to OPEC and then fucked the Shah over - almost daring the Islamic radicals to take him out. Heck, the Shah started warning his Washington puppet-masters in 1973 about serious trouble. They weren't interested - they knew better (or so they thought). Shah Pahlavi saw it coming. Washington didn't.

[Americano]

Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-shah17-2008oct17,0,7636765.story)

Well, it only took thirty years for the American media to catch up with what many people outside the USA have known for a long time. The carefully constructed headline is priceless - as if they are still quite unsure if it is even possible for the USA to screw up foreign policy this badly.

I personally thought it was common knowledge that the USA created the percursor to OPEC and then fucked the Shah over - almost daring the Islamic radicals to take him out. Heck, the Shah started warning his Washington puppet-masters in 1973 about serious trouble. They weren't interested - they knew better (or so they thought). Shah Pahlavi saw it coming. Washington didn't.

It was and is common knowledge but still denied and debated by many caught-up in current administration's anti Islamic (the new communism) rhetoric. I've read posts on other forums actually admiring the Shah's reign while terming the Iranian revolution a disaster for Iranians.

[Michael]

It was and is common knowledge but still denied and debated by many caught-up in current administration's anti Islamic (the new communism) rhetoric. I've read posts on other forums actually admiring the Shah's reign while terming the Iranian revolution a disaster for Iranians.
Other forums yes... not likely here!

And yes, the rightwing still harbors the fantasy that the Iranian revolution was entirely caused by Jimmy Carter's ineptitude, or his socialism or something.

As this article shows, Iran was on its way long before Carter arrived in the WH.

Remarkably enough, honest observers will admit that Iran has more 'actual' democracy now than it ever had under the Shah. Amazing how that works. When Iran was ruled by a military despot in the back pocket of the Pentagon, Iran is hailed as a model nation. When that nation actually goes democratic, they become an enemy.

[Americano]

Other forums yes... not likely here!

And yes, the rightwing still harbors the fantasy that the Iranian revolution was entirely caused by Jimmy Carter's ineptitude, or his socialism or something.

As this article shows, Iran was on its way long before Carter arrived in the WH.

Remarkably enough, honest observers will admit that Iran has more 'actual' democracy now than it ever had under the Shah. Amazing how that works. When Iran was ruled by a military despot in the back pocket of the Pentagon, Iran is hailed as a model nation. When that nation actually goes democratic, they become an enemy.

Smithsonian has a decent article on Iran:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/28393684.html

(my only hard-copy subscription)

[neorealist]

I'm about finished with a great book on this subject, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. Yes, Iran is more democrat now than it was under the police state during the reign of the Shah; however, one could easily argue Iran is less democratic today than it was under president Khatami. During his presidency, Iran was much more liberal and progressive than what it is today. Khatami attemped to normalize relations with the US, but was rejected by GWB...now we have an archconservative in the presidency.

I have frequently speak with a contact who spent 20+ years with the DI at the Agency during the 70s and 80s...according to this senior analyst, the leadership team did NOT expect a revolution in Iran despite some clear warning signs.

Iran's UN ambassador has just publicaly stated that Iran hopes for Obama to win the election, because Obama is expected to be less rigid...however they expect very little to change conerning US foreign policy (which he is right IMHO).

I don't the revolution was caused by a particular US admin.

[Michael]

I'm about finished with a great book on this subject, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. Yes, Iran is more democrat now than it was under the police state during the reign of the Shah; however, one could easily argue Iran is less democratic today than it was under president Khatami. During his presidency, Iran was much more liberal and progressive than what it is today. Khatami attemped to normalize relations with the US, but was rejected by GWB...now we have an archconservative in the presidency.
Many have asserted that this 'conservative shift' was due the US 'meddling' in Iranian politics (during the 1990's) - secretly funding 'reform' groups and this caused a backlash in Iran against the reform movement.

(that would have been under the Clinton Administration, illustrating my point that US foreign policy never really changes regardless of who's in the WH)

I have frequently speak with a contact who spent 20+ years with the DI at the Agency during the 70s and 80s...according to this senior analyst, the leadership team did NOT expect a revolution in Iran despite some clear warning signs.
The same could be said about Truman's decision to cross the 38th parallel, or the 'US invasion of Vietnam', or the US invasion of Iraq.

Institutional Washington seems to live in a bubble of fantasies and delusions. Any normal person could have predicted China's military response to the US invasion of North Korea, or that the US was going to have a huge political problem in Vietnam, or that the Iraqi Adventure was going to turn out badly (and that they weren't going to throw rose petals at the feet of US troops).

But all the experts in Washington always see things differently - and usually incorrectly as it turns out.

[Michael]

Smithsonian has a decent article on Iran:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/28393684.html

(my only hard-copy subscription)
Indeed - an excellent article - very good primer for anyone not familiar with Iranian 20th century history and wants to know why things are the way they are between USA and Iran.

[Americano]

Many have asserted that this 'conservative shift' was due the US 'meddling' in Iranian politics (during the 1990's) - secretly funding 'reform' groups and this caused a backlash in Iran against the reform movement.

(that would have been under the Clinton Administration, illustrating my point that US foreign policy never really changes regardless of who's in the WH)


The same could be said about Truman's decision to cross the 38th parallel, or the 'US invasion of Vietnam', or the US invasion of Iraq.

Institutional Washington seems to live in a bubble of fantasies and delusions. Any normal person could have predicted China's military response to the US invasion of North Korea, or that the US was going to have a huge political problem in Vietnam, or that the Iraqi Adventure was going to turn out badly (and that they weren't going to throw rose petals at the feet of US troops).

But all the experts in Washington always see things differently - and usually incorrectly as it turns out.

US public well-being and that of other countries seldom has anything to do with military industrial complex requirements.