A badly Needed History Lesson
Let's go back to the beginning
Why was Iran mad at us in 1979?
To find out, we have to look back to 1953, a time most of us do not remember. Our problems started there. In 1953 we helped overthrow a democratically elected president in Iran. In his place, we installed a corrupt shah of Iran in a U.S.-supported dictatorship which included one of the world's most terrifying and torturous secret police, the Savak. In the aftermath of the "Iranian Revolution" we started supporting and supplying weapons to our new best buddy in the region, Sadaam Hussein.
Look at that again: We planted the seeds of the "Iranian Revolution". We built up Hussein, supplied him with weapons then tore him down. We supported both Hussein and the Shah and both had hated secret police. Our own CIA created Bin Laden to meddle in Afganistan, another place we had no real business. Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3 on meddling, meddling and more meddling. The roots of this whole sordid affair all started by overthrowing a democratically elected leader and supporting a murderous thug instead.
When Iranians took U.S. officials hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Americans were mystified and angry, not being able to comprehend how Iranians could be so hateful toward U.S. officials, especially since the U.S. government had been so supportive of the shah of Iran for some 25 years. What the American people failed to realize is that the deep anger and hatred that the Iranian people had in 1979 against the U.S. government was rooted in a horrible, anti-democratic act that the U.S. government committed in 1953. That was the year the CIA secretly and surreptitiously ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, a man named Mohammad Mossadegh, from power, followed by the U.S. government's ardent support of the shah of Iran's dictatorship for the next 25 years.
fff.org
Want proof?
In a speech delivered in March 2000 by Madeleine Albright (then secretary of state ), the U.S. government finally acknowledged what it had done to the Iranian people and to democracy in Iraq:
In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent. As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations.
gasandoil.com
Let's continue the history lesson shall we?
After the shah was overthrown and replaced by the theocratic Shi'ite rule of the Ayatollah Khomeini, the U.S. government increased its support for Iran's main rival, long-time CIA asset Saddam Hussein. After that war was finally over, and he got out of line (or perhaps misunderstood his instructions) and invaded Kuwait in 1990, our government went to the desert to throw him out. This just happened to outrage a few of the leaders of our old friends the mujahedin, among them Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, who put Desert Storm and the ensuing permanent Saudi bases, sanctions, and continual bombing of the no-fly zones, at the top of their list of reasons to hate America.
antiwar.com
Of course our idiot in the white house thinks the solution to problems created by meddling is of course more meddling. Now we are tied up in Iraq and stirring up more justified hatred of the US in the region.
It sure seems like we created our own problems if you ask me.
In fact, we always seem to be creating our own problems.
The lessons of history are clear.
100% of the time we meddled needlessly in the affairs of countries in the mid-east, we created huge problems. Every time we attempted to solve the previous problems with more meddling. We are now in our 5th round of major meddling with our second invasion of Iraq. The problems we have had in the region are largely our own making.
It appears we have learned nothing from meddling in the Mid-East, nothing from meddling in Vietnam, and nothing from meddling in South America either. The solution to the problems created by meddling is always more meddling. Now instead of having discussions with Iran or Syria or North Korea we are going out of our way to threaten them. What would any sane ruler do in the face of those threats, especially after looking at what we did to Iraq for no reason? IMO any sane ruler would attempt to get his hands on nuclear weapons as fast as he could.
In the meantime terrorism is on the rise. Rule of the day: The more you meddle, the more terrorism you face. Is there terrorism in Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, or Canada? While no country is immune, the more you go about poking your nose in other people's business, the more problems and ultimately the more terrorism and backlashes you are going to create. Here we go again, now in round 5 and spending billions (perhaps trillions before it is all over), and we have nothing to show for it but we have given enormous numbers of people in the region more reason to hate us. The unintended consequences down the road of this last stupid invasion will likely be as extreme, and probably even more so than the preceding messes we created and brought on ourselves. No doubt we will attempt to solve those problems with more meddling.
History is clear: The more you meddle the bigger your problems.
How come no one in the white house can see it?
This administration badly needs a history lesson
taking a little liberty this weekend but the economic implications of this mess are going to be enormous as we attempt to assert more and more and more military control over things as we slowly spend ourselves into the ground. If it turns out we can not contain such discussions to the weekend or if they get out of hand, I will stop them.
Mish |
