History lesson with TomDispatch

January 17, 2012
Tomgram: Pepe Escobar, Sinking the Petrodollar in the Persian Gulf

These days, with a crisis atmosphere growing in the Persian Gulf, a little history lesson about the U.S. and Iran might be just what the doctor ordered.  Here, then, are a few high- (or low-) lights from their relationship over the last half-century-plus:

Summer 1953: The CIA and British intelligence hatch a plot for a coup that overthrows a democratically elected government in Iran intent on nationalizing that country’s oil industry.  In its place, they put an autocrat, the young Shah of Iran, and his soon-to-be feared secret police.  He runs the country as his repressive fiefdom for a quarter-century, becoming Washington’s “bulwark” in the Persian Gulf -- until overthrown in 1979 by a home-grown revolutionary movement, which ushers in the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs.  While Khomeini & Co. were hardly Washington’s men, thanks to that 1953 coup they were, in a sense, its own political offspring.  In other words, the fatal decision to overthrow a popular democratic government shaped the Iranian world Washington now loathes, and even then oil was at the bottom of things.

1967: Under the U.S. “Atoms for Peace” program, started in the 1950s by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Shah is allowed to buy a 5-megawatt, light-water type research reactor for Tehran (which -- call it irony -- is still playing a role in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program).  Defense Department officials did worry at the time that the Shah might use the “peaceful atom” as a basis for a future weapons program or that nuclear materials might fall into the wrong hands.  “An aggressive successor to the Shah,” went a 1974 Pentagon memo, “might consider nuclear weapons the final item needed to establish Iran’s complete military dominance of the region.”  But that didn’t stop them from aiding and abetting the creation of an Iranian nuclear program.

The Shah, like his Islamic successors, argued that such a program was Iran's national “right” and dreamed of a country that would get significant portions of its electricity from a string of nuclear plants.  As a 1970s ad by a group of American power companies put the matter: “The Shah of Iran is sitting on top of one of the largest reservoirs of oil in the world.  Yet he’s building two nuclear plants and planning two more to provide electricity for his country.  He knows the oil is running out -- and time with it.”  In other words, the U.S. nuclear program was the genesis for the Iranian one that Washington now so despises.

September 1980: Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein launches a war of aggression against Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran.  In the early 1980s, he becomes Washington’s man, our “bulwark” in the Persian Gulf, and we offer him our hand -- and also "detailed information" on Iranian deployments and tactical planning that help him use his chemical weapons more effectively against the Iranian military.  Oh, and just to make sure things turn out really, really well, the Reagan administration also decides to sell missiles and other arms to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran on the sly, part of what became known as the “ Iran-Contra Affair” and which almost brings down the president and his men.  Success!

March 2003: Saddam Hussein is, by now, no longer our man in Baghdad but a new “Hitler” who, top Washington officials claim, undoubtedly has a nuclear weapons program that could someday leave mushroom clouds rising over U.S. cities.  So the Bush administration launches a war of aggression against Iraq, which like Iran just happens to -- in the words of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- “float on a sea of oil.”  (Bush officials hope, in the wake of a “cakewalk” of a war to revive that country’s oil industry, to privatize it, and use it to destroy OPEC, driving down the price of oil on world markets.)  Nine years later, a Shiite government is in power in Baghdad closely allied with Tehran, which has gained regional strength and influence thanks to the disastrous U.S. occupation.

So call it an unblemished record of a kind not easy to find.  In more than 50 years, America’s leaders have never made a move in Iran (or near it) that didn’t lead to unexpected and unpleasant blowback.  Now, another administration in Washington, after years of what can only be called a covert war against Iran, is preparing yet another set of clever maneuvers -- this time sanctions against Iran’s central bank meant to cripple the country’s oil industry and crack open the economy followed by no one knows what.

And honestly, I mean, really, given past history, what could possibly go wrong?  Regime change in Iran?  It’s bound to be a slam dunk and if you don’t believe it, check out Pepe Escobar, that fabulous peripatetic reporter for Asia Times and TomDispatch regular. Tom

Comments

[Ron Paul 2012]

Our choices for 2012: Big Government war machine with R-on the right and L-on the left. Or Ron Paul and the Constitution?

We already know who toonist will be voting for.

"In more than 50 years, America’s leaders have never made a move in Iran (or near it) that didn’t lead to unexpected and unpleasant blowback."

Ron Paul has been saying this for years. http://mises.org/daily/2588

From 1998, watch till the end to hear Secretary of State.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uYlNThogCg

[USA Carol]

Rep. Paul will NEVER get elected President! Why don't you save your energy and get behind a true American? An American businessman with a proven track record of job growth! An American with the ability to lead...Mitt Romney 2012

[Ron Paul 2012]

Carol, go ahead and educate us on who is a true American. Oh and please define "true American".

[Ron Paul 2012]

Welcome to the Big Government Supporters forum Carol! If you like big government, more wars, more spending, more regulation, more erosion or our rights and liberty, and I sense you do, you've come to the right place! You will find love and support for your big government ideas here! Looking forward to hearing more of the same big government love and support, after all it's worked so well up to now why change anything?

PS. There seems to be more then one Ron Paul supporter here!

[USA Carol]

If you need educating on who is a true American you have a problem! Like the problems you have with publishing a newsletter! Mitt Romney 2012

[Antonio Andolini]

2016 is coming!

[USA Carol]

Who's your 2016 candidate Mr. Andolini?

[Ron Paul 2012]

Yup, you're going to fit in well here, dodge and weave. It's all the rage around here with the Big Government Party folks.

Flip flop much?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/18/mitt-romney-political-shape-shifter

[Wing Nut]

I agree with USA Carol. Forget Ron Paul. You have two choices (Romney or Obama). I can assure you that I'm not voting for Obama. 4 years of that guy is about all this country can take (and he's brought us to the breaking point I might add).

See ya,
WN

[USA Carol]

Correct that statement Wing Nut!!!!!! They only have ONE choice! Mitt Romney 2012

[warren,]

With Respect, Carol. I did not Fall in Line in '08, and I will not Vote for Mitt in 2012. This does not mean I support Obama. It just means I will never Vote for Mitt. That's all.

BTW, Tony. Check the last Thread.... Stop the Northern Pass!

[USA Carol]

That's ok warren as long as you're not supporting Obummer you're one of the good guys.

[warren,]

One thing that has to stop in American Politics is the Smug Attitude of the GOP Establisnment that Their folks HAVE to back an Establishment Nominee...that they have "No Choice". The Hubris behind that line of Thought is Breathtaking. If we do not want a Particular Product, then we do not have to buy it. And if the Manufacturer refuses to Cater to the Customer, then they go out of business. Unless freedom of choice is somehow curtailed...like PSNH in New Hampshire?

...A Conspiracy Tony?

[warren,]

Thanks Carol. If Obama/Hillary in November? .... NOW, How does Mitt do?

-Goodnight Irene, Methinks.

[USA Carol]

Who Mitt picks for VP will tell.

[warren,]

Well now, Who do You think can beat Hillary in a Veep Debate...and Bring the disaffected on board with a Candidate like...er, Mitt?

[USA Carol]

Not for me to say. JUst have to wait until he gets the nomination and hope he doesn't let the GOP decide his choice like they did for McCain!

[Rocky]

In South Carolina, finally a Republican Presidential Candidate I can support and that is leading in some polls, STEPHEN COLBERT.

[Wing Nut]

Warren,

If Romney picks Marco Rubio from Florida as his running mate he'd have a chance to beat an Obama/Clinton ticket.

That is my take,
WN

[Ron Paul 2012]

Romney supporters love Big Government the same way Obama supporters do, so they won't be disappointed regardless of which one 'wins'. The status quo is exactly want they want and what they will get when they "forget Ron Paul".

So please explain what happens after Romney 'wins' the GOP nomination without Ron Paul supporters, how will he 'win' against Obama without them?

Romney=Obama=4 more years of Big Government! That's IF the Country can make it that far.

2016 AA? I fear it will be a very different world by then.

Failing to plan, is planning to fail.

http://www.shtfplan.com/

[Ron Paul 2012]

NOT breaking news.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/breaking-perry-to-drop-out-thursday/

[Wing Nut]

Ron Paul will never win the GOP nomination nor would he ever win the general election. GET OVER IT MAN! I'm sorry, but if you think Obama is a better choice then Romney then I can understand why you haven't had the sense to give up on Ron Paul yet.

Take care,
WN

[Antonio Andolini]

Meanwhile, the ever-expanding, "don't worry, we know what's best for you" government continues to degrade, if not destroy, the liberty of its citizens. Thankfully, word is being spread about the latest assault known as the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act. These expansions of government bureaucracy and criminal sanctions are scary.
Do a little research (while we still can.) Then contact Senator Shaheen and Senator Ayotte and Congressman Giunta and (the Mayor's good buddy) Congressman Charlie Bass and tell them to stop this madness.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1124Sd5UO:e11714:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sE5WlyQRvaM

There are already more than sufficient assets, resources and authority (our tax dollars at work) for protecting intellectual property. Law enforcement has been at this for awhile.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ipec_anniversary_report.pdf

[USA Carol]

"I'm sorry, but if you think Obama is a better choice then Romney then I can understand why you haven't had the sense to give up on Ron Paul yet..."
I'm in luuuuuuuuuuvvvvvvvvvvvvv:)

[warren,]

WN, Romney will not be Our next President. I do not Gamble, and I do not have $10,000 to burn... but He can not Garner the Independents and Moderate Democrats He will need to Win in a Presidential Election. He only Plays to a Minority of His Own Party. People do not vote for a V.P. Nominee. This only gives a Candidate an edge, which can not be Enough for Mitt. Just wait until the Dems get hold of Mitt this Summer! What, with all the Class Warfare Rhetoric amid Joblessness... Mitt might as well dress up as the "Planters Peanut" in one of Dennis Rano's Cartoons!

.....Go Newt? ( Gag!.... Hurl! )

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/19/us-usa-campaign-romney-idUSTRE80H1YX20120119