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

[warren,]

Wow Carol.... I thought Republicans were Governed by Their Intelects, NOT Their Emotions? What is it about Mitt? His Tall, Darkly Handsom Good Looks?.... His Manly Eyebrows?

[USA Carol]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cnn-rick-perry-end-campaign-141912141.html
The cream of the crops is thinning out! Newt's x-wife proves he has NO family values!!!! Who are you supporting warren? I thought you were one of the good guys? You're starting to sound like a Left-over!

[warren,]

Carol, I am an Independent Conservative. Yes, I am Supporting Ron Paul. I am not a Libertarian, per se. Neither am I a "Left-Over". I will not Vote for Mutt OR Newt or any other Establishment, Business as Usual Candidate as They are Pure Phoney Baloney. I hope Mitts good looks are not the reason that You like Him.

[warren,]

Carol, this is just as True Today, in America as it was back then in England.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Do I Pass the Audition?

[Antonio Andolini]

Interesting to see Charlie Bass' "North Country guy" Gene Chandler advocating to abolish county government. Wonder what Charlie's good buddy Commissioner Grenier thinks of that.
http://www.conwaydailysun.com/featured/story/county-government-eggs-and-issues

[warren,]

Great News!!! Ax the Tax goes to the N.H. Senate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57361268/nh-house-passes-income-tax-amendment/

MORE Great News!!!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285653-NH-House-passes-HB-648-to-further-restrict-eminent-domain-by-public-utilities

I'm Proud of Live Free or Die!

[Antonio Andolini]

The key to any constitutional amendment is getting two-thirds of the voters to accept it. We shall see...

[USA Carol]

Sounds like you don't know who or what you stand for warren:
Support Libertaraian Paul but you're not a Libertarian?
Independent just means you don't have the chutzpah to stay with an issue.
And I thought you were one of the good guys :(
Mitt is good looking but I don't get off on it!

[warren,]

...........WHO Won Iowa?????

http://www.pressherald.com/news/After-recount-Santorum-wins-Iowa-.html

[warren,]

Carol, "Independent Conservative" means I do not wear a Nose Ring for the Schiksa's in the GOP Establishment.

[Antonio Andolini]

I believe in liberty so I believe in limited government. The State of New Hampshire Constitution and the United States Constitution honor that principle.
The Democratic party has not stood for that principle for a long time. Instead it has become the party of BIG government, decreasing liberty by increasing the role of government in our lives. They reached the pinnacle of this folly during the Reed-Pelosi Congress and Obama administration. (At least we can hope it was.)
The Republican party has slid into the lack of respect for liberty as well. Under President George W. Bush, we saw the largest federal agency established, Department of Homeland Security, and the largest increase in an unfunded benefit, Medicare Part D.
I gave up voting for Democrats (mostly, I could not vote for Charlie Bass in 2010) during the Clinton era. I held my nose voting for Republicans (except Charlie) since then.
The problem I have with the Republican party these days is just what we are seeing in the primary. Instead of reaching out to disaffected Democrats and Independent / Undecided (many of them libertarian-leaning) voters, an out-of-touch "establishment" is lining up behind Gordon Gekko, using the excuse that only he could stop President Obama's reelection.
I won't vote for the President; I won't vote for Willard "Mitt" Romney. I don't see the situation improving in the Democratic party. I can only hope that the Republican party wakes up to the opportunities ahead and gives the "establishment" a reality slap.
2016 is coming!

[Antonio Andolini]

So, now I guess I will go read the Tom dispatch posted above. Then again, I might go for a walk. It is cold out, though. Hmmm, tough choice.

[warren,]

Well Said Tony. You have a Lot of "Chutzpah", Keep it Up!

Chutzpah. The Yiddish word derives from the Hebrew word ḥuṣpâ (חֻצְפָּה), meaning "insolence", "audacity".

[Ron Paul 2012]

If you like the way the last 30+ years have gone, you will love voting for more Big Government. A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney. Romney+Obama=More Big Government. May as well put them on the same ticket. The Big Government ticket. A vote for Ron Paul is not a vote against 'ObaMitty' in my mind, simply because they are not even worthy of consideration for the task of setting this country back on course. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the IDEA of smaller government. That Government is best which governs least. The People are entitled to a Government that stays within the confines of the Constitution. The Constitution was written to keep the Government off the peoples back.

People who can't or won't accept those principles are heading straight into a growing number of Americans who will settle for nothing less. It likely won't be pretty.

By all means, continue to advocate stealing the future from our posterity, we need to get this over with. Sooner rather then later preferably

The Revolution has begun!

[Wing Nut]

You guys kill me. Hey, if you are looking forward to 4 more years of Obama then by all means don't vote or vote for a 3rd party candidate that doesn't stand a chance.

See ya,
WN

[Ron Paul 2012]

WN, one more time buddy, Romney+Obama = 4 More years of Big Government, for Big government lovers like yourself and Carol. If you are OK with that, then go ahead close your eyes and color in that little circle. It won't matter in 4 years. And you can tell your grandkids how you spent their money for them.

[Wing Nut]

Mr. Paul, if you want to play that game then here is how I look at it;

Mitt Romney = Big Governement
Obama = MUCH, MUCH, MUCH BIGGER Government

I'm voting for Romney, plain & simple. And, if you choose not to vote for the lesser of two evils listed above(your words not mine) then you shall reap what you sow.

See ya,
WN

[Ron Paul 2012]

Ah, signs you are thinking like a real Big Government supporter WN. So you agree spending more then you make is OK, so long as it is less then you spent before. Going in debt slower is better then going in debt quickly. Logical. Very Big Government of you WN.

Obama- We're heading straight for the cliff!
Romney - Well take your foot half way of the peddle!

Ron Paul - Let's turn this thing around.

[Ron Paul 2012]

One other thing WN, please point out where I did, but I don't believe I used the words "lesser of two evils" in the context of voting. Simply because, I see no benefit in repeating the same obvious mistakes I have made in the past by doing so. It hasn't worked. And since I am not insane, I will try something different this time and likely going forward also. Because I believe it is the ONLY option period. Glad millions of Americans are beginning to do the same. We may not get there this year. But with ObaMitty in charge for 4 more years, that should be all it's going to take to finish us off.

I said you have 2 options. More Big Government (ObaMitty). You and Carols choice for the next 4 years, or the idea that we can turn this thing around, if we would just stop voting for the lesser of two evils.

You must really love Big Government.

[Ron Paul 2012]

OBAMITTY 2012!!!!! JOIN OUR CRAZY TRAIN OF 4 MORE YEARS OF SPENDING OUR GRANDKIDS MONEY! They'll be broke, but who cares!!

Because voting for the lesser of 2 evils is all we know how to do! (That and it's what we are told to do)

VOTE OBAMITTY 2012!!!

[Antonio Andolini]

WN, voting for Romney supports the Republican "establishment." We will continue to get rich white men, who will not get elected, for nominees. Only when they see how many do not vote Democrat, but do not vote for "their" candidate, will the ship start turning around.
There is a bright young crop of the liberty-loving coming of age. This nation will survive, even through four more years of the man who never held a (real) job sitting in the Oval Office. It won't be pretty, but it won't be the end. It could be the end of Democratic power for awhile, though, and we on the "other" side need to be prepared to take charge and bring change. For 2012 and 2014, the focus needs to be on the Senate and House. Then, in 2016, take back the White House. But this will only happen if the rich white men and women wake up and reach outside their circle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb7D-W-QW-8&feature=related

[Antonio Andolini]

Meanwhile the focus on the fiasco of federal law enforcement is not going away:
http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/01/19/breaking-on-fast-and-furious-subpoena-issued-for-patrick-j-cunningham-u-s-attorneys-office-in-arizona/
It's about time this appointed federal official learned no one of them is above the law.

[USA Carol]

If a third party was the answer don't you think Ron Paul would be running as a 3rd party candidate? Now is not the time to waste a vote America needs Mitt!
BTW I hear Goofy had a panic attack today! He thought Obama was there to take over his job!
Where would you be without 'google search' warren?

[Antonio Andolini]

Ron Paul will not run as a third-party candidate to prevent harm and bad blood for Rand Paul's career.
For better or worse, third parties don't work in our system. The answer is to improve the two major parties.
Anything is possible, so if the major parties continue to alienate voters, who knows?

[USA Carol]

So he worries more about Rand's career than he does for this country...sound like a REAL politician to me!