THE SPINE MARCH 27, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Why are the Iranians so angry with America? Don't you know? It's because
of the 1953 coup against the Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq,
initiated by Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden who persuaded Dwight
Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles to cooperate. These are the satanic men
of this history. Of course, Mosaddeq was a democratic hero who wanted only
good things for the poor and, for that reason, made an alliance with the
Tudeh Party, which made the French Communist Party look like a gathering of
timid democratic socialists. In any case, Mosaddeq and his allies took
over the country's oil reserves. Its owners were not happy, and they
conspired, along with the four aforementioned reactionaries, with the Shah to dislodge Dr. Mossadeq. They did. And, for that
reason, the Ayatollah came back more than a quarter century later to stage
his own retributive coup against the Pahlevis and initiated the most macabre Islamic
regime this side of Afghanistan under the Taliban.
History is really very simple. If Eden and Dulles and what is now British
Petroleum had not teamed up to impede the Soviet Union from dominating Iran
everything would be hunky dory between the West and Tehran.
Well, of course, this is sheer nonsense which doesn't prevent many people
from believing and repeating it like a mantra, including folks like
Professor Richard Falk of Princeton who welcomed the arrival of the
Ayatollah as if he were the messiah. Which is what the Ayatollah thought
he was anyway.
And now the Iranians have 15 British sailors in their captivity. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal has a lead editorial putting this brigandage
in human souls and bodies in context. The history is much more specific than the
Mosaddeq fantasies, more salient and more comprehensible. This is not the
first time the Tehran regime has captured British troops in innocent
waters. And, then, there is the episode during the sad-sap Jimmy Carter
administration of 50-odd diplomatic personnel who were dragooned and
held in Tehran for 444 days, while Americans were putting yellow ribbons
on their lapels.
The Journal's lede is full of details. Maybe you can get it on-line
today. Maybe not.
19 comments
"...including folks like Professor Richard Falk of Princeton who welcomed the arrival of the Ayatollah as if he were the messiah." Bernard Lewis immediately predicted that the Ayatollah was going to usher in an extremist Islamic reign of terror. He was not fooled for even one second. Sadly, the "elites" did not listen to Lewis, one of the greatest scholars of our era.
- thomsondavid
March 27, 2007 at 1:04am
I think the Mossadeq story (whatever the real spectrum of motives at the time) is why the Iranians in general have been so angry against the British. In general, America was seen as a clueless giant bamboozled into participating in an illicit coup by the cynical Brits and the greedy oil companies who painted a sensational picture of a communist takeover that wasn't going to happen. In any case, the militant Islamist hatred of the U.S. is something very different, and it emerged later. It was secular Iranian nationalists (the kind of people we wish were in power now) who were pissed about the overthrow of a democratic leader -- the muslim clerics didn't care or were even pleased about it, as they saw an Iranian Ataturk on the horizon. Of course, the current Iranian theocratic leadership can help itself from the reserves of Iranian national feeling, as it finds it useful from time to time. Thus there is always the danger of creating a situation where the mullahs paint themselves as the defenders of Persian national pride.
- ironyroad
March 27, 2007 at 1:08am
"In early 1979 the authoritarian and much-disliked regime of the Shah of Iran collapsed, to the rejoicing of left-wing groups everywhere in the West. Quite by chance, I was to dine in those same days in Princeton with the renowned historians Fritz Stern and John Elliott, plus one other scholar. The fourth dining partner arrived late, apologetic and a little rueful. He had given a radio interview earlier in the day, warning that the shah's overthrow by Muslim clerics would lead not to social improvement and democracy but to theocracy, intolerance and clerically controlled mayhem. This was not a popular opinion. A fellow professor, distinguished in the field of international law but knowing little of Iran, deplored such conservatism and pessimism. And many Princeton students were outraged, since they were sure that the Iranian people, freed from the shah's yoke, would join the modern, anticapitalist, freethinking world. The gloomy, skeptical scholar was surely mistaken, and should feel ashamed of himself. No wonder he was a little rueful. The fourth dining partner that evening was the distinguished historian of the Islamic, Arabic and Middle Eastern worlds Bernard Lewis, for many years the Cleveland E. Dodge professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton. As it happened, the radical, protesting students were quite wrong, and the individual and maligned scholar was completely right. He actually knew what he was talking about, because he had been studying the Muslim world -- its history, literature, culture -- for over 30 years. He had some claim to offer an opinion that deserved respect. There is a lesson here." http://tinyurl.com/ytpldb
- thomsondavid
March 27, 2007 at 1:12am
...it's why the don't trust us. I'm talking about the majority of Iran's citizens, not the mullahs, not Ahmadinejad, not Rafsanjani, etc. The ruling regime is not without its supporters among the Iranian citizenry but they likely represent a minority. However, the folks who are friendly towards the US also don't, in general, want us messing around in their affairs, because when we did in the past, Kermit Roosevelt helped the Brits overthrow a democratically elected government/prime minister and place a repressive autocrat back on throne, supporting him for many years without really doing anything to try to change his repressive ways.
The mullahs/Islamic fundamentalists hate us for a whole host of reasons, mostly irrational, many self-serving (earns them support from the other fundies and US-hating regimes in the region) but few having anything to do with the overthrow of Mossadeq, except when it can - as ironyroad noted - help them rally the masses who, under normal circumstances, would not willingly back the ruling regime. And that makes active intervention by the US, particularly military - overt or covert - a dangerous proposition. We've already been through - and are still mired in - one "greeted as liberators" fantasy. We don't need nor can we handle another.
I can't find/get to the WSJ piece so I can't comment on that specifically. But I don't think we can trivialize the impact of the 1953 on Iranian-American-UK relations and the memories of the Iranian people. It matters, just like I'm sure we will never forget those 444 days. And you don't have to think that the rise of the Ayatollah was a good thing to be of this opinion.
PS - I wasn't even close to being alive at the time but my readings of the events of 1953 lead me to believe that Peretz's implications that had we not re-installed the Shah, the Red Army was going to march on Tehran after an open invitation from Mossadeq is hyperbole at best and poppycock at worst. This assumes that in his post, Peretz meant to write "...British Petroleum hadn't teamed up to impede the Soviet Union..."
- shamey73
March 27, 2007 at 9:50am
The hostage crisis. 444 days. That's 1023 days fewer than the current debacle. As for the "yellow ribbons", they are de rigeur now. What people do to "support the troops", you know a lot easier than enlisting. Couldn't post without slamming Jimmy Carter. Suprised you didn't weave James Baker and George Soros in at at the same time.
- dubyadoubte
March 27, 2007 at 10:32am
This installment, while sensible, is illiterate. "Talk" for took, "clue" for coup, "had" for had not--was it dictated over a bad phone connection? Even in its published edition, TNR badly needs better editing for spelling and grammar. The blogs are worse still.
- agnetha
March 27, 2007 at 11:19am
Marty Peretz apparently still owns enough of NR to permit him space in the magazine. He's why NR is in a fatal tailspin. Somebody should give him the hook. After decades of subscribing to NR, I won't be renewing. Bye Marty. Ronald Broun
- rbroun
March 27, 2007 at 12:01pm
Thank you, agnetha. Especially under Foer, it has been difficult to tell whether the content or the copy-editing is worse.
- olez
March 27, 2007 at 12:34pm
Gratuitious dig at Foer, who, btw, was the guy who fired you...
- MrCookie1
March 27, 2007 at 12:53pm
In my opinion, the worst thing this magazine ever did was to hire Siegel. That god-awful cover story tripe on Oprah was awkward and pretentious. One of his last published pieces, that "satire" on GWB as Camus was painfully unfunny. Alas, this may bring us together.
- eutopian
March 27, 2007 at 1:08pm
Come together, right now, you and me! Yes, I agree. Notice how olez has never denied that he is Siegel. Naw, that would hark back to wickedly to "I AM NOT SIEGEL YOU IMBECILES!" Olez/siegel is off the masthead now so he is, like you and me, a regular poster, with all the anonymity and miniscule personal responsibility that that entails. Olez can criticize my every word - hell why not - but if he does criticize Foer, he should at least have the balls to admit who he is and why he is taking pots shots at Foer, the man who fired him and who, in my opinion, should be given a medal for doing so.
- MrCookie1
March 27, 2007 at 1:13pm
Misspellings or none, a future constructive relationship with the Iranian people -- as opposed to their hopefully temporary theocratic regime -- will require some self-criticism on our part, and won't be helped by us trolling around the region, giving out pompous soundbites as if we had no responsibility for past events.
- ironyroad
March 27, 2007 at 1:18pm
Especially under Foer, it has been difficult to tell whether the content or the copy-editing is worse Let's see: in the last few issues alone we've been treated to Ryan Lizza, having knocked down Allen, going from strength to strength with brilliant insights on Obama and Saul Alinsky; Michael Crowley providing a fresh and unusual take on Hillary's foreign policy; Pinker dazzling once again with his review of the history of violence; Chris Orr giving a sharp, shrewd reexamination of the Bond genre. Even Open U has become fresher and more interesting. When was olez-zaturra suspended, again?
- teplukhin
March 27, 2007 at 1:27pm
Hopefully temporary theocratic regime? They've been in power for 28 years.
- dubyadoubte
March 27, 2007 at 1:31pm
yes, it would seem that it would be pretty hard to criticize Foer and TNR for the new new mag, content or presentation. I really liked it. Great articles, funny comics, quality paper, great stream lined masthead...
- MrCookie1
March 27, 2007 at 1:58pm
The artwork's superb as well. Love the original paintings and watercolors by serious artists. Huge improvement over the old cartoons. (Come to think of it, there's another analogy with A.F.K. as Sprezzatura....)
- teplukhin
March 27, 2007 at 2:03pm
- MrCookie1
March 27, 2007 at 2:08pm
Temporary means 'not permanent,' and doesn't say anything about length of time per se. Communism was in power in Eastern Europe for 40-45 years, but its reach for permanence failed. Apart from that, my point was to emphasize that, just because one condemns U.S. folly in Iran in the early 50s, one isn't thereby supporting the current system.
- ironyroad
March 27, 2007 at 3:39pm
Why hasn't olez been banned yet? For his own good as well as the good of the general threads. Frankly, it's embarassing that a formerly respected critic and writer has reduced himself to trolling on blog boards. You feel sorry for the guy.
- thufir
March 27, 2007 at 4:43pm