The Shy One In The Axis Of Evil — What's Really Going On In Iran?
	found on In These Times written by JackH, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 7 Feb 4:18am
		"Since the United States' swift military defeat of the monstrous Taliban in Afghanistan, the world's attention has shifted westward to the twin crises of the intensifying Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the standoff in Iraq between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. But developments in Iran might turn out to be more significant in the long run than the result of the Iraq confrontation," JackH writes. "Iran's curious combination of parliamentary democracy and theocratic authoritarianism has produced in effect two distinct Iranian governments. The theocracy, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Council of Guardians, has final say over all acts of Iran's parliamentary system, led by President Muhammad Khatami and elected through popular elections, much as in any other democracy. This is what President Bush referred to in his 'Axis of Evil' speech described an Iran where an unelected few suppressed the majority's desire for freedom. In the year and a half since 9/11, the situation in Iran has grown more volatile. Street protests, most recently against the death sentence handed down to Hashem Aghajari, an associate of Khatami, for advocating the right of the people to interpret religion for themselves instead of relying on the mullahs, have gotten limited coverage outside of Iran. Increasing numbers of the Shi'a clergy, most notably the former heir-apparent to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, are publically questioning the foundations of Iran's government.

	"Whatever our leaders say in public, however, might not be what they are saying in private. Iranian reformer Sayed Ali Asghar Gharavi accuses the United States of supporting the conservative clerical establishment in Iran, asserting that the Bush Adminstration has offered a deal - if Khamenei and his conservatives support the U.S. against Iraq, the U.S. will support them against Khatami's reformers and others dissatisfied with the direction of the Islamic Republic. If Gharavi's accusations are correct, it will be yet another disgraceful example of the United States aligning itself against democratic reform in Iran. "Complicating matters even further, India has recently signed a defense pact with Iran. India seems bent on encircling Pakistan - which has been a vocal, if not completely wholehearted, supporter of the War on Terror. An alignment with Iran also improves India's position vis-a-vis its main rival, China. Observing America's comparatively gentle treatment of North Korea, one can't help but notice that the U.S. is unlikely to be as aggressive towards an Iran aligned with a nuclear power as it is currently towards Iraq. "Does the United States even have a policy in respect to Iran? Is the Bush Administration's single-minded focus on Iraq leading the United States to be on the wrong side of Iranian history again? Will the shifting political and military alignments in South Asia come back to bite the United States? And is the United States even interested in a viable Islamic democracy in Iran?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 49 commentsbest: 5 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  GWB a go-go!   by dagnabbitt       at Fri 7 Feb 4:48am score of 1.5 succinct     Answer to that last question: How much oil do they have? What's really the funniest thing about this administration is that it was expected to be the most insular, bordered government in decades, yet the opposite turned out to be true. Clinton had all kinds of international involvements during his terms, and all we could occupy ourselves with was what was going on inside his pants. Man, that seems like a lifetime ago. What is certain is that the current brouha-ha will turn into a real hullabaloo down the road, as the entire continent -- not just the region itself -- destabilizes. What happens in the next month will determine US/world relations for the next generation. There is no real certainty in the future except that everyone, eventually, will have the Bomb. I find these truths to be self-evident.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: GWB a go-go!   by googa       at Fri 7 Feb 5:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     a) Taking your oil comment as a vague attack on the Iraqi question, it's pretty tedious argument. I suppose nobody else in the world drives a car other than everyone in the States. b) It seems a shame that Clintons involvements internationally are all but forgotten, as he did prove to be of some use (having of course forgotten all about them I cannot cite any examples, oh N.Ireland, kinda) I suppose the flipside is that if Iraq and everything else goes pear shaped bush need just have an affair, the loveable rogue, and all is forgiven. And as to the write up, in what way is Iran the 'shy one'? As opposed to the transparent beacons of N.Korea and Iraq? Iran is a damnsight better and nearer being a useful country than either of the others.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   3.  Re: GWB a go-go!   by chatsubo       at Fri 7 Feb 6:10am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 2     agreed. If GWB only cared about oil, it would be a lot cheaper and easier to topple Chavez in Venezuela, and install a puppet government. And would you rather have to rely on good old Saudi Arabia for your oil supply? Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: GWB a go-go!   by Citizen Erectus       at Fri 7 Feb 6:34am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 2     I suppose nobody else in the world drives a car other than everyone in the States. No more tedious than the WMD chants I hear tens of times a day and much more likely. I fear the issue of oil may run a whole lot deeper than is commonly known. There is some interesting information available which would be worthy of contemplation in regards to dissecting foreign motives in the middle east. In 100 years from know, if there are still observers to make note, these could well be acknowledged the start of the resource wars. By killing people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: GWB a go-go!   by dagnabbitt       at Fri 7 Feb 11:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     I'm sorry, how crass of me to suggest that oil plays a part in this. To extend your tedium further, however, I'd point out that more people drive cars in the US than any other country in the world, and that it isn't even the point: oil drives our entire economy; virtually every US industry is completely reliant upon it. I find these truths to be self-evident.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: GWB a go-go!   by Gorvernaut       at Fri 7 Feb 8:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     If GWB only cared about oil, it would be a lot cheaper and easier to topple Chavez in Venezuela, and install a puppet government.   Except that Dubya already tried it, and it didn't work.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: GWB a go-go!   by chatsubo       at Fri 7 Feb 8:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     True, Dubya did little to stop the coup, and probably a great deal to support it, but if he was the oil mad caricature that the peaceniks paint him as, it would be so much easier to have 'rebel' Venezuelans calling for the US's help, while CIA Black Op teams dress up as Chavez supporters, and firebomb the US Embassy and American businesses, than launching a costly (economically and politcally) war against Iraq. Of course oil is a factor in all modern geo-politics, but if we are going say Bush's motives are entirely cynical, then its really all about establishing the US a major regional power in the Middle East, without having to rely on Saudi support. Oil is just a bonus. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: GWB a go-go!   by Gorvernaut       at Fri 7 Feb 9:05am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 12     it would be so much easier to have 'rebel' Venezuelans calling for the US's help, while CIA Black Op teams dress up as Chavez supporters, and firebomb the US Embassy and American businesses, than launching a costly (economically and politcally) war against Iraq.   Incompetence is no defense to greed.     Of course oil is a factor in all modern geo-politics...   Good, admitting the problem is the first step to recovery.     [B]ut if we are going say Bush's motives are entirely cynical, then its really all about establishing the US a major regional power in the Middle East, without having to rely on Saudi support.   OK, so it's really about establishing the US as a major regional power in the Middle East without having to rely on Saudi support. That's exactly what Wolfowitz and Perle have been saying for years.   The Venezuelan coup failed because the international community wasn't going to let it happen. The OAS called bullshit and Team Bush had to back down. Politically, Iraq is more simply more vulnerable. The cost of an invasion is irrelevant, since it will be borne by the taxpayers, not the corporations that will reap the profits from rebuilding a colonial Iraq. I'm sure Bush considers it a great photo-op sorta thing that he can seem like a humanitarian to boot, but you can bet he knows which side of the bread gets buttered.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: GWB a go-go!   by cargoculture       at Fri 7 Feb 12:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     agreed. If GWB only cared about oil, it would be a lot cheaper and easier to topple Chavez in Venezuela, and install a puppet government. Um, isn't he working on that already? Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Where's the felafel?   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 7 Feb 6:21am score of 1     Or where's the couscous? Or where's whatever the Iranian staple is? Nice information on CIA coups a quarter century ago and a nice little conspiracy piece from someone who obviously has his own agenda there. The allegations that the CIA is behind everything that happens in the Middle East is as tireless a meme as the one about everything being about oil. Seeing as how a goodly number of the folks at the policy desks in Washington had logged some time in during the days of the Reagan administration when they thought they could manipulate the mullahs to their hearts' content and came a cropper, it would seem almost counterintuitive that the CIA is out there cutting deals with Khamenei or anyone in Iran right now. The CIA could be effective back in the pre-Shah and Shah days in Iran because they had a willing tool. I don't really see them being able to view the fundie mullahs as much of a tool to work their wonders. As far as I know nobody in the Bush administration has stepped back from identifying Iran as among the future targets of our little war on whatever around the globe. There is nothing shy about Iran. They are quite vocal and assertive in making their case in the global arena. Perhaps, it would do everyone a bit more good in the reasoned analysis department if we came to the conclusion that Iran will do what Iran will do because that's what Iran sees as being in its best interests and not because they are puppets on a stage. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by chatsubo       at Fri 7 Feb 7:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     the ironic thing was that during the Shah days, the CIA used to make large payments to Iranian fundamentalist clerics, most of whom were exiled in France, in order to keep them quite and sweet. Then Carter got elected, was determined to clean up the Agency and stop the payments, so a lot of the clerics, including one Ayatollah Khomeini, decided to kick up a fuss. Carter - history's greatest monster. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by bitekman       at Fri 7 Feb 7:26am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 4     Iranian food is delicious. Rice is the staple carbo. It's frequently prepared in such a way that the outside edges are slightly charred. This forms a large rice "cake" that can be flipped over and slices cut from. Particuarly delicious is the "tadiq" (not sure of spelling), which is where potatoes are fried at the bottom of the pot, the rice is cooked on top, and when inverted there's this delicious rice/potato crunchy mix. Frequently currants and/or carrot is added to the rice. Lamb is a common meat, although my persian friends ate a lot of chicken as well. If you're ever in Chicago and curious about iranian food, there's a great resteraunt on Clark street called "Rezas." Definitely worth a visit. Iranian food is one of my top 3 favorite cuisines. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by Citizen Erectus       at Fri 7 Feb 9:40am score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 4     The allegations that the CIA is behind everything that happens in the Middle East is as tireless a meme as the one about everything being about oil. Are you implying that this is a myth? There are plenty of declassified government documents available to those who wish to find out. Don't think it's about oil? The US economy and war machine is entirely dependant on oil and will sink without it, whoever has the oil has the US by the balls. For those who only watch TV. This is a coward's war, killing hapless innocents to right past intrusive policy. It is being stoked by chickenhawks and supported by boob tube watchers, chanting "you'll take my SUV over my dead body". It makes me sick. After 911 everyone was wondering "why do they hate us?" Yeah that's right, remember 911? They didn't use "WMD" to fuck shit up then. By killing people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by Petronius       at Fri 7 Feb 2:01pm score of 1 astute   in reply to comment 14     If the US government were as cynical as you say, wouldn't it be easier just to flip over on Iraq, offer Saddam half price for unlimited oil exports, and just bring the fleet back home? Why fight for what you could get cheap? Nothing Saddam could demand for oil would be more expensive than war. Just because businessmen are venal doesn't mean they're stupid. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 7 Feb 5:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Did I call it a myth? Usually, I am direct enough that if I wished to call something a myth or a misperception of reality, I will do so. What I said was that the claim that the CIA is the bogey man behind everything that happens around the world is, well, a simpleton's approach to viewing the world. Will I state that the CIA has never mucked about in the Middle East or that they have no history in Iran, in particular? Absolutely not. As you say, the historical record is replete with their misadventures. But are you saying that they lie at the bottom of everything bad that happens in the Middle East? Because, if you could prove that then I would say a compelling case is made for disbanding the CIA, at least the part of the Agency that is involved in doing all of these bad things. Just as the meme about CIA skullduggery behind everything that happens in the Middle East, so goes the logic that says, "it's always about the oil." If it were indeed "always about the oil" then why does Israel exist to this day? It would seem to me that if we truly were trying to curry the everlasting favor of every Arab despot west of India, then we ought to have accomplished the abolishment of the state of Israel, as that is the longstanding gripe that most Arab regimes have with U.S. policy. In point of fact, the U.S. economy could withstand a complete cutoff of Arab oil a lot better than the nations of Europe and countries like Japan and Korea. We still do have reserves of oil sufficient for us to overcome a total boycott by the Arabs. That's not to say that it would have no impact on our economy. But, it would have a more dramatic impact on European and Asian countries' economies. This war may be about a lot of things. It may be partly about the oil. It may be about avenging a father's election defeat some 11 years before. It may even be because Saddam and his regime do present a threat to peace in the region, and in doing so, extend that threat beyond the Middle East. But, I would suggest that you perhaps read more than one source which might have one agenda before you jump up and say, "aha, it's all about this one thing." Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by Gorvernaut       at Fri 7 Feb 2:33pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 29     Why fight for what you could get cheap?   Well, because (1) oil companies don't pay a dime for a war where the taxpayers pick up the bill; (2) an occasional invasion is necessary to keep the strongmen from getting uppity and demanding a higher price. Remember when Saddam and Rummy were chummy? Saddam was our boy back then and we got the oil for cheap. But there's been a falling out of sorts and a new, more pliant strongman is needed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by Mikey777       at Sat 8 Feb 2:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     While I'm not 100% convinced this war is about oil (though I think it's a strong possibility), I would say this in response to your questions. Firstly, there is difference between gaining access to oil and gaining control of oil. Gaining control of Iraqi oil seems to fit easily into the ideology of many in the administration (such as Wolfowitz and Cheney, who outlined their ideas for US dominance way back in the early nineties in the document 'Defense Guidance Planning'). Secondly, sure war is expensive, but it's paid for by the public, not the oil industry. And they're the ones who get to vote with their dollars every day. Though if I were forced to take a position, I'd say the ideology of the administration was driving this war much more than lobbying by the oil industry.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by awx       at Sat 8 Feb 3:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     (1) oil companies don't pay a dime for a war where the taxpayers pick up the bill Oil companies are not tax-exempt, I believe. (2) an occasional invasion is necessary to keep the strongmen from getting uppity and demanding a higher price. I forget. Which oil exporting countries have we invaded? I assume your axiom wasn't developed entirely around Iraq, and Panama was ranked a pathetic # 58 on the 2001 crude oil and petroleum exporter list. President Polk's invasion of Mexican Texas? Saddam was "our boy" when he shouldn't have been. And he's not our boy now when he shouldn't be. Circumstances change. Does that not make sense? David Kaczynski let his brother be when he was merely creepy, but turned him in when he suspected him of murder. So what?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  A lot of things.   by dagnabbitt       at Sat 8 Feb 7:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     Fine, I agree. It's about a lot of things. but I think you're too dismissive of theories simply because they have been around a while, and you're tired of hearing about them. What do you think the war is about? Try not to use a theory that someone else has mentioned, is cynical, or which is backed up by fewer than a dozen recent sources. I find these truths to be self-evident.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Where's the felafel?   by Gorvernaut       at Mon 10 Feb 3:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Oil companies pay taxes. So do millions of Americans. Who do you honestly think ends up paying the lion's share of the bill for a war? The contracts the oil companies pick up after the war more than compensate for the tax bill.   Oil-exporting countries where we've installed strongmen include Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela. Chavez in Venezuela dared defy the US and the OAS called bullshit on the US-backed coup that attempted to oust him. Saddam stepped on US toes when he mistakenly though he had the blessing of the US to invade Iraq. We invaded. Now Bush wants to invade again.   As for Noriega, I assume your mention of the fact that Panama is #58 among oil-exporting countries means you have access to an almanac. You might want to look at an atlas. You will notice that Panama just happens to control the Panama Canal, through which no small part of foreign oil reaches US ports. You may wish to point to some other causa belli made at the time of the Panama Invasion, but you might want to consider why we were even in Panama to begin with. Yes, that's right, the Canal.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Iran   by 0tim0       at Fri 7 Feb 6:36am score of 2.5 interesting     While vacationing two years ago, I met an Armenian woman who grew up in Iran. She lived in Tehran and was in her early 20s during the revolution. It was interesting to hear her point of view of what happened; she was an insider (living there) but also an outsider (Christian). She said that for the first couple of months after the revolution it was euphoric, but it didn't take long for the new party that was in power to start killing and imprisoning anyone who challenged their views. Recently, the young people of the country have been getting more adventurous with their pro-Democracy demonstrations. What I like about the whole thing (and for some reason I have a real positive view of Iran and its people) is that the Iranians have shown that they have revolutionary zeal and they probably learned a lot from their mistakes in their first revolution. I hope this all adds up to a (relatively) peacefull transition into a more Democratic secular state. I'm really pulling for the people of Iran. It would be great for the US to have a good relationship with them and I think we are doing the right thing right now. (That is, keeping our hands out, but letting the people know we support their Democratic movement). --t On a side note, I saw an Iranian film at a film festival last year, called Under The Skin Of The City, and I think it is starting to play in the local art-house theaters. It was a good movie and it gave and inside view of life in an Iranian city -- surprisingly not very unlike life in America. "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  A future that's both democratic and Islamic   by holgate       at Fri 7 Feb 8:22am score of 2 interesting     Whatever you say about Robert Fisk (and the amount of abuse he's received from the furiously-masturbating warblogger community is saddening) he knows the region better than 95% of Anglo-American journalists, and his latest piece on Iran is no exception: So the freeing of Ayatollah Montazeri might be the first clear sign that the power of the almighty divines is waning. Student demonstrations could not touch Ayatollah Khamenei, nor the courage of Iranian journalists (so quickly to be incarcerated). But an old man in the holy city of Qom, with its blue-tiled minarets and snowy peaks, the very city in which Khomeini was taught, might just have pierced the cloak of supreme authority. Ayatollah Montazeri also quoted an Arabic expression. "There's a limit to all things," he said, "and everything that passes its limit destroys itself." What's interesting, if Fisk is right here, is that if there is a truly effective force to stands up against the reactionary clerics, then it might not necessarily be from sources of which we've been made well-aware: that is, students and journalists. In fact, we may see the theocracy challenged by a cleric such as Ayatollah Montazeri, whose strength comes from his claim to represent the true spirit of the revolution.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Long winded history   by M. Mosher       at Fri 7 Feb 8:30am score of 3 informative     A lot of Plastic posters suspect the US of duplicity in places like Iraq and Iran both in the past as well as in the present - duplicity mostly in the form of, "It's only about the oil" or "hypocrisy in selling arms", etc. There is a lot of truth to those claims. However, in my opinion, the truth is not so damning as it sometimes seems. Let me explain. Was the US hypocritical in flip-flopping our support between Iran and Iraq 20 years ago? Yes and no. We supported the shah in Iran, then after the revolution we didn't. We at first did not support Iraq. Then, when the two were at war, we made some overtures to Iraq (discussions, intelligence, some weapons, etc.), and now we no longer support Iraq. All this seems to spell dirty dealings. But you have to remember that neither Iran nor Iraq was the enemy in the 1980s. Our enemy was the Soviet Union. We originally (in the 1950s, I think) supported the Shah to keep the USSR from moving into the region. People don't often think of this but the Soviet Union, despite being the largest country in the world (in area) had almost NO warm water ports. Every port they had which could be used year round was bottlenecked. Soviet Navy ships from Kamchatka had to pass right under our noses to come and go. Same with the ports in the Baltic states. Same with the Black Sea. It had to be quite frustrating for them. The Soviets could counter the American threat of nuclear retaliation in two of the three legs of our nuclear capabilities. They could match our silo-based ICBMs with equal numbers of their own. They could and did erect an enormous anti-aircraft shield around their perimeter to find and destroy any B-52s that we might send their way. But the real scary part for them was our submarine fleet. They had no idea where our boomers were. With no way to preempt us in that area they had to be much more careful with any imperialism or expansion. That was, after all, one of the primary goals - expand their brand of communism to the entire world. The only way to counter nuclear armed submarines was with their own Navy. But without warm water ports that was really not possible. The idea that the Soviets could invade and occupy Iran, one of their border states, was unacceptable to the west. Thus, our support of the Shah. Iran became doubly important the more oil was discovered in and around the Persian Gulf. That the soviets could acquire warm water ports AND control the choke point of what was becoming the world's busiest oil shipping lanes made any dirty dealings in Iran and with the shah quite insignificant in the bigger picture. The choices went like this: Support an unsavory character, violate the principles of democracy, and sell arms to a guy who we knew would use them unwisely OR allow communism to spread to the entire globe, setting back humanity by about 300 years - melodramatic, I know, but it's not like the Soviets weren't trying to do exactly that. When Iran overthrew the Shah the west was scared shitless for the weakened condition of Iran. When Iraq (a soviet client state) invaded a year later, don't you think the war rooms were abuzz with worse-case scenario planning? It all seemed to make sense. The soviets were making their move. As it happens though, the Soviets didn't have as much influence in Iraq as we had thought and Iran didn't roll over and die. It dawned on the west (the US, the military, the allies, whatever) that an almost equally large threat was Iran beating Iraq and spreading their Shiite revolution to the other gulf states. In this context, it not only explains the US making overtures toward Iraq, it was a good idea. We really didn't want either side to annihilate the other and that is how it turned out. All the talk today about creating a power vacuum in the region is 20 year old blow-back. The US was worried that the "vacuum" would suck the soviets right in. Now that the soviets are no more and now that Russian and Venezuelan, Mexican, Nigerian, and North Sea oil is on the world market in such quantities it is not nearly as significant. Now, the big threat is not worldwide communism. The threat is terrorism. Oil itself is still important but alternatives are right around the corner and today we recognize that there is a lot more oil in a lot more places than we thought 20 or 30 years ago. The US hypocrisy has to be looked at in the larger context to be understood. All aspects of the history of the region have to be examined as well. We can't just say, "The country we supported 20 years ago must be the same country we support today", and "because we sold military hardware to country Y, we cannot now cry about its use". The bottom line is this. Iran has the potential of being an example for other countries in the area. Their population is well educated. They understand 21st century and western thought better than most other Muslim countries. They are hard working and industrious. The same might also be said of Iraq. That the current government supports Hezbollah and other terrorist groups is well known but there are signs that the Iran read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: Long winded history   by crowley       at Fri 7 Feb 11:20am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 11     Not bloody likely. The primary goal of the Soviet government's expansion was to control parts of Europe in order to create a buffer zone for Russia. With the German advance stopped just outside of Moscow, their government was determined not to let this happen again. As for the millitary threat the Russians, that was laughable. The size of the Soviet millitary was deliberated by officials in intelligence and the millitary. Much of the Soviet equipment was, and still is, poorly maintained and out of date.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Long winded history   by M. Mosher       at Fri 7 Feb 12:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     The primary goal of the Soviet government's expansion was to control parts of Europe in order to create a buffer zone for Russia. There's no doubt the Soviets wanted a buffer zone around them and they kept one for 40 years or so. It might even be argued now, armchair quarterback style, that it was their primary goal. But throughout much of the cold war, western thinking and western worse-case-scenario planning assumed that expansion was goal number one. Soviet client states were popping up all over the globe trying to export revolutionary communism from those footholds. As for the size of the Soviet military - there was no doubt as to its size. Its lack of effectiveness was not really apparent until events like the defection of the Mig pilot to Japan. Of course the Soviets knew how crummy their military was but they actively worked to make the west think it was bigger and better than it was.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Long winded history   by madison       at Fri 7 Feb 11:50am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 11     Then, when the two were at war, we made some overtures to Iraq (discussions, intelligence, some weapons, etc.), and now we no longer support Iraq. All this seems to spell dirty dealings. But did some weapons really have to include chemical weapons? And did Reagan really have to ask the Congres not to condemn Saddam for using them against his own people? But you have to remember that neither Iran nor Iraq was the enemy in the 1980s. Our enemy was the Soviet Union. We originally (in the 1950s, I think) supported the Shah to keep the USSR from moving into the region. That might have been the stated reason, but why not actually support the democratic forces in Iran instead of the military and the Shah? Why then proceed to assist the Shah in organizing a secret police force to make sure that no democratic opposition would emerge? Probably because it wasn't clear that there was any oil in doing the right thing. The Soviets could counter the American threat of nuclear retaliation in two of the three legs of our nuclear capabilities. They could match our silo-based ICBMs with equal numbers of their own. They could and did erect an enormous anti-aircraft shield around their perimeter to find and destroy any B-52s that we might send their way. But the real scary part for them was our submarine fleet. They had no idea where our boomers were. With no way to preempt us in that area they had to be much more careful with any imperialism or expansion. That was, after all, one of the primary goals - expand their brand of communism to the entire world. The only way to counter nuclear armed submarines was with their own Navy. But without warm water ports that was really not possible. We didn't deploy nuclear armed submarines until the 1960's. The choices went like this: Support an unsavory character, violate the principles of democracy, and sell arms to a guy who we knew would use them unwisely OR allow communism to spread to the entire globe, setting back humanity by about 300 years - melodramatic, I know, but it's not like the Soviets weren't trying to do exactly that. There was a third choice: Support democracy to the hilt. Also American attempts to control the oil were less about securing oil supplies for democracies vs. communists, but rather about securing oil business for American companies.: As far back as the 1920s, the State Department sought to force Great Britain to give U.S. companies a share of the lucrative Middle Eastern oil concessions. The U.S. Ambassador in London -- who happened to be Andrew Mellon, the head of the Gulf Oil Corporation (named for the Mexican, not the Persian/Arabian, Gulf) -- was instructed to press the British to give Gulf Oil a stake in the Middle East. At the end of World War II, when the immense petroleum deposits in Saudi Arabia became known, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal told Secretary of State Byrnes, "I don't care which American company or companies develop the Arabian reserves, but I think most emphatically that it should be American." And it wasn't the Russians that Forrestal was worried about. The main competition was between the United States and Britain for control of the area's oil. In 1928, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Mobil had joined British and French oil interests in signing the "Red Line Agreement," under which each pledged not to develop Middle Eastern oil without the participation of the others. Nevertheless, after World War II these two U.S. firms (together with Texaco and Standard Oil of California) grabbed the Saudi concessions for themselves, freezing out the British and French. When the latter sued on the grounds that the Red Line Agreement had been violated, Mobil and Jersey told the court that the agreement was null and void because it was monopolistic. It's not necessarily about cheap gas either. It's more about being able to control it to create competitive advantages: In 1972, the Nixon administration was advocating higher oil prices. According to a study by V. H. Oppenheim, based on interviews with U.S. officials, "The weight of the evidence suggests that the principal consideration behind the indulgent U.S. government attitude toward higher oil prices was the belief that higher prices would produce economic benefits for the United States vis-a-vis its industrial competitors, Western Europe and Japan, and the key Middle Eastern states, Saudi Arabia and Iran." And Henry Kissinger has confirmed that this was U.S. Government thinking: "The rise in the price of energy would affect primarily Europe and Japan and probably improve America's competitive position." Even the CIA has admitted the Gulf oil fields aren't vital to American security: These expenditures have not been necessary for the survival of the West. In extremis, according to former CIA analyst Maj. Gen. Edward B read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Long winded history   by M. Mosher       at Fri 7 Feb 12:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     why not actually support the democratic forces in Iran instead of the military and the Shah? There was a third choice: Support democracy to the hilt. I imagine the thinking of the time was that places like Iran weren't capable of understanding democracy. It sounds insulting but then again, we are saying the same thing even still today about much of the middle east and Africa. The fear would have been that they would democratically invite the soviets. It's not necessarily about cheap gas either. It's more about being able to control it to create competitive advantages. Which president said, "the business of America is business"? Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover? It was true 80 years ago. It's true today.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Long winded history   by Gorvernaut       at Fri 7 Feb 1:10pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 24     I imagine the thinking of the time was that places like Iran weren't capable of understanding democracy. It sounds insulting but then again, we are saying the same thing even still today about much of the middle east and Africa. The fear would have been that they would democratically invite the soviets.   Actually, the Iranians understood democracy very well. The elected (and enormously popular) Prime Minister of Iran was Mohammed Mossadegh, who just happened to be Time's Man of the Year in 1951. The problem with Mossadegh is that he put the interests of his fellow Iranians before those of the foreign oil companies. He nationalized the British-owned Iranian oil fields in 1951. The British were none too happy, and tried unsuccessfully to get a compensation deal out of Iran. The US attempted to help the British negotiate. But when the talks went nowhere, the US and Britain decided to overthrow Mossadegh and install the Shah. The Shah, naturally, took a more enlightened view of foreign oil interests. And don't just take my word for it, read what the CIA has to say about it.   One moral of this story is that Iranians who are pro-democracy have really strong reasons not to be pro-US. Another is that Americans ought to be careful of mixed motives in its foreign policy when oil is involved. Oh, and getting rid of a foreign leaders you don't like (e.g. Mossadegh) means sooner or later you just might get someone worse (e.g. Khomeini).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Long winded history   by madison       at Fri 7 Feb 1:25pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 24     I imagine the thinking of the time was that places like Iran weren't capable of understanding democracy. It sounds insulting but then again, we are saying the same thing even still today about much of the middle east and Africa. The fear would have been that they would democratically invite the soviets. Is that what you imagine? It was a democratic movement of Iranians that expelled the Shah in the first place, and created a parliamentary democracy to replace him. It was American action that put the new Iranian government into a desperate situation: In the early 1950s, oil was used as a political weapon for the first time -- by the United States and Britain and against Iran. Iran had nationalized its British-owned oil company which had refused to share its astronomical profits with the host government. In response, Washington and London organized a boycott of Iranian oil which brought Iran's economy to the brink of collapse. The CIA then instigated a coup, entrenching the Shah in power and effectively un-nationalizing the oil company, with U.S. firms getting 40 percent of the formerly 100 percent British-owned company. This was, in the view of the _New York Times_, an "object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid" when an oil-rich Third World nation "goes berserk with fanatical nationalism." I think the threat was not that they would democratically invite the Soviets, but that they would democratically choose to use their natural resources for their own benefit, which was also the threat that led to a coup in Guatemala around the same time, for example. Anyway who is saying that the Middle East and Africa can't understand democracy? Besides you, that is. Which president said, "the business of America is business"? Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover? It was true 80 years ago. It's true today. Who said "History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight."? George W. Bush in his last State of the Union. Has he ever mentioned in arguing for war that it's all about business? In truth the business of any country is business. The use of violence in gaining business is however completely optional.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Long winded history   by M. Mosher       at Fri 7 Feb 4:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Madison, you and Trouscaillon in post #25, and Gorvernaut in post #26 all make very good points and add a lot to the historical perspective of the situation. It's so easy to just think of Iran in its post-1979 revolutionary image. The only comment I really have is about your question: Anyway who is saying that the Middle East and Africa can't understand democracy? Besides you, that is. To be precise I did not say it. However, I may as well at this point and very definitively without any doubt, tell you that I don't believe the Arab countries (with the exception maybe of Lebanon) understand or appreciate or want anything to do with democracy. Likewise, there are many African countries that do not understand or want any form of democracy. Does that insult you? It shouldn't. It shouldn't insult those countries or people from those countries either. It's just an opinion based on the fact that none of them have chosen that path.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Long winded history   by Gorvernaut       at Fri 7 Feb 8:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Does that insult you? It shouldn't. It shouldn't insult those countries or people from those countries either. It's just an opinion based on the fact that none of them have chosen that path.   I'm not insulted. I just think you're ignorant. And you shouldn't be insulted. You just don't know much about the historical context of these regions. First, there have been and currently are democratic societies in Africa and the Middle East (e.g. South Africa, Kenya, Turkey, Algeria, and Lebanon). Second, many of these countries haven't "chosen" democracy because there governments are thrust upon them. The US has been more than happy to smash democratic governments that don't suit our interests.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Long winded history   by M. Mosher       at Fri 7 Feb 8:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     Geez, what is it with some Plastic members. I didn't say there weren't ANY democratic African countries. I said that MANY African countries aren't democratic. I know, it's only one additional letter of the alphabet but try to read a little more critically.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Long winded history   by madison       at Fri 7 Feb 10:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Does that insult you? It shouldn't. It shouldn't insult those countries or people from those countries either. It's just an opinion based on the fact that none of them have chosen that path. It doesn't insult me, so much as confuse me. It's often convenient when discussing international politics to deal with a country as if it was a unitary actor, but in this case it makes no sense. What does it mean to say an Arab country does not understand democracy? Countries don't "understand" things. It's difficult to argue with a statement that uses its terms in a nonsensical manner. The form of government a country has is a reflection of the balance of power within that society, not a "choice" by the country. To understand why a given African or Arab country is not democratic we would have to go and examine the history of that country since decolonization. Since I am not an expert on the history of each and every one of those countries, I can't really dispute your statement with specific facts about each country. However, that doesn't change the fact that the statement is not really meaningful to begin with. It might help you though to note that before you received an education on the history of democracy in Iran just now, you probably would have thought that the Iranians never really had an appreciation for democracy. The form of government in Iran has been a reflection of the balance of power, and now that the country has recovered from the war we are seeing the balance of power shift in ways that hopefully will lead to democracy once more.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Iran already had a democracy,   by trouscaillon       at Fri 7 Feb 12:52pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 11     and it made plenty of overtures to the US for support. Iran had a constitution, a legislature, a prime minister, etc. Mohammad Mossadegh was amazingly popular (he resigned three times only to have mobs show up at his house and carry him back to his offices.) Before being overthrown by a US orchestrated coup in '53 he had repeatedly asked Eisenhower for financial assistance. The reason he was turned down? He had just nationalized the Iranian oil industry and America wasn't going to accept it. They refused to help him withstand the British blockade of the country and he was forced to make alliances with the left wing and requests for help to Russia. If these requests for help were the real problem Dwight wouldn't have turned down his the initial requests in the face of British aggression. Just as in Cuba and Vietnam he could have chosen to deal with an extremely popular leader and by doing that pulled him to our end of the spectrum. Instead he rejected them, in all cases refusing to give aid to countries that desperately required it. In Iran and Vietnam the people looked to the United States as a just and free country that would help them to shake off their colonial dictators. Instead we rejected them all in the name of US commerce and created three of the biggest problems in US history.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Natural Gas   by Airbag       at Fri 7 Feb 10:59am score of 1     The new defense arrangement between Iran and Iraq didn't come out of nowhere. The year 2001 was a big year for both countries doing business with each other with conferences like this happening. That year was also when a natural gas pipeline running from Iran to Iraq became a serious proposal. Because it was serious it was only last year that American interest became entangled in who gets what contract with whom in the region. It is true that Pakistan may be feeling squeezed by this coziness. On the other hand, they stand a lot to gain by joining them as a bloc that stands together against all the other players in the region.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Once upon a time...   by Citizen Erectus       at Fri 7 Feb 11:31am score of 1     ...there was a big greedy bear. He loved honey and would eat it whenever he could. He had a deal with the bees where they would make some honey for him and he would protect them from the other animals, who also loved honey. Over time, the bear wanted more and more honey, he was very big after all. He thought "Why do those little bees need so much honey? After all it is I who is very big and protects them." The bear was very big and strong, he had sharp claws and fangs. He knew the squirrels and rabbits wouldn't mess with him if he just went and took the honey. So the big bear went up to the bee hive and started licking the honey. The bees started to get mad! "What are you doing bear?" buzzed the bees. "Do you realise that you crushed our larvae to get to the honey?" The bear ignored them and kept licking that honey, it was bliss! Oh how he loved honey so! Stupid little bees, how dare they hold out on so much honey. Some of the bees were so mad they stung the bear on the nose! Ouch! This made the bear very angry but the honey was so nice he just kept digging and licking in the bees' hive, crushing more and more larvae. "How dare you sting me! I am the bear!" growled the bear. The bees were furious now, the bear had to be stopped! Each bee knew that it would die after stinging the bear, but it was a small price to pay to protect the larvae. So the bees started to sting the bear all over his head which made him very mad, he started screaming and smashing into the hive. Thousands and thousands of bees flew out and stung him all over his body, there was nothing he could do. His massive claws were useless against so many bees, oh the pain! So the bear ran and ran, eventually the bees left him alone. What a stupid fat bear! By killing people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  Re: Once upon a time...   by StratKat       at Fri 7 Feb 8:12pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 17     So the bear ran and ran, eventually the bees left him alone       But the Big,Mean, Bear came back with a flame thrower and torched all the brave little bees. And yeah, it ruined the hive and fouled the honey. But the Big,Mean,Bear said, "Fuck the damn bees...There's other bees, there's other hives, there's more honey. They had more honey than they knew what to do with. Fuck the damn bees." You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Hah , Where are those Superpatriots now?   by TheColdKing       at Sat 8 Feb 1:46am score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 17     I knew it , whenever somebody actually manages to prove what a big crock of bullshit their ultra-right "the U.S. is Superman" propaganda is , they run away with their tails tucked between their legs. Pathetic cowards who can't face the awful truth tsk tsk tsk. TRUST NO ONE; USE EVERYONE   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  The Axis of Evil...   by rEvolution inAction       at Fri 7 Feb 11:48am score of 1     ... only became a reality because of Bush. Before he mentioned them, Iran and Iraq were still at each others throats, and NK couldn't give a damn about two countries in the middle east. Now we have Iran lining up with some brotherly love for Iraq, and NK making a fuss out east to divide American attention. If anything Bush's targeting of the three countries has made them unlikely allies. I can't wait for the invasion to see where Iran stands in all this (and how after US retaliation, their mutual defense pact with India goes). Read the best take on the Axis of Evil comment. Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Re: The Axis of Evil...   by lucas_m       at Fri 7 Feb 2:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     To take this self-fulfilling prophecy even further, an attack on Iraq will be seen by muslims as an attack on Islam by the imperialist West no matter which way it is spun in Washington. Links between Iraq and al Qaida or other shia fundamentalist terrorist groups were until recently always deemed unlikely because Saddam was a Sunni harddrinking militarist nationalist dictator. In Mid-East politics they had contrary interests and about all they could agree on was that it is nice to own oil and that the US is the enemy. Now maybe since Bush last year spoke the words 'You're either with us or against us' they thought 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'? Moi, j'aime ricocher.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: The Axis of Evil...   by rEvolution inAction       at Fri 7 Feb 3:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Now maybe since Bush last year spoke the words 'You're either with us or against us' they thought 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'? That one was a classic. What better way to make an enemy than to take neutrality as a threat, I love it. Bush is the answer to my prayers, because I think he's the best chance we have of eliminating the human race so the Chimps can have a second chance. Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: The Axis of Evil...   by kuuba       at Sat 8 Feb 8:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     North Korea was (is) exporting it's missile technology to Iran - I'd say they gave at least a small damn..   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: The Axis of Evil...   by shatov       at Sat 8 Feb 9:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     North Korea exports missiles and missile technology to anyone who has money. This is, of course, why the idea of North Korea producing nuclear bombs is so scary. They will never use it, but they would be quite willing to sell one or two. A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  powell   by AcaraStar03       at Fri 7 Feb 12:13pm score of 1     I, personally, think Bush should just fall off a cliff somewhere and have Powell take over.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  Re: powell   by rEvolution inAction       at Fri 7 Feb 2:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     Unfortunately, if Bush falls of the cliff, Cheney is next in line... for that possibility alone I hope Bush has good balance. Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  I'm not sure why Powell is everybody's hero.   by andytarra2       at Sun 9 Feb 1:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     I myself am very glad that we finally have an African American in some position of real authority in this country...well, at least two, including Condi. But why do they both have to be fucking scumbags? I won't get into Condoleeza's extensive oil connections, since we're talking about Powell, but doesn't anyone in America know about the fucked up shit Powell is doing in Central and South America in the name of the War on Drugs? Read the newsletters from sites like these more often.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Khomeni, Khamenei, Khatami, and Me   by MiceHead       at Fri 7 Feb 2:14pm score of 1     I'm always delighted to read positive views on Iran, given how comments in other forums often center around how we should bomb "them arab towelheads". Fantastic. To offer some sort of answer to the article's titular question, I think you need only ask a Persian to find out "what's really going on" in Iran. Especially interesting is that Americans and America are as stereotyped there as Iranians and Iran are here. Consider the converse; if a Middle Easterner really wanted to get the best feel for things in the US, s/he would ask you, (and not CNN, the White House, or Hollywood). Speak to a twenty something Persian here in the US, and they'll tell you: The Iranian populace wants good US-Iran ties. The US, and the conservative Supreme Leader of Iran don't. =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

49.  Re: Khomeni, Khamenei, Khatami, and Me   by Ahriman       at Sat 8 Feb 5:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Iranian populace is torn between wanting the western world to have good ties with Iran (to slowly pull them towards democracy), or wanting them to condemn the current government, thus helping to topple the current regime. Far from a consensus there, MiceHead. Locked in the arms of a crazy life - CB   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Something doesn't jibe...   by StratKat       at Fri 7 Feb 8:22pm score of 1     And is the United States even interested in a viable Islamic democracy in Iran?" Islamic Democracy? Am I the only one that strikes as odd? Sounds like the charter for a church.       We are interested in Democracy period. Not that we practice it here. The USA is a Republic, not a democracy. We'd like to think of ourselves as a democracy but we just aren't. We're hopeful that someone else will found a democracy so we can see if the dog will hunt, before we put our republics head on the chopping block. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Not good news for Afghanistan.   by shatov       at Sat 8 Feb 9:50pm score of 1     So India and Iran have signed a defense pact. Iran is probably looking for allies to avoid being targetted in the same way as Iraq is. India wants to increase security against Pakistan, as the Jane's article points out. Since Russia is helping Iran with a nuclear reactor, how long will it be until India also gives Iran some nuclear technology? Then Iran can threaten Pakistan with nukes from the back as well. The USA is currently supporting Pakistan, while China is sitting on the fence, but especially doesn't want to see its influence in the region decrease. There appear to be three power blocks emerging, which may not be a particularly stable situation. The US may find itself under pressure to leave Pakistan, especially if elections there continue to throw up anti-US politicians. Trying to maintain the illusion that Pakistan is a good friend will become increasingly difficult. Pakistan may also try to amend relations with China, to counter-balance an Indian-Iranian alliance. China doesn't have the problems that the US does when it comes to supporting dictators. In addition, Pakistan knows that the US can not give the military support that China could, in the event of a war with India. So, the three-way split will probably reduce to a two-way split. Why is this bad for Afghanistan? Well, with Afghanistan between Iran and Pakistan, both countries will try to manipulate the government to side with them. With no strong central government in sight, the best way to do this is to support warlords, despite the promises made not to interfere in Afghanistan's politics. Back to civil war in Afghanistan then. A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]