What the heck is going over there? What are they so angry about? And why isn’t America doing more to help them? These are questions I have been hearing lately and have been trying to piece together myself over the last two weeks. These aren’t simple questions to answer at the moment, due to the fact that Iranian politics are so secretive and access is so restricted. However there is some stuff we do know that clues us in to how things got to where they are today in Iran.
Most Americans gut reaction when they hear Iran being mentioned may be that this is one of the countries that hate us. This is not so far off the mark. Often during speeches and rallies, the old “death to America” chant is used to whip crowds into a frenzy. There are a great number of people, especially as you get outside Tehran, where suspicion and contempt for America runs high. Politicians are well aware of this and it’s easy to demonize an ambiguous enemy to score points with voters.
But their attitude toward the United States is not due to the fact that Iran is a “Muslin country” and the United States is not, or because we have “freedoms” and they don’t, or because “our women are equal to our men” and theirs are not. All of this may be true to a certain extent, but Iranians have far more concrete reasons to be angry and suspicious of the United States, as America was prominently involved in the two biggest events in modern history of Iran. And as is often the case with America, they both involve regime change.
The Shah
The United States relationship with Iran goes back about sixty years, to the end of WWII. At that time England was the big player there, having occupied Iran during the war in order to keep its massive oil fields out of the hands of the Nazis. The British had ousted the ruling shah (king) at the time and put in a more favorable government. However, shortly thereafter in 1952, that government elected a Prime Minister named Mossadeq that began to advocate loudly for nationalization of the oil companies. This would mean that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now British Petroleum or BP) would no longer have control over the oil. Mossadeq was now officially out of favor with Great Britain.
In the past the British, they themselves having written the book on colonialism, would have handled such an event on their own. But since WWII ended they had been substantially weakened and they realized that they had to get their superpower-ally involved: the United States. The United States had cut its own deal with the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia insuring its oil supply for years to come, but Iran was England’s Saudi Arabia, and it was having trouble.
It was at this time that America decided its next biggest threat was Communism and the rise of Russia, which many in Washington felt had big plans for the Middle East. In order to secure America’s help in dealing with the “Iranian problem”, England started playing up the threat of communism in Iran, and presenting the scenario of Russia controlling one of the biggest oil fields in the Middle East. For American in the Cold War era, this turned out to be more than enough to get the involved. In 1953 the CIA sent some people over to handle things.
The two most prominent men were Kermit Roosevelt, grandson Teddy, and Dr Donald Wilber, a professor of Middle Eastern Architecture at Princeton University. Generally speaking, Wilber planned the plot and Roosevelt carried it out. With a suitcase full of cash, Roosevelt went out to garner support for by bribing policemen, army generals, religious leaders, and members of parliament, as their collective support would be critical to the plot’s success.
Then Roosevelt started about creating an atmosphere of chaos and lawlessness to give the impression that Mossadeq’s government had lost all control. Roosevelt did this by paying a mob of people to stir up trouble on the streets of Tehran, going around smashing windows, shouting pro-Mossedeq slogans, and beating up people. Roosevelt then went out and paid another mob to beat up the first mob, all while smashing windows and property, and this time they would be chanting pro-communist slogans. Once it appeared that the government had completely lost control of things, Wilbur and Roosevelt sent in their paid-off army generals to seize power and set up the Shah as the new leader.
Iran has a long history of living under kings, so when the Americans overthrew their government they installed the son of the last king to give the whole thing a veneer of legitimacy. For the next 26 years, though he was largely favorable to the United Kingdom and the United States, the shah ruled with an iron fist and was largely unpopular with his own people. Understandably not everyone was content to be ruled again by a king, and the king, as all leaders sitting on a shaky foundation with their people, did not take criticism well. Any public protest and unrest was put down in a brutal manner before it could get out of control, and the suppressed anger of the people was forced to simmer beneath the surface.
The people of Iran were unhappy with their new leader they knew they had America to thank. The Persians are no dummies, and they understood the hypocrisy of America overthrowing a democratically elected government only to install an oppressive king. Eventually the people of Iran had had enough and, in 1978, their anger began to boil over. People began marching in the streets and clashing openly with security officials. This went on for months as the world watched. All of a sudden a small clique, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, emerged and seized power.
At first the people were overjoyed that the Shah was gone and they celebrated all over the country. But eventually they discovered what they were getting with the new regime. The Ayatollah turned out to be as ruthless as the shah, only now Iran was no longer a secular monarchy but an Islamic Republic. People now had to live under Islamic law, alcohol was prohibited, women were forced cover up, and all hint of western influence was aggressively stamped out.
Sure they did not want the shah to lead them, but this was hardly what they had in mind when they called for a change. The new “Islamic Republic of Iran” was also ruled with an iron fist (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) by the Ayatollah and their private guardian militia called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC was composed of men who were true believers in the revolution, and that had got in on the ground floor of it all. Today in Iran, nearly every leadership position of any consequence is held by one of these men.
Helpless to stop it all, Washington DC was livid at what was happening. America was now stuck with a very hostile government controlling one of the world’s largest oil fields and natural gas reserves. By 1979, American had developed an insatiable appetite for petroleum. More than ever the link between oil and America’s national security was being recognized, especially in the wake of the 1973 OPEC embargo that brought America to a standstill and wreaked havoc on the US economy. For Washington this just would not do at all, and once again the powers that be decided something must be done about Iran.
This brings us to the second event in modern Iranian history that America was prominently involved in: Iran’s war with Iraq.
Iran Iraq War
Iran and Iraq are next-door-neighbors. At the time, Iraq was led by Saddam Hussein, the Tiger of the Tigris, who (at that time) was a friend of the United States. The attitude in Washington then was that Saddam may have been an evil dictator but at least he was our evil dictator, and he was decidedly not a communist.
The regime in Iran is powerful and stable today, but in 1979 things were still on shaky ground and it was unclear whether or not the revolution would take hold. Iran and Iraq, as neighboring countries often are, were historic rivals, especially with Iran being largely Shiite and Iraq being largely Sunni. So Saddam Hussein, being an ambitious man by nature, decided he would take a shot at the fledgling regime to see if he and his powerful army could topple it over and take charge there. If it all worked out, Saddam would control the world’s largest supply of oil and gas, which would make him one of the most powerful men in the world.
Washington was not sure it wanted a mad man like Saddam to have all that power, but nevertheless they were enthralled with real possibility of the Ayatollah being ousted by “one of their guys” (there is an infamous photo of Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq shaking hands with Saddam).
When a country is at war, it may or may not forget its allies as time goes by, but it never forgets its attackers and those who aided them. So when America decided to help Saddam with military aid and chemical weapons (such as mustard gas), it burned into the Iranian consciousness the image of a meddling and malicious America which was now not just against the Ayatollah and his regime, but the entire Iranian people who were fighting and dying in this war.
Iran was faced with a truly existential threat and America had taken sides against them. Eventually the Iraqi onslaught was repelled by the brave Iranian fighters (the war wasn’t over until 1988), but the cost in human lives was staggering. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians had been killed. They Ayatollah’s strategy of sending wave after wave of “martyrs” to die at the front had worked (the martyr holds a special place in Shiite culture, as it’s the absolute most honorable way a man can die). The Ayatollah had taken charge of his country and delivered it successfully through one of its darkest hours. And now, not only did Iraq fail in toppling the Ayatollah, it succeeded in galvanizing the people behind him in the face of an invading army.
The regime might not have been able to take root so quickly if not for the Iran-Iraq War. And in the past three decades leading up to the end of it, America had overthrown the Iranian government, installed a dictator-king in its place, supported him for a quarter century, and then when the king was finally ousted, they supported an invading army in its attempt to take over the country by giving it military aid including chemical weapons. So one can see why they may be upset.
Effects of Interference
As you can see, America has had a profound effect on the development of Iran into what it is today. Just one example of this is in Iran’s relationship with Syria. The only nation Iran is close with is Syria, whose friendship arises out of Iran’s troubles with the United States. Syria supported the Ayatollah during the 1979 revolution and again during its war with Iraq. This support was critical to Iran in those first few years as it provided them with a much needed friend in the region, and Iran has not forgotten this. Many of those who fought in the war with Iraq, including President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, are in power today and realize the value of what Syria did for their fledgling nation.
Another byproduct of American interference in Iran is the formation of Hizballah in 1982. That year, Iran sent IRGC specialists to Lebanon (through Syria) to train Shia guerrillas to combat Israel. The stated purpose of this was to aid their disenfranchised Shia brothers in Lebanon (who were made up about a third of the country, but had no real power), but the move was also helpful for Iran in that gave the Americans something to think about when they were aiding Iraq. Hizballah would be under Iranian leadership when they would be attacking Israel, and this would give Iran a bargaining chip with the United States in the future. In the early 1980’s, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria became as thick as thieves, and the United States has been trying to untangle this alliance ever since.
After the success of Hizballah as an Iranian proxy it was certain this strategy would be used in the future, which is what happened after 9/11 when the US invaded Iraq. Iran is neighbored by Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on another, both of which were now occupied by the United States. All of a sudden Iran found itself surrounded by the very country that had caused it so many horrors in the past. As a result, a bulldog like Ahmedinejad was elected president and the rhetoric towards the west was set on “hostile”.
Somewhat predictably, Iran had Hizballah turn up the heat on Israel, but also it started organizing Shia insurgents in Iraq. For months, the wily and fearsome Shiite fighter Muqtada al-Sadr and his Sadr militia wreaked havoc in Iraq against the American forces there. The Bush Administration knew this, and originally they took a hard line to Iran, but eventually Washington realized that it had to make peace with Iran in order to make peace in Iraq, which was plagued with sectarian violence. Often the credit is given to the so-called troop surge for the calming down of things in Iraq, but Iran played a very large part of it as well. Tehran recalled Sadr and his militia leaders to Qom (the Shiite holy city in Iran) and the violence was soon quelled. In return, America was force to throw its support behind the Shia in the formation of the new government, which Iran would have incredible influence over.
It’s amazing that in 1982 the United States was actively supporting Iraq in its bid to take over Iran, and just 25 years later the United States was being forced to support Iran in its takeover of Iraq.
The Election
Iran might have another revolution on its hands, but this time Obama is doing the right thing by staying out of it. Some in Washington are advocating for the US to offer more support for the protestors, but this would only give President Ahmedinejad and Ayatollah Khameini fuel for the fire. If Obama opened his mouth now, it would give the regime an external enemy (America no less) and provide them with justification to violently crackdown on the protests. The protesters know this. And while they understand that America implicitly supports them in their revolt, they are not calling for American involvement. With America’s history of meddling in Iran, this is the only path.
So how did Iran get to where it is today, with enormous protest and unprecedented unrest? Well aside from what happened 1953 to 2009, basically the ruling regime cheated in the presidential election two weeks ago. This is not to say that Mousavi really won and Ahmedinejad really lost. Mousavi is thought of as “moderate reformer”, appealing mostly to educated urban and middle class voters. Ahmedinejad is a populist who appeals to poor and rural voters by giving them massive subsidies (like the dreadfully costly gasoline subsidy) and chastising decadence, corruption, and countries they think they don’t like, such as the United States and Israel. Iran’s voters are mostly made up of the poor and rural, and indeed one pre-election poll conducted did have Ahmedinejad winning with about 66% of the vote, which is actually matches up with what officials had said.
But there were problems. First, the election council is supposed to wait three days while the results are being certified to announce the winner. This time however, the Ahmedinejad was proclaimed the winner within hours of the polls closing. And the results showed that Ahmedinejad won evenly in rural areas and urban areas as like, which was odd because Mousavi was thought to have immense support at least in in Tehran. Finally, the officials had Mousavi losing in his home district, which may be possible in America, but if you know Middle Eastern politics this is highly unlikely. So the reported results were extremely questionable.
The protests started almost immediately. People were on the streets carrying signs and chanting pro-Mousavi slogans. But then things started to change. Never before had the people been given the freedom to openly protest, and now they were marching around and making their voices heard. Pretty soon, the protests morphed from disagreements with the election results to disagreements with the ruling regime. Thirty years of anger and oppression began to boil to the surface and after the protesters were given an inch, they took a mile. The regime was starting to lose control so they had to fight back, and when they fought back it only added more fuel to the protesters fire.
Their fury was taken to a much deeper level after a protester known around the world now only as Neda, was murdered by security forces and the video whipped around the globe on the internet. She has since become the people’s martyr, the very symbol of the protesters and everything they stand for. Sunday, the day after she was killed, the city of Tehran experienced an “eerie calm”, which seemed to be less a dying down in the protest as it was a regrouping of them. Monday, today, the protesters were back on the streets making their voices heard.
A House Divided
It’s not only the protesters that are exhibiting dismay with the regime. The unrest is only allowed to proceed because of a deeper rift in upper leadership of Iran and its complicated religious hierarchy. In the past, the regime would have cracked down long ago on the people and put a swift end to any disobedience, no matter how civil. However, Mousavi has some very powerful supporters in the upper echelons of the Iranian establishment. Former presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani are among his backers, and these men are from extremely powerful families whose influence in both government and business runs deep.
This schism is far greater than people originally thought because not only are the people disenchanted with the government, but also men like Khatemi and Rafsanjani which represent the elite powers in Iran. So the protesters are allowed to continue because they have some very powerful supporters in the establishment and it’s unclear where this is all going (most likely nowhere anytime soon, as Khemeini and Ahmedinejad are just too poweful right now).
One theory is that the Ayatollah is really sick and that he is dying of cancer. The story goes that the Ayatollah and his supporters already have a successor planned, (Khemaini's son) but they really need the support of Ahmedinejad, who has enormous influence both with the rural poor and with the IRGC. Influence with the IRGC is especially important because they are really a network of generals, business leaders, intelligence officials, mayors, MPs, and civil servants that number in the hundreds of thousands. They have their own army, air force, spy network, businesses, and think tanks, and their support is critical. So they rigged the election for Ahmedinejad to win no matter what.
The people disagreed with the result and they started to protest. Normally they would have been put down immediately, but they were allowed to continue because a Mousavi has some powerful backers. Then once the people saw what they could get away with, the protests exploded and they have not been able to get control of it ever since.
This is where things are today. The elections have a lot to do with it, but it’s important to understand how we got here, as well as America’s part of it, because it explains why the protests have not been extinguished yet as well as why Obama is resisting all temptations to get involved. When it comes to American involvement in Iran, these days less is more.
No comments:
Post a Comment