Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth

Friday, August 15, 2008

Meanderings on Iran

Dan's shift in consideration regarding Iran from apparent apathy to thoughtful consideration drove me to consider putting down something of an outline regarding Iran, how the American public is lead to consider the country and how I've come to realize different from the mainstream. These are observations and small pockets of fact commingled. Corrections and objections are, as always, welcome.

1. Ruhollah Khomeini, in Parisian exile, was not privy to the 1979 taking of the American embassy. He was informed after the fact and initially and privately disapproved, only to publicly endorse the action.

2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a member of the Revolutionary student force that took the US embassy, but during preliminary planning suggested the Soviet embassy instead.

3. The Islamic Revolution seems to have contorted from political coup to an effective 5gw operation against the Iranian citizens.

4. President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad is a mouthpiece. His apocalyptic anti-semetic rhetoric is allowed as it serves to bolster the domestic conservative base and give credence to the above mentioned 5gw policy enacted on the Iranian populace.

5. If Iran's theocracy truly craved the apocalypse that prefaces the return of the 12th Imam they certainly don't need nuclear weapons. A blatant Revolutionary Guard attack on US forces in Iraq would be well enough.

6. The nihilism of Iran's mullahs is well eclipsed by their political appetites. Control, not prophesy, is their motive.

7. There is a rather wide difference between Shiism and Wahhabism.

8. The Islamic Revolution is similar to Wahhabism in nature but divided by its obvious political overtones.

9. Hamas is an Iranian geo-political investment not a theological kinship.

10. The Shah of Iran wasn't quite the Saint for Western values some knuckleheads would have us believe. Nor was he "removed" by President Jimmy Carter.

11. The above mentioned Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi didn't stumble into leadership. Quite the contrary he was essentially placed into power by a CIA led coup in 1953. The fellow he replaced, Mohammed Mossaddeq, was democratically elected to Prime Minister in 1951.

12. The guy that orchestrated the coup in 1953 was the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt.

13. Hindsight being 20/20, we might have been better off leaving Mossaddeq in power, his anti western stance and Chavez like nationalization of the oil industry not withstanding.

14. Iran has, beyond their Islamic rhetoric, a sound foundation for gripe against American and European meddling. Perhaps America should forego the posturing and dalliance and bring that age old grudge to the front in an apologetic nature. Most would consider this apeasement. I see it differently. I see it forcing the current regime to step down from their Islamic Revolutionary rhetoric and address reality. We could, in doing this, define Iran's gripe for them (not the Joos but our own imperial insensitivity back in the mid 20th century.) That'd toss them for a loop, wouldn't it? It's a loose thought and nothing more. But there's something there.

15. Iran is Persian. Not Arab. This isn't always so apparent to the average American. Further, those that insist Iraq could become a vassal of Iran would do well to remember this difference. And further their education in remembering Iraq and Iran fought a rather nasty war back in the eighties. Such a legacy is very likely not easily forgotten amidst the populations of either state and so the idea that the Iraqi Shiites would simply roll over unto their backs and subject themselves to Persian rule, proxy or otherwise, seems a bit of a lark.

Some thoughts offered as we continue to consider and debate the conundrum of Iran.


Anonymous said...

Ahmadinejad was not a participant in the taking of US hostages, as other hostage-takers, the hostages themselves, and the CIA have affirmed.

The Iranian revolution has no relation to Wahhabism whatsoever. Iranians find Wahhabism repulsive, as well as talibanism -- even the most conservative ones. The Iranian revolution was a nationalistic movement, and religion was merely an assertion of class identity in the face of the Shah's shallow and superficial enforced "Westtoxification"

In Shia Islam, the apocalypse cannot be brought about by human endeavor, and to suggest it can is iself heresy.

Ahmadinejad is not apocalyptic. the 12th Imam stands for justice in folk-religion, and his appeals to the 12th imam are merely appeals for social justice that the common folk can relate to. Israeli propagandists have painted him as a madman even before he said anything about the holocaust because ultimately the Israels don't want to see the US and Iran getting along.

Mossadegh was not "anti-Western" and he was educated at the U of Geneva. He had appealed to the US to help in Iran's cause against British colonialism -- and was strung along until he was deposed. He was a pro-western nationalist.

Iranians and iraqis both remember that the US and the EU were backing and arming Saddam during the war -- average Iraniasn and Iraqis don't have any issues with each other, as there are deep historical ties between the peoples of the two countries.

Jay@Soob said...

Thanks for the additions, though I'll have to look into your accounts of Ahm being not present during the embassy take over. Also, I'd point out that I made to link between the Revolution and wahhabism. Quite the contrary, actually.

As for Ahms apocalyptic nature, I'll have to disagree and say that speaking of wiping nations off the earth is a rather apocalyptic approach to foreign policy. Further, laying blame at the feet of Israel for his "mad man" image is a bit disingenuous. Certainly "Israeli propagandists" and American talking heads have helped him along this path but he's certainly not without fault himself.