Foreign Correspondence

[Amaunet]

Unique text on US Iran relationship.

Coal, I wish I could have heard Tariq Ali.


Khomeini added: "...it is natural that Islam permits us to enter the Tyrant's establishments if the real aim is to stop oppression or to make a coup de'tat. Against the people in power, this "treachery" will be mandatory, and there is no doubt about it." It is obvious that Khomeini perceived cooperation with the enemies of the Muslims as mandatory if it benefited his sector. As a result, Khomeini claimed that it was permissible for al-Tusi to serve the Tartar invaders and must have used it to justify his cooperation with the CIA on the notion that it was beneficial for him and his country.

And what of all the anti-American slogans that continuously hail from various leaders in Iran? "Anti-American rhetoric by Islamic extremists in Teheran is not to be taken seriously. "It is for domestic, anti-imperialist consumption that the so-called radicals shout war mongering slogans against the Americans" says an Iranian political scientist living in Paris.[i/]

-Am

THE US AND IRAN RELATIONSHIP


May 20 2005, 05:58 AM

Britain & Persia / Iran

Persia (as it was known until 1935) during the First World War, was divided between Britain and Russia until the Russians left after the Bolshevik Revolution. The end of the war in 1918 left Persia under British influence with sole rights in the exploitation of Persian oil. As in Iraq, Britain in 1921 moved away from direct control to indirect control through their agent the commander of the Cossack Brigade, Reza Khan. He soon extended his military power over the whole country, crushing revolts and political opposition.

In 1925 with the support of Britain he declared himself the new shah and declared the foundation of the Pahlavi dynasty, whose survival he and Britain ensured by despotic rule and murder.

What mattered to the British was to maintain the Anglo-Persian oil concessions and the bulk of the profits. As oil production increased, the royalties the British paid to the shah also increased, these he used to strengthen his army. Following the example of Kemal Attaturk he forced Westernisation through which benefited only the privileged few, with over 90 % remaining in poverty.
However during the Second World War in August 1941, fearing that the Shah was beginning to lean towards Germany, Britain invaded Iran and deposed the Shah. The 21 year old Mohammed Reza was installed in place of his father.

The United States had established diplomatic relations with Iran in 1856, but did not send a diplomat of ambassadorial rank until 1944. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the US did have missionaries, teachers, and archaeologists positioned in Iran. In 1942, the US established two military missions to balance British and Russian presence. The US Mission to the Iranian Gendarmerie (referred to as GENMISH) and the US Mission to the Iranian Army (ARMISH).

In 1947 and 1948, the US embassy staff grew considerably in size. More importantly, the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA, established a station in Teheran's military attaches and embassy offices. This increasing US involvement in the internal affairs of Iran became particularly evident in the Mussadeq affair, and later in the revolution, and in the general setup and direction of Iran.

In the late 1940s, unrest began growing steadily mainly by the help of the Americans. This was because of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British-owned firm, earning large profits from its monopoly over Iran's oil industry. In October, 1949, a group of prominent political figures established the National Front to press for political reforms and nationalization of the AIOC's assets in Iran. The National Front was led by Muhammad Mussadeq and brought into power with American assistance.
Mussadeq was from a prominent landowning family which hailed from prominent tribes. GENMISH had already been working with many of the tribes to prepare them to take a more active role in the Iranian government. After Mussadeq assumed office, the Truman administration publicly expressed strong support for him. Truman،¦s administration pursued a policy of supporting Mussadeq, opposing any efforts to overthrow him.

The US brought Mussadeq to power so that it would procure their share of oil wealth from Iran and seriously threaten the British position in the Middle East. The importance of Middle Eastern oil had increased exponentially since the period before the 2nd World War. So control of the oil supplies became the vital new factor in international politics after 1945, with the West calling it the greatest prize. In the 5 years following the war, the production of crude oil was doubled from 250 million tons to 500 million; by 1960 it had reached 1000 million tons. On April 29th 1951 the largest oil refinery in the world, at Abadan, and all other installations of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company were nationalized by Mussadeq. This prompted Britain to initiate covert operations in Iran, none of which succeeded at the time.

To protect its interests the British imposed a series of bilateral economic sanctions on Iran and began an ominous military buildup in the region. In September, 1951, British officials began implementing a plan to invade southwestern Iran in order to seize its oil fields. When US officials were told about this plan, President Truman notified British Prime Minister Clement Attlee that the US would not support an invasion and urged him to resume negotiations with Iran over the oil dispute. As a result, Attlee was force to abandon the invasion plan, telling his cabinet that "in view of the attitude of the United States government, [he did not] think it would be expedient to use force¨ in Iran.

However in August 1953 the Shah staged a coup with the help of British intelligence services ousting Mussadeq and recovering the powers he had lost. In 1955 Iran joined the Baghdad Pact an alliance created by England to affirm her influence in these countries and to shift the balance in her favour.

For the next twenty five years, Iran continued under the domination of Britain. During these years, the process of Iran's integration into the global capitalist system was consolidated. Iran،¦s rule, along with other countries in the region was to deliver cheap oil and receive mostly finished consumer commodities.

The US continued to be concerned. The Shah wanted to build an empire which he claimed would be the sixth greatest power in the world and thereby threatening American presence in the region. To make his dream a reality, he wanted to buy the most modern and sophisticated weapons in the world. To accomplish this, the Shah spent more than $20 billion in the military field. The imbalance it would create between Iran and some of its US influenced neighbors was mentioned in documents seized from the Embassy, right after the revolution. One of these documents stated that the Iranian military buildup would have serious consequences on the future cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a custodian of American support. And a relationship that was strategically important in securing the Gulf region.

In an interview with the US News & World Report, the Shah said that if the US would take an unfriendly attitude towards Iran, then Iran "can hurt you (US) as badly, if not more so, than you can hurt us (Iran). Not just through oil, we can create trouble for you in the region. If you force us to change our friendly attitude, the repercussions will be immeasurable.¨ There was also concern over the Shah's attitude towards oil policies, which differed from America's point of view.

The Shah was forced to openly accuse the CIA of being behind the plot to get rid of him and behind forging strong relations with his opposition, the head of whom being Khomeini.

Was their any plausibility in what the Shah said? Can anybody believe in such an accusation while believing in the asceticism which surrounded Khomeini?

Here, it is worth mentioning Khomeini's ideological stance. He adopts Tuqi'a, which means "legitimacy to lie if it is beneficial." Additionally, Khomeini said: "If the circumstances of Tuqi'a forces anyone of us to enter the Sultan's doors, we should not do it even if it causes murder, unless his seeming treachery causes a real victory for Islam and the Muslims like the treachery of Ali bin Yekteen and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi." Thus, Khomeini took Tusi as the ideal figure to follow.

Al-Tusi was a scientist in the Khilafah. In 1256 the Mongol leader Hulegu, a grandson of Genghis Khan, attacked Alamut. Al-Tusi betrayed the defences of Alamut to the invading Mongols. Hulegu's forces destroyed Alamut and, Hulegu himself being himself interested in science, treated al-Tusi with great respect and appointed him as their scientific advisor. He was also put in charge of religious affairs and was with the Mongol forces under Hulegu when they ransacked Baghdad in 1258 including murdering the caliph al-Musta'sim together with 300 of his officials.

If Khomeini considered al-Tusi as a role model, a relationship with the US was therefore not out of the question.

Khomeini added: "...it is natural that Islam permits us to enter the Tyrant's establishments if the real aim is to stop oppression or to make a coup de'tat. Against the people in power, this "treachery" will be mandatory, and there is no doubt about it." It is obvious that Khomeini perceived cooperation with the enemies of the Muslims as mandatory if it benefited his sector. As a result, Khomeini claimed that it was permissible for al-Tusi to serve the Tartar invaders and must have used it to justify his cooperation with the CIA on the notion that it was beneficial for him and his country.

However some would still find it hard to believe that Khomeini had a relationship with the Americans while attacking the US at the same time?

The US - Khomeini Relationship

There is a tremendous amount of information which link Khomeini with the Americans. Evidence shows that there was a series of meetings on a regular basis between Khomeini and high level US government representatives, American representatives met Khomeini, not for the sake of discussions' or to carry on a dialogue with him, but to share with Khomeini their (American) intelligence reports. Such as the following:

1. By late 1978, many in the Embassy and State Department were convinced that the Shah could not last and were in contact with secular and religious figures who might assume governmental posts. The Shah sent a letter to the Iraqi government accusing the CIA of what happened in Iran, telling Iraq that the US was trying to change the political systems in the region by using religion and that Baghdad's turn would be next. The Shah asked Iraq to watch Khomeini more closely because he (Khomeini) had connections with the CIA.

2. On January 21, 1979, the former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, arrived in Paris from Teheran. He held talks with the opposition leader Khomeini and told him Carter's opinions of the recent events. As the news agencies reported, when Clark left Khomeini, he said, "I have great hope that this revolution will bring social justice to Iranian people."

3. An interview with the Sudanese leader, Sadiq Al-Mehdi, in Al-Mostaqbal magazine, shows that the American administration used him as a mediator in the hostage crisis by visiting Khomeini. He added that this was not the first time he mediated between the American administration and Khomeini.

4. Meetings between Bruce Laingen and Khomeini. Laingen, the American Charge D'Affaires in Teheran, held four meetings with Khomeini in Qum in mid-August, 1979. Right after the meetings, the riots took place in Ahwas which caused reductions in the oil supply, and the result was a shortage in the gasoline supply.

5. The Shah said in his memoirs, that he did not know about the Deputy Commander of US Forces in Europe General Huyser's arrival in Teheran until a few days after its occurrence. The Shah also said that this was strange because the General "had come to Teheran a number of times, scheduling his visits well in advance to discuss military affairs with me and my generals." However, this arrival was secret "As soon as Moscow learned of Huyser's arrival, Pravada reported, 'General Huyser is in Teheran to foment a military coup.' The Shah added, It was therefore necessary to neutralize the Iranian army. It was clearly for this reason that General Huyser had come to Teheran."

Then the Shah said, "Huyser succeeded in winning over my last chief of staff, General Ghara-Baghi, whose later behavior leads me to believe that he was a traitor.. I do know that Ghara-Baghi used his authority to prevent military action against Khomeini. It is perhaps significant that although all my generals were executed, only General Ghara-Baghi was spared.

The Shah ended by saying that plans for his departure had been announced, "interestingly enough, on January 11 in Washington by US Secretary of State Vance."

6. Among those movements who traditionally supported Khomeini were, Sanjabi, Feda'iyan, and Mujahideen Khalq, but now they all disagreed with Khomeini. The reporter Houda Al-Hocine from Al-Hawadess met with these people, and she reported an important story as follows: "These new revolutionaries rejected Khomeini's revolution because they said the revolution carried America's blessing and they consider America as the force behind the fall of the Shah and therefore, were backing Khomeini. They gave evidence by saying that America's president Carter was against Shah since the beginning for these reasons:

The Shah was feuding with the Democratic Party; most of the members of Congress were against the Shah because the Shah considered himself OPEC،¦s leading hawk and led the campaign of raising the oil prices.

The US loss of her largest base in Asmara Ethiopia, meant that the US was looking for a solution which would protect American interests,. The Americans noticed that Communists began to organize terrorist activities.

Also, they found that the Soviet Union was the only beneficiary from the situation, gaining whatever natural resources they desired from Iran, especially natural gas. The Afghanistan invasion took place, as well as the incidents in the Horn of Africa and South Yemen. This brought Iran under the mercy of the leftist wave. Therefore, the situation had to be salvaged. A coup d'etat was not acceptable by the Iranian people. Therefore, the change had to emanate from the people, who could be only incited by a revolution which would depend on religion. Accordingly, the Americans looked for a religious personality.

There was an attempt to destroy Khomeini's movement on the night of February 11, but something unexplainable made the attempt fail. The army announced that it was standing neutral. This announcement changed the core of events. The orders were given to the army and to the Embassy's guards to drop their weapons.

7. Al-Watan newspaper uncovered some secrets. One of them mentions that the United States explicitly asked the army commanders and generals to take this attitude at the last moment, and the State Department urged Ambassador Sullivan to persuade the senior generals, as soon as possible, not to intervene in any offensive action and to announce their neutrality in the political feuds.،¨

Without any doubt, Carter and his aides supported Khomeini. Here are some facts to show this:

President Carter praised Khomeini's first Prime Minister by saying, "He and his predominantly Western-educated cabinet members cooperated with us. They protected our embassy, provided safe travel for General Philip C. Gast, who had replaced Huyser, and sent us a series of friendly messages. Bazargan publicly announced his eagerness to have good relations with the US and said that Iran would soon resume normal oil shipments to all its customers.¨ President Carter also praised Khomeini when he said, "Khomeini sent his personal representative to see Secretary Vance to pledge increased friendship and cooperation, and to seek our assurance that we were supporting the new Prime Minister and a stable government. Despite the turmoil within Iran, I was reasonably pleased with the attitude of the Iranian government under Bazargan.¨ In an interview with the former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown on the CBS program Face the Nation،¦, he said that the Bazargan government was "very helpful in trying to protect Americans in a difficult and unstable, dangerous situation.¨ He added that America "can work out friendly relations.¨

At that time, the assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern and South Asian Affairs Harold H. Sanders said in his report before the Middle East Committee, "The American interests did not change in Iran, and we have a strong interest to keep Iran a stable, free, and independent state."

As we can see, the high figures in the Iranian Revolution also had a connection with the United States.

Abbas Amir Entezam: was one of the key figures known to be a CIA agent. After the occupation of the Iranian Embassy, some documents were discovered which confirmed his relationship with the CIA.

Ayatullah Hamid Rouhani: In an interview with Paris-Match magazine, said, "The army was in the hands of its 40,000 American advisors. From the moment when America gave the green light - and I am convinced that America gave us the green light - the army could no longer do anything except what it is doing today.

Post Khomeini

After Khomeini's death, the successive presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani, (Ali) Mohammad Khatami-Ardakani have worked quietly to improve ties with Washington. Succeeding in shedding much of Iran،¦s ultraconservative image and upgrading relationships with many European and Middle Eastern countries. Their aim has been to turn Iran into a "moderate" state. Their policies seem to be working. As Newsweek reported at the time of Rafsanjani, "In Teheran, peeling slogans have been scrubbed off the walls... A capitalist-style stock market is booming, children snap up Ninja Turtle toys, and "Dancing with Wolves" is the first Hollywood movie to be screened legally in years."

And what of all the anti-American slogans that continuously hail from various leaders in Iran? "Anti-American rhetoric by Islamic extremists in Teheran is not to be taken seriously. "It is for domestic, anti-imperialist consumption that the so-called radicals shout war mongering slogans against the Americans" says an Iranian political scientist living in Paris.

Furthermore it is clear that Iran has been maintaining trade relations with the United States, despite calling it the Great Satan. Trade has been in the millions. For example the following have all had US approval to sell to Iran. Mitac Corporation of Fremont, California, has shipped million of dollars worth of computers to Raymeh Saz Engineering Co. in Iran. So has another computer firm, Modular Computer Systems Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Fl., to the Iranian Chemical Co. So does Siemens, the German electronics firm. Rockwell International sold Teheran helicopter gear and electronics worth $533,000. Other contracts have gone to Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Honeywell, NCR, and AST Research. Each sale was approved by the Commerce Department after consultation with other government agencies.

So it appears clearly that after the US orchestrated the revolution, controlling and containing it, and after pacifying millions of sincere Muslims of Iran to be content with the revolution, the US is now ready to officially end the revolution.

How then does this explain Bush's axis of evil statement?

According to Glynn Davis, deputy head of mission at the American embassy in London, Bush's statement is aimed at speeding up the reformation process within Iran.

This on one hand whilst on the other it is also preparing the way to contain Iran should it decide to independently exercise its influence in the Middle East against US policy.

Thus although moderate elements in Iran are being encouraged, Washington is weary of the hardliners, who control the military, intelligence, judiciary and security. Washington،¦s concern being that Iran is attempting to acquire sophisticated weapons, including nuclear weapons that might may threaten the US and its interests. Particularly as Iran has developed a sophisticated missile programme, including 1,300 kilometre Shahab-3 missile. According to Chief Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson US Defence Intelligence Agency "Iran also has a strong enough navy to stem the flow of oil from the Gulf for brief periods."

So the US, as it is doing currently with China, is therefore walking a tightrope policy of encouraging the reformers within Iran whilst also making it clear that it is prepared to react to contain any opposition that may present a threat to US interests and its hegemony in the region.

http://www.pakistanidefenceforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t45003.html