Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
How about ANY way other than promoting violence that seems to be the only contribution Iran has made to the region and the world since 1979?
|
The US (and UK) is to blame for that.
The Shah had told Bill Sullivan (the US ambassador) that he had cancer, wanted to abdicate, and requested visas to the US for he and his family so that he could get treatment. Both the Shah and Sullivan agreed that Khomeini would be the next leader of Iran, and using French and British contacts, started low level talks with Khomeini's people that progressed quite well over the months.
They were just a short time away from a face-to-face meeting when the French caught wind of US plans and thwarted them. The French didn't want Khomeini, they wanted their man (another ayatollah whose name escapes me) to be the next leader, so they leaked word of the Shah's intended abdication, and that is how the "revolution" started.
The situation was salvageable, except Carter screwed up by listening to Brzezinski and Gary Sick. They sent General Huygens to Iran to convince the military to take over the country in a coup. Carter did not consult with Ambassador Sullivan or Army Chief of Staff Al Haig (who lived in Iran and speaks Farsi), and Brzezinski and Sick made sure of that, because both were opposed to military intervention. Haig knew the Iranian army was incapable of running the country.
When Khomeini arrives in-country and sees General Huygens and the Iranian army flat-dicking around, what do you suppose were the first thoughts running through his mind?
Any normal person with half a brain would believe they're being set up for assassination, or being double-crossed, or in the least worst case scenario, being played for a fool, so don't blame Khomeini for being human.
This whole mess and the last 30 years of nonsense could have been avoided if Carter had listened to Sullivan, and consulted with Al Haig, instead of listening to Brzezinski and Sick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
Unfortunately, Iranian interests and U.S. interests do not have much in common.
|
And that is not inherently problematic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
The U.S. wants representative government with respective individual rights and rule of law, free trade, and the absence of terrorist attacks. We believe this to be the best way to achieve regional stability and lack of conflict, while promoting economic development of the region AND the United States (yes we like less expensive oil).
|
And that position fails to take into consideration the social and demographic constructs of Iran (and the region), specifically the fact that those countries are tribal and clan based societies along with nations, not nation-states, the history of the region, and especially the role of the US in supporting a murderous puppet dictator affectionately known as a Shah, and his CIA/DGSE trained SAVAK (Iranian secret police).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
Iran seems to want theocratic tyranny, centralized markets with a stranglehold on the global oil market, a scapegoat to blame every problem it faces to justify its lack of progress to its people, and a nuclear deterrent to preclude any outside power from forcibly removing its government. Have fun with that.
|
Well, the US and UK had more than 40 unimpeded years to act as a benevolent power and could have effected an entire generation by bringing about a primary and secondary education system, establishing stable democratic institutions, engaging in constructive dialog with the many ethnic and religious groups, and laying the ground work for a free market system raising the quality of life and standard of living for Iranians.
Instead, the US did nothing except help the government brutally suppress dissenting opinions, and the UK, a country where better than 90% of the industries and natural resources where nationalized, started frothing at the mouth and quibbling with Iranians over a non-event like the nationalization of its oil and natural gas fields. The multiple assassination attempts on PM Massadeq by the US and UK doesn't exactly leave Iranians with a warm fuzzy feeling (and neither do memories of family and friends being wrongfully imprisoned, brutally tortured or murdered by the SAVAK).
If the US is so heavily dependent on the centralized Iranian economy and its measly 5% of the world's oil and natural gas to keep the US from burning down, falling over and sinking into a swamp, then that is the fault of the US, not the fault of Iran.
US foreign policy in Iran for the last 70 years has failed. It might be easier and cheaper just to extend an olive branch, have a sitting US president go to Iran and publicly apologize for the cold-blooded attempted murder of PM Massadeq and ask forgiveness, offer to help the Iranians build desalinization plants and nuclear power plants so their economy can further develop, and teach them the benefits of a free market economy while simultaneously respecting the religious beliefs of the Iranians, and lastly, come to terms with, and accept the fact that, the Iranians (and others in the Middle East) want modernization, not westernization.
As soon as the US learns and understands the difference between modernization and westernization, it will find that things in the Middle East will go a lot more smoothly.