Back in 2006 I posted this review of Seymour Hersh’s latest expose. Given the events that are going on in Iran today- I thought it might be worth a look see again.-Skippy-san
Well, this time safely ensconced in Word, I will try to do another Iranian post. If reading Seymour Hersh was scary, reading the news today was every bit even scarier. The Iranians it seems, or at least their ideological zealot of a president have seemed to come to the conclusion, that going “all in” in a high stakes poker game-with an opponent who hates to lose and has deeper pockets- is somehow a good thing. The Iranian President is clearly an idiot…….or a reckless fanatic. Either way its not a good thing.(Skippy note: I think its safe to say that last sentence could be said again about Ahamadwhat’shisname)
Today he announced:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the enrichment success Tuesday in a nationally televised ceremony, saying the country’s nuclear ambitions are peaceful and warning the West that trying to force Iran to abandon enrichment would "cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians."
Which of course triggered the obligatory opposite rhetoric from the United States:
But the announcement quickly raised condemnations from the United States, who said the claims "show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction." Russia also criticized the announcement Wednesday, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin saying, "We believe that this step is wrong. It runs counter to decisions of the IAEA and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council."
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, was heading to Iran on Wednesday for talks aimed at resolving the standoff. The timing of the announcement suggested Iran wanted to present him with a fait accompli and argue that it cannot be expected to entirely give up a program showing progress. Former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani - a powerful figure in the country's clerical regime - warned that pressuring Iran over enrichment "might not have good consequences for the area and the world."
That’s an understatement. Especially if Hersh is even sort of right, and George W. Bush is considering abandoning ideas of “no first use” of nuclear weapons. Which is a jump into another kind of lunacy all its own. ( That is not for today’s tale however……)
Reading this made me go to my bookshelf where I went to find a book I read about 10 years ago by Barry Rubin entitled, “Paved with good intentions, The American experience in Iran” which is a pretty good history about a time that many Americans do not remember: a time when the US and Iran were allies. That once upon a time over 24,000 Americans worked in Iran, and it was American arms that kept the Shaw in power and the Russians out.
Although written over 20 years ago, Rubin’s opening paragraphs are still kind of a warning for the world of today:
A country’s behavior, as the Iranian crisis so vividly demonstrates, is not merely a product of a rational pursuit of objective national interests. Rather it is the result of the interaction of the collective historical experience of the nation with individual life experiences of its citizens. The former creates a nation’s political course, the latter shapes its political consciousness. Whether or not the interaction contributes to the effective fulfillment of a nations objective interests, though not always the controlling question.
There is also a rather common occurrence in politics that might be called the vector principle. A boat sets off from the opposite shore of a river, but because of various unconsidered currents, ends up several miles downstream. American policies often seemed in theory, if not in execution, directed towards reasonably obtainable, rational goals but failed nonetheless because they did not fully take into account the currents of Iranian and Middle East politics.
In part, United States error may be traced to the triumph of a single minded strategy over political realities……………certainly, some dictatorships prosper-not all decay-and some are replaced by worse alternatives.
(Skippy note: The jury is still out on whether the "new" revolution will prove Rubin right again…..)
Dear Neocons, I think you slept through this part of the course. Certainly it proved true of Iran, if not also Iraq, in Iran the replacement for the Shah was 10 times worse than having him on the throne.
I also went back and reviewed Rubin’s book for a more personal reason. I started college with some 50-55 Iranians at my beloved alma mater. Having never been to Iran, they are the only Iranians I’ve ever met. I can still remember vividly the arguments they used to have in the college canteen ( where they seemed to be the only ones who had any money….), in Farsi, back and forth as the lead up was coming to the Iranian revolution.
Although commissioned as Ensigns in the IIN (Imperial Iranian Navy) these guys did not adapt well to American military college life, pre feminist; pre kinder and gentler; pre consideration of others training; style. Maybe 35 lasted the year. Many of the early group got booted on honor violations ( “What do you mean its wrong to copy my seatmate’s test?”), conduct incidents out in town ( including at least one alleged rape), or just not digging some gawky southern boy responding to their entreaties in a less than sympathetic fashion:
CADET Recruit Amad: “Sir, but sir, in my country, we do not do this!”
CADET Sergeant Southern Boy: “ Well in mine we do! Hit it, you little shit! “
Sophomore year a few more did not come back and then their numbers stabilized at about 20-25. Those that did make it through did ok, but they never were really accepted well by the rest of the Corps. At best they were tolerated, and for their part, they reciprocated by studying and keeping to themselves. Many bought the ritual Trans-Am:
Some met Charleston girls, set them up in apartments (remember they were making over 1200 US dollars a month, a lot of money in 1977 for a college student in those days) and for the girl a pretty good deal; she generally got free use of the apartment during the week and only had to render forth on the weekends as required or desired. Generally they sort of never adapted, although some never truly did. A couple remained devout Muslims- we had one in our company who wore his boxer shorts even in the shower out of Islamic modesty (there is an oxymoron if there ever was one!)- and all seemed determined to carve out their own path in a way that was contrary to the spirit of camaraderie that life in the Corps of Cadets tended to build. What was true, was that most of us never really understood what made them tick.
Nor did many of us have an appreciation of how the government worked back home. There was one student who seemed much older than the rest. He lived in 1st Battalion, had grey hair and was partially bald. His skin was tough and somewhat wrinkled. The rumor Senior year was that he was the resident SAVAK ( Iranian secret police ) agent on the campus. That rumor seemed to be confirmed when, as the action heated up back in Iran, he got a brick through the window of his Trans-am 3 months before graduation. Fortunately he was not hurt.
As the news from home got worse, you could see the Iranian students start to take sides. As I said earlier, heated arguments ensued among them. From what I gathered a lot of it was about the Shah and whether to go home and join the revolution. Since the IIN was allied pretty closely with the Shah of Iran, it was a brave decision to take.
As the government got bogged down with what to do, the IIN simply stopped paying the bills. That created a crisis for the College and for the government. A compromise was arrived at where folks could finish college if they wanted to, and many were offered asylum by the US government. Several folks took the offer ( including the rumored SAVAK agent). After graduation most of us never heard or saw from them again. One guy, I shared a lot of classes with, is rumored to be alive and well and living in Atlanta as a doctor with an American wife and kids. Of the guys who went back to Iran, I always wondered what happened to them. Did they end up part of a “human wave” assault on the Iraqi line? Or perhaps they ended up here. Who knows?
However that was my experience, living and working with Iranians. I’ve always hoped that the Islamic idiots would implode on their own, and we could go back to the days of friendship. Iran once proved it could be a modern country. However I doubt that it will be allowed to do so again. But its nice to dream………………….
(Skippy note: It could be that we get lucky and the regime is imploding-or as I expect-this will be only the beginning of that implosion-and we will have to wait a long time for it to come to fruition).
More on the Iranian issue tomorrow…………….
If indeed it is the mullahocracy that is imploding (and that is a mighty big if) I’m afraid darker days are ahead as the Revolutionary Guard and their political masters would supplant the mullahs.
Then it will get exceptionally ugly.
Another book recommendation – Guests of the Ayatollah, especially poignant for those if us stuck rilling holes off the coast of iran for the better part of 1980…
– SJS
Interesting post. People tend to forget about any facts when wondering why some folks in the middle east don’t like the US. However, I believe if Obama continues on his current course and doesn’t offer any US assistance, the Iranian people will know the US is on their side but won’t get in their way. The mullahs want and desire to say it’s the US and Brittian that are causing this and not the average citizen. We as a country need to show some support but not over do it in order to shut up the mullahs.
I love jihad (or what ever his name is), is doing a Kim jong il. Promote a project which helps the people and draw attention away from the real issue, fraudulant elections. Basic strategy for idiots running a F’d up country.
Working with some marines this afternoon. Definitely fell and didn’t hurt the back of my head on this one particular boat but arrived home spewing blood from lower left leg. Filled up my shoe all unnoticed like. Left a mark.
not undertanding your reference to neocons and the fall of the shah. That was pure evil politics of Jimmy Carter and Cyrus Vance who was the Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter. In April of 1980, Vance, who had already decided that he would NOT serve in a second Carter administration, if Carter were re-elected, was on vacation in Florida.
Fifty-two Americans were taken hostage in Iran. Carter’s people began negotiations of all kinds, trying to free them. Vance was not informed of what was going on, even though he WAS the Secretary of State. He was kept “out of the loop,” a serious error in judgment on Carter’s part.
When Vance learned what was going on, he immediately returned to Washington and tried to get Carter to change his opinion and his strategy. Carter refused. Vance thought that Carter had betrayed him, which, in fact, Carter had. Vance resigned on April 21 — effective on April 28, 1980.
Since there must ALWAYS be a Secretary of State, the job fell — temporarily — to the various Deputy Secretaries of State, who took turns. Warren Christopher served from April 28 through May 2. David Newsom’s turn was May 2 through part of May 3. Richard N. Cooper served the rest of May 3, and Newson returned to “duty” on May 3 and served until May 4, when Christopher took over again, serving until May 8.
Christopher reliquished the position, when Ed Muskie was approved by the Senate as the new Secretary of State. Muskie finished the term.
Carter’s ineptitude cost him re-election, because the Iran hostage fiasco destroyed any confidence the American people had left in him.
CAN WE ALL AGREE THAT NONE OF THESE DIRTBAGS WAS ANY KIND OF NEOCON?
I greatly dislike that none on the left understand realpolitick and go all neo neo when they hear about it. Iran had made itself our enemy, EMBASSY HOSTAGE, DESERT ONE, MINING, threats, EMBASSY BOMBINGS, LEBANON BOMBINGS, USMC COL, ETC, SANG B. We fixed them a couple of times with Praying Mantis, Ernest Will, Nimble Archer.
Let us all turn to a different paradigm for study. How do secular powers defeat religious powers on earth? The protestants did it one country at a time, the US did en bloc, the Ottomans did with Kemal Attaturk. The only failures have been the Peninsula and the way there is obvious.
My reference was about the current crop of neocons who were panting to go bomb Iran-rather than waiting for the government to inevitably go to far-which it did this year.
Thus post is more about the Iranians I knew back in the day. I had a friend who spent a year in 1976 in Iran-he had a good time there believe it or not. At least with the Shah they had some life-and the women were trying to be as trendy as any other 70’s women. š
I’d also point out that Attaturk really did not defeat Islam-he co-oppted it. And used it for his own purposes. As the Savior of the Nation he had the power to do that. Its been inching back ever since and is only kept in check by the power of the Turkish Army, which is true to Attaturks memory of a secular state.
I would submit he had the right idea.
Skippy, working through some serious meds.
NEOCONS screwed up what about Iran? now or then? If you, for instance had a class of POLMIL advisors giving you advice on what Iran was up to in the late unpleasantness:
1. smuggling oil for saddam for a cut of the $? Yeah, they were.
2. smuggling in EFP and other IED in order to kill Yanks, yeah, they did.
3. Smuggling in dirtbag shia to kill yanks and iraqis, yeah, they did.
4. Smuggling in dirtbags to kill yanks and NATO pussies in Afghanistan, yeah, they did.
5. Attacking ABOT and KAAOT, yeah they did that too.
Attaturk invited the die hard muslims to die hard and he meant it. He ordered the civilization to advance beyond the 7th century. It did for a while and yet it is headed back to the 7th century on account of its religion.
I was an army brat right there where you’re at now playing soccer with Iranian students who had dads at MICOM where their country was buying air defense systems alongside the dutch.
Once upon a time we treated all people as if they were members in good standing of the 20th century. I think those days are done. Show me a hard core prays five times a day muslim and I’ll show you a terrorist who can easily be led to believe that holy jihad is his way to paradise.
Curtis,
From a purely Iranian standpoint-those things make sense-to them.
I mean think about-your biggest enemy comes to the yard next door, and you have the opportunity to surreptitiously give him bloody nose. For a hard core Iranian-I can’t see why they would be sad about that. Its basically the same thing we did in Central America, Africa.
Your real question is how to stop it from happening when the government of the country you invaded is clearly in bed with the Iranians. The answer is either don’t invade them in the first place-or go in with enough manpower to seal the borders. We did neither. People in the Army fully expected that kind of support from Iran to the insurgency.
Regarding Turkey- I spent two months over there in 1988. The Army makes no bones about the fact that it will not allow Turkey to go down the route Iran went. They have overthrown the government four times since the 50’s. They would probably be more in the Western orbit if the EU would admit them.