Twinkle twinkle tiny star
Only by random act of kindness or sheer lining of
stars may we see a better future for Iran
August 21, 2003
The Iranian
Recently I read All
the Shah's Men, a new book by Stephen Kinzer. After
I finished reading the book I realized that, similar to many
other
books
written
since the overthrow of the Shah, two elements are sadly and noticeably
missing.
The author hesitates to take a few steps back in history and
a few steps forward. To write about 1953 coup in Iran does not
offer
anything new beyond what has already been said and discussed since
early 1980's, when the files became declassified. If one is
to write about the true sequence of events that led to the so-called
Revolution, he needs to start from Chief Minister Amir Kabir (1807-1852)
and carry on all the way to the current Islamic Monarchists
and Shiite Mafiosi and their visionary godfather, Seyyed Ali Khamenei.
By simply focusing on the events of 1953, one truly fails to understand
and convey the fact that Mossadegh was not after the Shah
and his clan. Instead he was fighting against the chronic illiteracy
and corruption that was implemented, encouraged and maintained
by the British since a century earlier when they brought down another
great Iranian hero Amir
Kabir.
One cannot understand the true Iranian tragedy that goes on today
without focusing on the nation's loss of its most honorable
man, Amir Kabir, who was murdered in 1852 at age 45. The dusted
decades of history calcifies the fluidity of our access to the
truth and
our tendencies lean towards accepting the words of contemporary
experts.
Somewhere it was written that each nation offers one great man
every 100 years. If for instance we call Abraham Lincoln the
greatest American of the 19th century then who would qualify
as the greatest
man of 20th century America? Certainly not Kennedy or Nixon.
You may want to think about it and see how difficult it is for
a nation to find just a single true national hero who serves
the country with utmost dedication but without spilling blood
in other nations
or ruining other cultures.
Iran was not an exception. While many of us focus on Mossadegh,
the greatest man in Iran's last century, we fail to realize
that it was precisely 100 years since Amir Kabir death that Iran
produced one and only one other great man who had the courage
and the valor to attempt to not only cut the hands of colonialism
from
his motherland but also to teach his nation tolerance, perseverance
and self confidence.
Authors such as Kinzer do a satisfactory job
of reminding Americans about
a juncture in history and showing them a slide show of an era,
but alas they do not walk that last mile to touch
the
heart
of
a nation
beyond bookstores, and they are content with encore presentations
of what has already been known and readily available to the
public.
If one needs to truly encapsule what drove Iran to
be infested with such abundance of fanatic ideologies that plagued
its culture and people, focus on the essentials
of how the British robbed an innocent nation
not only one of its greatest heroes but sadly two of its best
in two centuries.
If one focuses deep enough, he will realize that the imposition
of Khomeini and theocracy in Iran was not an act of vengece
by Iranians towards the West - as unfortunately everyone tries
to portray it to be. The reality is far from such grand misconceptions
as America being responsible for Mossadegh's fall. Close study of
Iran's history will prove that it was the British and their
spymaster "Monty" Woodhouse who convinced naive
and isolationist American politicians to drop their sympathy for
Mossadegh and follow the path that they (the British) successfully
followed in the Middle East and beyond for two centuries. America
was a mere hired muscle for Britain. Just
like in WWII when Germans came to their backdoor; Britain pulled
America into war.
So in the real sense of the word, Kim Roosevelt
and CIA agents were nothing more than field operators in the
hands of British
masterminds. When Mossadegh cut Britain's hands from Iran's oil
industry, America was the only ally that could help London achieve
and execute its
conspiracy
plan. Who better than a trusted grandson of an American president
who wanted to make a name for himself?
Future authors of modern Iranian history must
begin their research from Amir Kabir to Seyyed Ali
Khamenei and beyond to see trends, that in the past 200 years
every time Iran attempted to partially cleanse itself from political
illiteracy, social apathy, fanatic
fatalism, Rumi's narcotic poetry, and ecclesiastical hang
ups, the British were there to suppress it and encourage
dogmatism, ruin nationalism and belittle loyal nationalists
by any and all means available.
The installation of the Pahlavis, incubation
of Khomeini in exile, removal of the Shah followed by
installation of Khomeini, orchestration of
taking Americans hostages to completely and successfully instigate
American public opinion against Iran for more than a quarter of
a century, were all different components of the British
plan to prevent progress in Iran. And all these achievements
came while they maintained their embassy in Tehran, and with the
full support of the fanatic puppet regime. Britain acted as
a satanic nurse and made Iran a haven for the world's terrorists.
The falsely-named revolution of 1979 was not an Iranian
answer to America for what was done to Mossadegh.
The regime
change was indeed a British warning to tell America "hands
off Iran" and to make sure the mother country is still
in charge. It was also a message to the world -- and
to Iranians in
particular--
that God will
save the Queen at any price.
Close scrutiny of America's attempts to create a stronghold in
the Middle East shows pragmatic and empirical deductions
of the world
of politics and current affairs. Establishing a theorem
on the economic advancement of China, gradual
unification of Europe and growing need for decreasing
sources of energy leave very little for America other
than a policy of military expansionism to protect its national
interests.
Those who own oilfields will call the shots in the decades
to come.
America's takeover and control of Iraq's oil fields is in many
ways America's slap on Britain's face. It says, "we
are not out of the Middle East after all! You may have kept us
out of Iran for two decades, but we are back." The phenomenon
I like to call "Iranian Squeeze", in many ways may end
up becoming the "British Squeeze" as well. But history will show
validity of that possibility. The takeover of Afghanistan,
the
show
of muscle on that Caspian Sea and now the take over of Iraq will,
for the first
time in two decades, limit Britain's inherent all-you-can-take
attitude.
For the British one possibility is covert alliance with Russia
in order to engage America in a war of attrition like that of Vietnam.
Historically whenever there was a three-way competition in the
region, Britain made pacts with the Russians. At the
same time America
will be walking on thin ice considering the emerging rivalries
around the Caspian Sea.
Russians and the Americans have alternatively
installed troops in that region. The Russians are in
Turkmenistan, Baikonur, Kazakhstan, Astrakhan, Georgia, with a
naval fleet in the Caspian, Armenia, Sokhami, Georgia and
a naval
base
and airbase in Sevastipol, Ukraine. On the other hand Americans
have an airbase in Uzbekistan, an upcoming military base in Azerbaijan,
military intructors in Tbilisi, Georgia and at Gyumri, Armenia.
For the British, the only solid footing left in the area
is Iran. Therefore London will support the current regime
by all means but
at
the
same time she is engaged with the incubation of potential replacements
that would assure allegiance to the British throne.
Those course of events will not benefit Iran.
Many may agree that Iran is in worse shape today
since
the first
Arab invasion
1400 years ago. Back then, Iran was weak, but it was still a
world power. Today, on the other hand, Iran is just an isolated,
dogmatic, third world society of
young zealots who can tilt
in one
direction
or another, between indulging in religion, drugs and kismet. Combine
that with a military that is demoralized,
a
population that is depressed and hopeless and, most importantly,
a scattered opposition that is made up of opportunists.
Yes. Perhaps
by 2053, a century after Dr. Mossadegh's fall, there will be
another great hero. But I'm
reminded of the saying, "mourn a nation that needs a hero!"
Until
Iran finds its
next hero it will become the center of rivalries between internal
and external forces. The balkanization of Iran, instigation of
ethnic demands for autonomy and revolving puppet and corrupt
regimes to entertain generations, will be some of the same sad
scenarios we have been witnessing since the murder of Amir Kabir
in the hands
of British
cronies.
But if we could offer a simplistic drama, a spark
of hope, it would be this:
During the inevitable increase of overt American pressure
on Iran's regime, and covert moves to keep British hands
off Iran, there may be a distant light at the end of the tunnel.
Only by random act of kindness or sheer lining of stars we may
have a government
come to power that will abolish mixing religion
with just about anything outside personal sanctity
of one's home and temple. Once religion goes beyond one's
heart and takes the form of evangelism it becomes a commodity.
The more one pretends to believe the more one gets ahead in religious
societies. Iran is perhaps the only nation in the entire Middle
East that can let go of the dogmatic side of religion since
deep in their hearts Iranians realize that it was imposed
on them; what they have has gone through so much metamorphosis
that it has became a substantially adulterated version of a once
pure ideology and
thought.
Just like Native Americans who were forced to recite the Bible,
or great cultures of South America and Africa destroyed
by Christian missionaries, Iran's fertile land was invaded
by Arabs who forced their religion on Iranians. Iran
has that potential to someday curb religious fervor and find
the kinder and quieter side of personal beliefs, and internalize
such tendencies. If Iran does not find such solutions to the satisfaction
of the world body, it will soon face hostilities from many sides,
including Israel. If Muslim brothers did to Iran what we see
happening today, imagine what war with Israel may offer.
The so-called separation of religion and state is no longer a
reality and indeed not even working in the United States. We
have frequently
seen that as far back as Jimmy Carter's administration, religion
can seriously influence politics even in the US. Today
we witness increasing hostile remarks and insults from the pulpits
of religious leaders like Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition
and Rev. Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist Baptist minister of the
so-called Religious Right, who called Mohammad a "terrorist" in
an interview with 60-Minutes TV news magazine last October
.
According to Philip Jenkins [The Atlantic Monthly, October
2002], Christianity is growing and "mutating" in
ways observers in the West tend not to see. "Tumultuous
conflicts within Christianity will leave a mark deeper than Islam's
on the century ahead. Christianity is moving towards supernaturalism
and neo-orthodoxy similar to the views expressed in the New Testament:
a vision of Jesus as the embodiment of divine power, who overcomes
the evil forces."
Jenkins believes that in regions of the
world he collectively calls the Global South -- primarily
the Third
World -- there
lives
close to one billion followers of Protectionism or
Orthodoxy. The essence of it is that what threatens the world
is indeed not Islamic terrorists or Jewish settlers or Arian skinheads.
Instead Christian orthodoxy will replace ideology as the prime
animating and destructive force in human affairs. Jenkins points
out that in many countries and mostly in Africa and South America
there are growing apocalyptic and messianic movements that try
to bring in the kingdom of God through armed violence.
In conclusion there seems no doubt that a wealthy
country like Iran, with close to 25% of the world's natural gas
reserves and its substantial share of black gold gushing from
the Caspian Sea, has very
few
options left to prevent an all out squeeze from many sides. Iran
must step
forward and increase its cooperation to reestablish open dialogue
and diplomatic relations with the United States. No form of government
in Iran will benefit from hostility with America. Reestablishment
of full diplomatic relations with Washington once again
will dwarf the present monopoly of the British in Iran.
US-Iranian alliance, along with US military
presence in Afghanistan and Iraq will supply America with enough
ammunition to fight off any aggression by the Russians or any
Russo-British coalition in years to come. This proves
that Iran
has no choice but to make an alliance with America in order
to free itself from the British whose oppressive grip has been
stronger than ever since 1979. If the current regime or any future
puppet regime loyal to the British fails to establish respectful
relations with America, then it will be to the advantage of
all nations of the region to see a defeated, weaker and poorer
Iran
for the
sake of peace in the region.
The next decade will bring very interesting changes in the
region as the result of Euro-American rivalries on one side
and Russo-American
ones on the other. Iran is poised in a critical crossroad
and must make up its mind fairly soon to prevent two devastating
scenarios: an
economic implosion and/or a social explosion. The Islamic regime
must repent and repent fast or hell shall be let loose
upon them with all gates to paradise shut.
Author
Farrokh A. Ashtiani is the founder of PersianParadise.com
* Send
this page to your friends
|
