The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #50148   Message #764296
Posted By: Peter K (Fionn)
13-Aug-02 - 06:23 AM
Thread Name: BS: US foreign policy - an example to us all
Subject: RE: BS: US foreign policy - an example to us all
Truer sound's last post was so staggeringly wide of the mark that it's worth a lenghty digression.

The Shah was never elected. Eisenhower propped up the Shah's disgusting regime and was dead before its downfall. The facts are more like this:

The Shah's dad seized the Iranian throne in about 1920. In WW2 he turned out to be too pro-German for Brit and Soviet liking. so they engineered the son's succession.

Anglo-Iranian (formerly Anglo-Persian, latterly BP) continued owning Iran's oilfields after the war. The Shah's government voted to nationalise the oil in defiance of the Shah, whereupon the CIA tried to destabilise the country and regain the Shah his authority. The plan (approved I think by Eisenhower)backfired big time, and the Shah was briefly deposed and exiled (1953), and parliament terminated the dynasty.

The CIA didn't give up, and with the support of Iranian army dissidents they got the Shah back in the driving seat within a matter of days. The motivation was oil plus fear of strong Soviet influence in Iran.

Thereafter the Shah pursued a blatant pro-west and pro-Israeli line which helped fuel anti-west muslim fundamentalism. By 1977 his secret police (SAVAK) were spreading terror without constraint, martial law was imposed, and America was the Shah's only friend in the world. In 1979, during Carter's US presidency, the Shah fled, and Khomeini returned to Iran from exile and of course the hostages were seized.

Digression over!

Getting back to the subject, it looks like the politicians follow Mudcat, because since this thread started, I've at last heard dissent being voiced in Washington against an assault on Iraq.

Here in the UK the Daily Telegraph (right up Doug's street I should think, even if the Guardian isn't) led yesterday with a survey showing two-thirds of UK voters against supporting miliatary action. Blair would never want to upset the voters, so that's Bush's only ally gone. Even Bush, in my view, will have to heed that signal, and back off, so for the moment I'm a bit more relaxed about the way things are going.