Blowback And Counterfactuals
Dr. Cole, in a post about the stupid Iranian President’s recent stupid letter to our stupid President, ties the present to the past and in doing so, bless him, he mentions an historical event that is not referenced enough these days:
In any case, [Ahmadinejad’s] letter to Bush holds no prospect of reducing tensions. It should be remembered that then Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh angered Washington in the early 1950s by nationalizing Iranian petroleum. Eisenhower slapped sanctions on Iran and destroyed its economy. Washington at that time thought Mosaddegh was a pinko, though in fact he was a relatively conservative aristocrat. At the height of the crisis, Mosaddegh wrote a letter to Eisenhower, which was ignored. Ike had the CIA overthrow the elected, parliamentary government of Iran and install the Shah as a megalomaniacal dictator. So the tradition of letter-writing by Iranian leaders at times of tensions with Washington isn’t replete with successes. Of course, the Iranians took revenge for the heavy-handed US interference with their form of government. They made an Islamic Revolution in 1978-79, and more recently elected Ahmadinejad. What Washington wouldn’t do to have that nice Mr. Mosaddegh back.
To be cute about it, it’s important to remember that other nations remember our crimes even though we forget them. There’s a chain of causality apparent here: had we not overthrown Mossadegh there would have been no Shah as tyrant and no SAVAK death squads (in 1976, Amnesty International said that “no country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran”). Had there been no Shah as tyrant there would have been no reaction like the violent one we saw in the form of the Islamic Revolution of the Ayatollah Assahollah. Had there been no Islamic Revolution we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in — nor would the Iranians be in the mess they’re in.
Americans and Persians have paid dearly for the “commies everywhere!” hysteria and oil greed of Cold War wingnuttery. Now we must deal with the “muslims everywhere” hysteria and oil greed of modern wingnuttia — small wonder why we’re hesitant to go along with hasty and intemperate “regime-change” scenarios.
The West keeps cannonballing into the oily pool of the Middle East; naturally this means that the pool can’t manage an equilibrium. The waves get splashy, the pool turbulent, and it won’t ever get to a relatively calm state until the fucking neighbor from down the street stops jumping off the diving board and goes home where he belongs.
If we’d minded our own business back then, we’d never be in this bad position now. It was a series of illegal, immoral regime-changes that fucked-up the Middle East and indeed most of the Third World. All such regime changes favored reactionary governments, and were wholeheartedly endorsed by the American political types we now identify as wingnuts — something to bear in mind when idiots tell you that the Left “prefers that dictators stay in power.” Actually, we prefered that they were never given power in the first place, and tried nobly, but in vain, to prevent wingnuts from putting such people in power. And no allowance is given for “unintended consequences” when we knew all along, and said all along, that the consequences would be awful. But then, it is our special gift as a country to do battle with evil by emulating it — whether by being a geopolitical bully in fighting the Soviets or being a bunch of torturing Constitution-shredding assholes when battling al-Qaeda — and then wondering why the results of our actions are so costly.
Blah.
Anyway, I must quibble with Dr. Cole on one point. He says that Washington must wish for a nice Mr. Mossadegh in Tehran now. I doubt this. After all, it would be a sensible, decent wish. Actually, if BushCo is anything like their idolators, they wish for Reza Shah Pahlavi:
Jimmy Carter should have demanded the same service as Tehran got from the British—the swift resolution of the situation by the host government—and, if none was forthcoming, Washington should have reversed the affront to international order quickly, decisively, and in a sufficiently punitive manner. At hinge moments of history, there are never good and bad options, only bad and much much worse. Our options today are significantly worse because we didn’t take the bad one back then.
All such regime changes … were wholeheartedly endorsed by the American political types we now identify as wingnuts
Yes, but they meant well by it, and morally, that’s all that matters. That’s why they’re still Right.
And, sadly, none of today’s wingnuts can be made to acknowledge that their ideological predecessors are responsible for today’s problems. Their aggressive ignorance renders such reasoning impossible.
So we’re doomed to the idiot chorus, endlessly repeating the same refrain, endlessly making the same mistakes. And forever producing results that are far worse with every repetition.
It’s the cycle of life.
The inability to understand that actions can have unintended consequences is the tragic flaw of conservatives (and maybe Americans). Watching them get their comeuppance would all be very Shakespearean and cathartic, if it weren’t deadly real, and I weren’t one of the bit players in the drama.
Chalmers Johnson’s book “Blowback” is a good read, by the way, if you want to have an idea of who in the world has cause to hate us and will likely pile on the US as we go down.
Mark Steyn: “The lesson of the Danish cartoons is the clearest reminder that what is at stake here is the credibility of our civilization.”
That’s right; if you publish uncivil cartoons, people will know.
If we’d minded our own business back then, we’d never be in this bad position now. It was a series of illegal, immoral regime-changes that fucked-up the Middle East and indeed most of the Third World.
Whenever you try to point this out to a wingnut, they’ll accuse you of “blaming America first”. It’s incredibly frustrating.
No, but see, if you mention the word “blowback”, you’re just trying to excuse the terrorists. And then al Qaeda has won.
It’s a good thing Guatemala doesn’t have oil, or we’d be fighting this war on terror on TWO fronts right now.
Mark Steyn has very real reason to fear the credibility of the civilisation that seems to have produced him, that’s for sure.
Amoral, sychophantic twat. Once he lost his meal-ticket, the execrable Conrad Black, his once firm but fatty intellect is looking pretty doughy and saggy these days.
A great piece of history, all detailed in the book All Shah’s Men.
those who don;t know history are doomed to repeat it and those who do are doomed to beat their heads against the wall because the idiots who ignore history are fucking shit up
those who don;t know history are doomed to repeat it and those who do are doomed to beat their heads against the wall because the idiots who ignore history are fucking shit up
wow. a double post. must be time for dinner
History is like Friday the 13th movies.
The first time it happens, it’s terrifying as hell. The next seventy-five times it happens, it varies somewhere between annoyance and disgust. After that, it becomes so annoying, preciously self-referential and self-conscious – while still being disgusting – that you’d dump your popcorn and leave the theater, if only doing so didn’t lead right to the pearly gates.
It’s where this analogy breaks down, I fear.
Being a Republican is to live life with no sense of context. It allows them to believe that 9-11 happened in a vacuum…
Retardo, we love you.
Right on! Couldn’t have said it better myself. Cheers!
Right on! Couldn’t have said it better myself. Cheers!
“It’s the cycle of life.”
South Park said it better:
“It’s a circle of poop.”
Retardo, I mostly agree with you. But I have to point out where history makes a couple of your assertions questionable. First, remember the neocon definition of a neocon: A liberal who has been mugged. Much of Americas historic interventionist foreign policy was actually pushed from the left. And it was none other than Kermit Rooseveldt who ran the op to overthrow Mossadegh.
On the larger point, the Islamic Revolution in Iran was certainly a major milestone in getting us to the truly messed-up place we are today, but it MUST take second place to the largest covert war in history, the CIA/Mujahadeen war against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. That’s where al Quaida was created, and where the whole concept of jihad against the west got it’s legs.
mikey
On the larger point, the Islamic Revolution in Iran was certainly a major milestone in getting us to the truly messed-up place we are today, but it MUST take second place to the largest covert war in history, the CIA/Mujahadeen war against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. That’s where al Quaida was created, and where the whole concept of jihad against the west got it’s legs.
Fair point, but without the Iranian revolution, do we back Saddam in the 1980’s? Without that support, is Saddam able to threaten Saudi Arabia in 1990? Without that threat, do we keep troops in Saudi Arabia for the next decade? Without that presence, do the Mujahideen turn their efforts against the US?
A liberal who has been mugged.
It returns to being precise though, mikey, when you consider that that definition only reveals that those “liberals” where never liberals to begin with. They were ideologues, and that, above anything else, is anathema to true liberalism.
Fair point, but without the Iranian revolution, do we back Saddam in the 1980’s? Without that support, is Saddam able to threaten Saudi Arabia in 1990? Without that threat, do we keep troops in Saudi Arabia for the next decade? Without that presence, do the Mujahideen turn their efforts against the US?,
Ahh, my favorite game, “History Whatifs”. Actually, these are important questions that really do go to the heart of the question of how much Islamic anger is directed at America due to America’s own actions. But I’m gonna take the position here that due to the American Economy’s ENORMOUS dependency on Middle Eastern Oil, regardless of any of these events, there would have been an American military presesence on the Gulf Oil Fields and therefore the Jihadists would have been goaded into action. Keeping the oil flowing has been the undercurrent of every American Political, Military, Diplomatic and Economic action in the Gulf region since before the second world war.
hose “liberals” where never liberals to begin with.
Actually Mal, I think that is, at least in many cases, demonstrably false. In their more classic definitions, it was Conservatives that argued for American isolationism while true liberals were the ones that clamored for international interventions. See:
Wilson, Woodrow
Roosevelt, Franklin
Kennedy, John
mikey
But I’m gonna take the position here that due to the American Economy’s ENORMOUS dependency on Middle Eastern Oil, regardless of any of these events, there would have been an American military presesence on the Gulf Oil Fields
We are enormously dependent on oil from a lot of places, but we don’t have troops in most of them. We are enormously dependent on trade with China, but we don’t have troops there either. Buying stuff usually works fine without military involvement. The Middle East is a special case because it’s so unstable. I’m talking about the causes of that instability.
Actually Mal, I think that is, at least in many cases, demonstrably false.
No, it’s not demonstrably false, mikey. Liberalism is allergic to ideologues. What this is more reflective of is the polarisation that occurs in American politics. Isolationism vs. aggressive intervention are manifestations of that kind of dynamic. For a liberal, rejection of one doesn’t necessarily entail the embrace of the other.
It’s easier when you think that liberalism and political affiliation are not in any way connected, and that, in fact, the very idea of political parties and liberalism is a tricky thing.
I’m talking about the causes of that instability.
And you’re right. I really think we’re actually in agreement here, with the possible exception that, precisely due to it’s perceived economic importance and inherent instability (and we could make a strong case that very instability was created by American, British and European attempts at manipulation), I believe that American troops would have inevitably ended up in Saudi, Iraq, Iran, places where their very presence would have grated on a group of individuals who had been funded, armed and encouraged to a Jihadi/Warrior mindset. Couple that with the indoctrination of some badly twisted religous fundamentalist leaders, and you were going to get a clash of cultures anyway.
America has never be a fair player nor an honest broker in internation affairs. Our gunboats in China, the “Bannana Wars” in Latin America, we have a not-so-proud history of killing people for profits. And I believe that a group of people don’t just wake one day, decide they feel like killing some people, and throw a dart at a map to decide who. It is intellectually dishonest to deny that we in the West have EARNED their enmity. We can argue about the various ways they express their enmity, but the enmity itself is understandable.
It has amazed me, ever since 9/11, that it has been off limits in the discourse to talk about American responsibility for the hatred many people around the world have for us. If you can’t admit that people’s perceptions of America are shaped by American behavior, then you can’t really create a set of policies that will end, or at least mitigate, their hostility towards us.
Logic demands we confront our own actions in crafting a solution to the foreign policy nightmare we have created. Because if you eliminate a discussion of root causes from the discourse, you are left a wingnut, with nothing but endless killing and genocide to use in the world.
mikey
It’s easier when you think that liberalism and political affiliation are not in any way connected, and that, in fact, the very idea of political parties and liberalism is a tricky thing.
This is a great point, and it’s absolutely true that over the last few years I have developed a more simplistic, less nuanced set of political views, and sometimes forget the broader meaning of the words liberal and conservative.
I’m just not certain it applies here, at least not to my point. Very commonly, it is the idealogues that end up making the decisions (being the decider, if you will). And the ones that have self-identified, or at least presented themselves as conservatives have tended historically to resist international adventures as they are ultimately bad for tax rates, small government and business. While self-professed liberals were the ones who have historically been much more quick to deploy American military might to “fix” some perceived problem.
Of course, that all changed in this administration, but it is “Wilsonian Democrats”, whether they are truly “liberal” or not, who evolved into neocons…
mikey
I really can’t answer that for you, mikey. The foreign relations I have any say in and with which I’m more familiar don’t incorporate messianic concepts like Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine.
Americans and Persians have paid dearly for the “commies everywhere!” hysteria and oil greed of Cold War wingnuttery.
And today, “Terrists everywhere!” is the convenient coathook on which to hang any bloodlust adventure for the parochial Hulk-smash willful-ignoramuses of the right. Why are we ruled by such idiots?
For all that leftists like to beat their breasts about the overthrow of Mossadegh, the current government is surprisingly unwilling to use that. Or at least a co-worker who immigrated to the U.S. from Iran a few years ago tells me. There is almost never any mention in Iranian media about this–probably because Mossadegh was a secularist, not so different in many respects from the Shah.
“To be cute about it, it’s important to remember that other nations remember our crimes even though we forget them. There’s a chain of causality apparent here: had we not overthrown Mossadegh there would have been no Shah as tyrant and no SAVAK death squads (in 1976, Amnesty International said that “no country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran”). Had there been no Shah as tyrant there would have been no reaction like the violent one we saw in the form of the Islamic Revolution of the Ayatollah Assahollah. Had there been no Islamic Revolution we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in — nor would the Iranians be in the mess they’re in.”
It’s not quite that simple. The CIA coup a deposition of Mossadegh and installment of the Shah was not the straw that broke the angry recationary theocrat’s back. Nor did the islamists much care about SAVAK either. The islamist factions in Iran were opposed to Mossadegh and openly aided the CIA in their deposing of him.
The Ayatollahs Kashani & Khomeni were monarchists who openly supported (and aided the installment of the Shah) rather than the tyranny of SAVAK it was the reforms of the White Revolution; land reform & women’s suffrage in particular that pissed the Clerics off, particularly as they saw these reforms undermining their traditional authority & power. And when they achieved power themselves, they quickly prohibited “liberal” reforms of the country.
That’s not to say that the CIA & U.S. weren’t wrong to think they can just depose any foreign head of state they don’t like and install their own puppet, and I dont mean to marginalize the leftist movements in Iran who opposed the Shah’s tyranny, but the Theocrats & the big land owners were going to take action against anyone they perceived as stepping on their toes, whether it be Mossadegh or the Shah, who they originally supported then, worked against when they felt he was a threat too.
The islamist factions in Iran were opposed to Mossadegh and openly aided the CIA in their deposing of him.
Yes, we know it’s a “clash of civilisations.” Start the genocide. *rolls eyes*
That’s not to say that the CIA & U.S. weren’t wrong to think they can just depose any foreign head of state they don’t like and install their own puppet, and I dont mean to marginalize the leftist movements in Iran who opposed the Shah’s tyranny…
This is the only thing worth remembering. Western interference in the affairs of sovereign nations will never stop incurring blowback.
The CIA coup a deposition of Mossadegh and installment of the Shah was not the straw that broke the angry recationary theocrat’s back. Nor did the islamists much care about SAVAK either. The islamist factions in Iran were opposed to Mossadegh and openly aided the CIA in their deposing of him.
This is true. However, revolutions like the one that happened in 1979 are MUCH less likely to occur under relatively liberal regimes perceived as legitimate by their subjects.
There is almost never any mention in Iranian media about this–probably because Mossadegh was a secularist, not so different in many respects from the Shah.
Right. And Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were Christian men both elected to office with less than a majority of the popular vote, so anyone who likes one will naturally like the other.
Western interference in the affairs of sovereign nations will never stop incurring blowback.
And blowback will never stop incurring Western interference in the affairs of sovereign nations.
Another “circle of poop” (thanks Mat & Trey).