Iran for Dummies
I know it's hard to believe (for neo-cons of both left and right) but there was a time before George W. Bush. There was a time before the insanity of forsaking liberty for security (and losing both, ultimately), of the the Patriot Act (which nobody in Congress read prior to its passage), and of nonstop accusations of "Islamofascism this" and "Islamofascism that."
Let's turn back the clock to a simpler time, when rock and roll ruled, Elvis was still a hip-swiveling heartthrob, and Dwight Eisenhower was the man with power.
Visit sunny Iran where a certain democratically elected Prime Minister named Mosaddeq was an ally of the United States. He regularly voted with the U.S. in UN resolutions, promoted peace and democracy in his own country... and then, out of the blue, angered both the US and Great Britain.
His villainy? Attempting to nationalize the oil fields, revoking them from the control of BP (British Petroleum).
In fear of cheap oil being threatened as America was quickly becoming the nation on wheels, as well as terror over the collapse of Bretton Woods if the US economy was forced to cope with an unforeseen spike in the price of commodities, Ike informed the Dulles brothers at CIA that it was time to deal with the problem in Iran.
Mosaddeq was run out of the country by a CIA paid and staged military coup that restored the Shah. For the next 25 years the U.S. and Iran's restored dictatorship had close ties.
When the Iranians finally threw off the shackles of the tyranny of the shah, they made no mystery of their hatred for the U.S. All this came courtesy of our placing them under a power mad dictatorship for the sake of cheap oil (which ultimately would have been restored as the Iranians found that nationalized industrial production creates less, and not more wealth).
In 1979 the Iranians attacked the U.S. Embassy and the response of Americans was, "Why us? Why do the bad men hate us?" In truth, they don't really hate "us," they hate "U.S." and its paternalistic notion that it must meddle and interfere in the remotest reaches of Ruritania, in spite of the fact that had it not meddled in the first place, there would be little or no turmoil affecting America today.
The reason many in the middle east are angry with the United States is that as a democratic "collective government" there comes as a byproduct "collective blame" for the actions of the leadership. Therefore, "We the People," if we are to be the alleged rulers of our own fates, become the face of the government.
This is deeply ironic considering the fact that many of the most negative dealings and workings of the last century have gone on behind closed doors to stem the tides of communism, drugs, poverty, and now Islamofascism, for the sake of "defense."
Looking back in history, everything the United States government has gone to war against has resulted in more of it. In 1947 there was very little communism in the world and within two decades it had spread. Don't let anyone fool you, either: communism killed itself because it isn't an economically viable system.
Prior to the war on drugs the volume of drug use and proliferation was low. Today the numbers are staggering as our prisons are filled with non-violent criminals while the dealer and merchants roam free.
When the government declared war on poverty, poverty increased. The great society failed, but people rarely discuss it. We're still carrying the baggage for its failures in Medicare and socialized medicine waits just beyond the next election.
In light of all this, let's now look at the war on terror. Are Americans safer? Do they feel safer? The borders are still wide open. The people are now the ones under scrutiny by the government, because anybody could be a terrorist. Inform on your neighbors, turn in your parents. It sounds more like life under Stalin or Mussolini than Jefferson or Jackson.
Ultimately, however, if you want to know whether a country is free or repressed look at which direction its guns are pointed.
My friends, the guns are pointed at us.
0 remarks:
Post a Comment