Where will America meddle next?

Published April 15, 2006

WASHINGTON: So, after more than a half-century of active meddling — protecting US interests, promoting western values, encouraging democracy, fighting terrorism, seeking stability, defending human rights, pushing peace — it’s come to this. In Iraq we find ourselves unwilling regents of a society splitting into a gangland of warring militias and death squads, with our side (labelled ‘the government’) outperforming the other side (labelled ‘the terrorists’) in both the quantity and gruesome quality of its daily atrocities. In Iran, an irrational government that hates the US with special passion is closer to getting the bomb than Iraq — the country we went to war with to keep from getting the bomb — ever was.

Meanwhile, the bad guys (the Taliban and Al Qaeda) keep a low news profile by concentrating on killing children and other Afghan civilians rather than too many American soldiers.

When the United States should use its military strength to achieve worthy goals abroad is an important question. But based on this record, it seems a bit theoretical. A more pressing question is: Can’t anyone here play this game?

Half a century ago, Iran was very close to a real democracy. It had an elected legislature, called the majlis, and it had a repressive monarch, called the shah, and power veered uncertainly between them. In 1951, over the shah’s objections, the majlis voted in a man named Mohammad Mosaddeq as prime minister. His big issue was nationalizing the oil companies.

But in 1952 the United States had an election for president, and the winner (Dwight Eisenhower) got more votes than anyone in Iran. That must explain why in 1953, in the spirit of democracy, the CIA instigated a riot and then staged a coup. Mosaddeq was arrested, the majlis was ultimately dissolved and the shah ran things his way, which involved torture and death for political opponents, caviar and champagne for an international cast of hangers-on, and no more crazy talk about nationalizing the oil companies.

But, speaking of crazy talk, resentment of the shah and of the United States was central to the growing appeal of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 1979 the ayatollah’s followers overthrew the shah and made Iran a strict Islamic state. Later that year Iranian ‘students’ besieged the US Embassy and seized 66 hostages, most of whom were held prisoner for over a year. Hatred of Iran in America became almost as fierce as hatred of America in Iran.

Meanwhile, next door in Iraq, an ambitious young dictator, new to the job, named Saddam Hussein sensed both danger and opportunity in Iran’s chaos. So he decided to invade. Thus started the Iran-Iraq War, lasting eight years. It turned hundreds of thousands of people into corpses and millions into refugees. When it was over, nothing had changed. But it wasn’t a complete waste. It provided another opportunity for the United States to promote its interests and values.

On the ‘enemy of my enemy’ principle, the United States all but officially backed Iraq. We overlooked Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers (many of them children) and against his own people. Many of the human rights abuses President Bush and others have invoked two decades later to justify the decision to topple and try Saddam were well publicized in the 1980s. But in the 1980s, we didn’t care. Meanwhile, of course, Ronald Reagan was also secretly selling weapons to Iran.

The big event in Afghanistan this past half-century was the Soviet occupation of 1979. During the 1980s, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on weapons and other support.

The war we sustained in Afghanistan destroyed the country, turned half the population into refugees and killed perhaps a million people. In 1989 the Soviets pulled out. But, disappointingly, our guerillas kept on fighting — using our weapons — against the government and among themselves. In 1996 one particularly extreme group, the Taliban, took power. It was even more disappointing when the Taliban established a state more extreme than the one in Iran and invited Osama Bin Laden to make himself at home, which he did.

So we marched in and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we’re — well, we haven’t figured out what, but we’re hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.

And they lived happily ever after.—Dawn/The Washington Post News Service

Opinion

A velvet glove

A velvet glove

The general didn’t have an easy task when he took over, but in retrospect, he managed it rather well.

Editorial

Updated 24 May, 2022

Marching in May

MORE unrest. That is the forecast for the weeks ahead as the PTI formally proceeds with its planned march on...
24 May, 2022

Policy rate hike

THE State Bank has raised its policy rate by 150bps to 13.75pc, hoping that its latest monetary-tightening action...
24 May, 2022

Questionable campaign

OVER the past couple of days, a number of cases have been registered in different parts of the country against...
23 May, 2022

Defection rulings

By setting aside the existing law to prescribe their own solutions, the institutions haven't really solved the crisis at hand.
23 May, 2022

Spirit of the law

WOMEN’S right to inheritance is often galling for their male relatives in our patriarchal society. However, with...
23 May, 2022

Blaming others

BLAMING the nebulous ‘foreign hand’ for creating trouble within our borders is an age-old method used by the...