US wants a middle east civil war

At this point in time, I would say that everyone wants a massive civil war in the Middle East, not just the U.S..

Why would anyone support the religious extremists in Iran, and still call themselves moderates.

The House of Saud, and many other Arab states and U.S. conservatives like the Bush family, a large portion of the Oil industry, and a considerable arm of the finance industry are clearly in bed together, and I think the government of Iran was well.

This is obvious.

Why can't people see this.

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Hi nenothtu - if superfluous is the worst thing that Ima called on here, then i'll be happy

. I agree about the beer tho.

Sorry if you misunderstood me - I wasn't calling you "superfluous", I was saying that if we agreed on everything, one of us (and that could well be ME) is unnecessary.

I had a mega reply all typed out and ready to go, and this infernal computer ate it. This one may be qa little lighter than the last attempt.

I would think the treasonous act was to ignore the order of the Shah which dismissed Mossadegh and appointed Zahedi in his stead, thereby effecting a de-facto coup.

An order given to the shah by a fella called Kermit? What was the OP again?

No, an order given to Mossadegh by the Shah. Mr Roosevelt wasn't in the chain of command, and so could not have been "treasoned" against when Mossadegh ignored the order. Like I said, things don't work the same way in a monarchy as they do in a democracy. The ultimate responsibility for the order, and it's enforcement, resided with the Shah.

Mossadegh's nationalization of the oil wouldn't have bothered me one way or the other, except for the obvious socialist implications of that, influenced I would guess by the communist Tudeh.
Funny how even the communists turned against Mossadegh in the end, isn't it?

As you know, socialist isnt the same as communist. What was in effect a coalition government was being destablised by outside interests who wished to cause unrest - perhaps even start a civil war.
Lets not forget the context. The UK was recovering from WW2 and really couldnt afford to lose the income or oil supply that the Anglo Iranian Oil Company brought in. The US was very wary of Iran becoming another Korea (sounds mad now lol) but allowing the soviets to gain influence over Iran and therefor the Hormuz would of escalated very quickly into something very bad imho.

Agreed, Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing. They are both towards the same end of the political spectrum, but have different "stops". I personally view Socialism as "communism lite", or Communism as "extremist socialism", but no, they are NOT the same. The Tudeh were communists, but Mossadegh wasn't, and his actions really didn't please any of the folks on either end of the spectrum. The Left was as dissatisfied as the right, hence the Tudeh riots.

Lets also not forget that the Anglo-Americans weren't the only faction stirring the pot - that seems to be lost in the mists of history when discussing former situations in the current world climate. The Tudeh had their own cheerleaders, too. The Anglo-Americans just outlasted the former allianaces arrayed against them is all. Now, they tend to get a one-sided share of the blame.

Fast forwarding to1979:

I think, and this is just my own opinion, that Carter was overwhelmed by it all, and hesitated out of uncertainty. By the time he got over that, the window had closed, and he was afraid to give the Shah any more aid than he absolutely had to. So, even though Islam was at odds with Communism, I don't think that really figured into Carter inaction so much as cowardice did.

But what was the uncertainty? Zbigniew Brzezinski helped write the Carter Doctrine which stated that the US would defend its national and strategic interests. Khomeini was well known to the US, what with making proclamations from his house in Paris and all.
Had the strategic interest's changed from the 1950's to the 70's?

The uncertainty was in the focus. Focus at the time was more on the unrest in Central America for US observers, and the Iranian situation bit 'em in the behind while they weren't looking. Carter's perceptions of what constituted "national interest" were at odds with the views of the majority - that's why, IMO, he was a one-termer. He was busy trying to figure out how to support leftist causes in Central America without overtly being seen to do so, and wasn't occupied enough with events in the ME (other than an inordinate concentration on the Israeli issue) and Southwestern Asia. When it grabbed him by the scruff and shook him, he was like a deer caught in the headlights - indecisive. He wasn't sure WHO to ally himself with, and tried to make them all happy. Camp David accords ring a bell? That didn't get us much of anywhere, but then again a lot of the blame there could be placed on the assassination of Sadat. The world may have been different now had that event not occurred.

Brzezinski and Carter were BOTH, in my opinion, either idiots at best, or traitors at worst.

Brzezinski would later write some very interesting things, chief among them the idea of an Islamic revival.Other policy makers and intellectuals would take this one stage further, seeking to play up the 'rifts' between the two main sects of islam. Sunni v Shia; Saudi v Iran.

Interesting, huh.

For the life of me, I can't classify anything Brzezinski wrote as "interesting". I'd rather call it "curious". Policy makers and "intellectuals" have frequently been the bane of mankind. That's one thing that Marx and I can both agree upon.

The Sunni-Shia rift is very real, and has been in effect ever since the days of Ali. It's not a hard thing to "play up", since they are always at odds with one another, and ready to have at it at the drop of a hat, with or without outside influence.

Edit to add: Yes, Khomeini was shouting from his Parisian rooftop pretty frequently, but it was gnerally dismissed at the time as the ravings of a lunatic, and mostly ignored - until he was already back on his way to Tehran. THAT got their attention, but too late. It's a case of the "deer in the headlights" situation.

reply to post by FlyersFan


The old argument:
"since everyone else rapes little kids, then it must be OK"

I know other empires want the same, for god sakes, because of the cold war (USSR vs USA) millions of people perished through proxy wars, civil unrest, outright civil wars, monstrous puppet regimes, outright invasion blablabla

You get what I mean right .

I think there are complexities here that far outweigh any influence, military, political, economic or otherwise, that the United States can bring to bear. The original mistake is to think that the U.S. as a nation has a role. If we de-globalized our affairs in short order the nations of the world would fall into chaos as sure as the sun would set. For a time, that is, for as sure as the sun would rise again the nations would come to some sort of alignment or they would cease to exist.

We as Americans have an interest in a stabilized Asia, because it helps us by opening markets for our goods and services that otherwise would not exist. A subset of American business that has gained undue influence here and abroad has an interest in a de-stabilized Asia, because their market exists because of conflict. This isn't really due to tensions in the region, because as was already stated by previous posters these tensions have existed essentially forever. Our American corporations replaced Damascus steel with everything from Kentucky rifles to F-14 Tomcats. At this point the tiger is loose and eventual nuclear war between all nations is all but inevitable given our nation's current course. I do have a solution, however.

#1 We make it absolutely illegal to export weapons. No more fighter bombers for sale. No guided missiles, no Barrett 50 cals, nothing. If you have a good that is in the gray area of weaponry then it should be on a case-by-case basis for civilian application only.

#2 We determine who we will do business with by the policies of those nations and the nations they do business with. China sells organs harvested from political dissidents and uses slave labor. It should be absolutely forbidden for the PRC to have any business in America and vice-versa. If India is purchasing SAM's from China, then guess what? It is now forbidden for India AND China to have business here and vice-versa all the way down the line.

Americans don't really understand just how powerful economically, militarily and politically we are. We are decades more advanced than other nations and in some cases centuries more advanced. If the entire world was stood on one line and the United States on the other then at worst we are at a nuclear stalemate and at best we could easily subdue the entire planet. Even our greatest adversary of the past century was no match for the U.S. The rest of the world unless expressly financed by the United States has open sewers. We have Best Buys. Get it?

reply to post by livefreeordieinnh

Americans don't really understand just how powerful economically, militarily and politically we are. We are decades more advanced than other nations and in some cases centuries more advanced. If the entire world was stood on one line and the United States on the other then at worst we are at a nuclear stalemate and at best we could easily subdue the entire planet. Even our greatest adversary of the past century was no match for the U.S. The rest of the world unless expressly financed by the United States has open sewers. We have Best Buys. Get it?

The point is, that the US is forcing countries to open their markets, forcing countries to trade with the US, everything is done according to the US interests, US interests are put on top, but ofcours the US will do that.

In the OP sense, it is for the best US interest if the Middle East becomes chaotic, in that sense, the US is gambling just like Iran, that after the chaos, America will replace the old regimes with new regimes, who are pure American puppets. Or force the old regimes to bow down to the US, because they are in no position to say no.

Think about Europe for example, when did Europe become Americanized? When did Europe bow down to the US, and the US became the Ayatollah of Europe? Yes, it was in the time, when Europe was in chaos, when European countries were bombing European counties, when Europe was in a sense of civil war.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

reply to post by nenothtu


No worries nenothtu, just my poor attempt at humour.

‘No, an order given to Mossadegh by the Shah. Mr Roosevelt wasn't in the chain of command, and so could not have been "treasoned" against when Mossadegh ignored the order. Like I said, things don't work the same way in a monarchy as they do in a democracy. The ultimate responsibility for the order, and it's enforcement, resided with the Shah.’

Roosevelt Jr’s (and therefore the CIA) role in the 1953 events are known and fully documented elsewhere. The plan was to foment internal dissent and opposition to the government. The monarch against the parliament; kinda sounds like civil war.
I did like the US government attempt at deniability tho which went along the lines of :”well, we ordered him [Roosevelt] not to re-enter Iran, but he still went anyway” pmpl.

‘Agreed, Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing. They are both towards the same end of the political spectrum, but have different "stops". I personally view Socialism as "communism lite", or Communism as "extremist socialism", but no, they are NOT the same. The Tudeh were communists, but Mossadegh wasn't, and his actions really didn't please any of the folks on either end of the spectrum. The Left was as dissatisfied as the right, hence the Tudeh riots.

So esssentialy a coliation then? Are you refering to the Tudeh that some believed were organaised to bring more support to the government.
Seems to me that the West was more worried about nationalism within the Mid East/ SE Asia during the early years of the cold war than radicalised religion

Lets also not forget that the Anglo-Americans weren't the only faction stirring the pot - that seems to be lost in the mists of history when discussing former situations in the current world climate. The Tudeh had their own cheerleaders, too. The Anglo-Americans just outlasted the former allianaces arrayed against them is all. Now, they tend to get a one-sided share of the blame.‘

Blame? Or frustration at the double standards that apply within much of Western policy towards the area. I would agree that sometimes its easy to forget how much the Cold War affected Western thinking.

The uncertainty was in the focus. Focus at the time was more on the unrest in Central America for US observers, and the Iranian situation bit 'em in the behind while they weren't looking.

But they were looking. I mentioned Brzezinski not because I believe he was/ is some kind of genius, but because he is documented as telling the shah that the US would back him, and by extension his governance, “to the hilt”. The Brits and French were most definitely looking as were the Saudi’s, being mortal enemies to the Shia and all.
Had the strategic importance of Iran and the straits of Hormuz changed in 25 years?
Something had or else the shah’s regime would have survived. We have lots of experience of propping unpopular governments.

For the life of me, I can't classify anything Brzezinski wrote as "interesting". I'd rather call it "curious". Policy makers and "intellectuals" have frequently been the bane of mankind. That's one thing that Marx and I can both agree upon.

And three (me!) completes the (un)holy trinity . Seriously, Brzezinski’s later remarks show, I think, a change in American policy towards fighting the communist threat. One of Presidents Nixon’s men, Richard D Craine, has claimed credit for the idea of making radical Islam an ally in the fight against communism. Speaking of Nixon, have you read the chapter on Islam in his biography? Three abodes not just two.

Another curious but more modern advisor is Bernard Lewis, a man whose influence and ideas has driven much of the present US response to terrorism.

The Sunni-Shia rift is very real, and has been in effect ever since the days of Ali. It's not a hard thing to "play up", since they are always at odds with one another, and ready to have at it at the drop of a hat, with or without outside influence

Yep, thats pretty much the Lewis school of thought. I’ve no doubt that the Sunni-Shia rift is real. Most religious denominations hate each other: Orthodox Jewry v Non orthodox, Catholic v Protestant and that rather strange brand of American Christian Zionism v everyone else.

But if the rift is as ‘deadly’ as you suggest that would mean Islamic terrorism isn’t quite as co-ordinated as some make out and would beg the question of why do we support the Sunni (Saudi) over the Shia? Or are we doing the salafi's and qutbi’s work for them now.

Lewis and his acolytes continue to claim that ‘what went wrong’ is the Islamic population’s inability to come to terms or keep up with the modern world, and most certainly is not the fault of Western policy in the region.
According to them, none of the West’s actions are relevant, though the existence of the Eisenhower memo proves the US [once] thought otherwise:

“Yes, and the reason is, there's a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception because it's correct”

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Seriously neno, we are our own worst enemy at times.

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Roosevelt Jr’s (and therefore the CIA) role in the 1953 events are known and fully documented elsewhere. The plan was to foment internal dissent and opposition to the government. The monarch against the parliament; kinda sounds like civil war.

I'll have to concede that, simply because a working definition of "civil war" is so hard to pin down. They come in all shapes, sizes, and configurations, and it seems that the only common factor is that they are contained for the most part within the borders of a single country - "for the most part", because of refugee and rebel camps frequently spilling across borders into neighboring countries.

By that criteria, this event would qualify as a civil war. There was already plenty of internally generated unrest to stir up, however, so it seems to have been a fairly easy job.

I did like the US government attempt at deniability tho which went along the lines of :”well, we ordered him [Roosevelt] not to re-enter Iran, but he still went anyway” pmpl.

Pretty lame as deniability goes, wasn't it?

‘Agreed, Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing. They are both towards the same end of the political spectrum, but have different "stops". I personally view Socialism as "communism lite", or Communism as "extremist socialism", but no, they are NOT the same. The Tudeh were communists, but Mossadegh wasn't, and his actions really didn't please any of the folks on either end of the spectrum. The Left was as dissatisfied as the right, hence the Tudeh riots.

So esssentialy a coliation then? Are you refering to the Tudeh that some believed were organaised to bring more support to the government.

Coalition? No, I don't think the Tudeh were accorded very much involvement in the government, which seems to have been a sore point with them. I suppose "some" did consider the Tudeh to be organized to bring more "support" to the government, but the quality and character of that "support" necessarily varied depending on the stance of the observer.

Seems to me that the West was more worried about nationalism within the Mid East/ SE Asia during the early years of the cold war than radicalised religion

Absolutely. Particularly in the case of the Middle East (not so much SE Asia, where it was not so much of a factor), the western concept of the "separation of church and state" tended to blind them to the political dimensions of radicalized religion. They, or "we", couldn't quite grasp the concept. Nationalism was in the cross hairs, and radicalized religion only ancillary to that, if recognized at all, but it was a fairly important factor in Nationalism - it just wasn't recognized as such. The west was viewing the situation through a largely politics-only lens.

Lets also not forget that the Anglo-Americans weren't the only faction stirring the pot - that seems to be lost in the mists of history when discussing former situations in the current world climate. The Tudeh had their own cheerleaders, too. The Anglo-Americans just outlasted the former allianaces arrayed against them is all. Now, they tend to get a one-sided share of the blame.‘

Blame? Or frustration at the double standards that apply within much of Western policy towards the area. I would agree that sometimes its easy to forget how much the Cold War affected Western thinking.

Blame. Perceived double standards are only an aggravating factor in fixing blame. Since opposition alliances from that time period have largely crumbled, The only place left to fix blame now is on the survivors.

The uncertainty was in the focus. Focus at the time was more on the unrest in Central America for US observers, and the Iranian situation bit 'em in the behind while they weren't looking.

But they were looking. I mentioned Brzezinski not because I believe he was/ is some kind of genius, but because he is documented as telling the shah that the US would back him, and by extension his governance, “to the hilt”. The Brits and French were most definitely looking as were the Saudi’s, being mortal enemies to the Shia and all.

Yes, they were looking, but not perceiving. They miscalculated the overall situation, and placed an inordinate amount of stress on developments in the western hemisphere. Like I said before, there was a lot of squawking going on, but it was being largely ignored in favor of a concentration elsewhere. A sad miscalculation.

I believe, but can't prove, that Brzezinski was trying to reassure the Shah in a situation where Z. didn't really think any fruit would be borne - not of any consequence, any way. He miscalculated, but that seems to have been one of his fortes. He DID, however, as you say, believe that radical Islamists would be a bulwark against the Soviets. Another miscalculation on his part, failing to realize ALL the components of radicalized political Islam.

Had the strategic importance of Iran and the straits of Hormuz changed in 25 years?
Something had or else the shah’s regime would have survived. We have lots of experience of propping unpopular governments.

No, the strategic importance hadn't changed, but the political prioritization had, and in combination with a misjudgment of politicized Islam proved a deadly miscalculation. What did Z. care? Wasn't HIS ass getting shot at!

For the life of me, I can't classify anything Brzezinski wrote as "interesting". I'd rather call it "curious". Policy makers and "intellectuals" have frequently been the bane of mankind. That's one thing that Marx and I can both agree upon.

And three (me!) completes the (un)holy trinity

. Seriously, Brzezinski’s later remarks show, I think, a change in American policy towards fighting the communist threat. One of Presidents Nixon’s men, Richard D Craine, has claimed credit for the idea of making radical Islam an ally in the fight against communism. Speaking of Nixon, have you read the chapter on Islam in his biography? Three abodes not just two.

No, I haven't read Nixon's biography. I sort of lost interest in him with the "I am not a crook!" lie. He was a politician, they're ALL crooks, so the lie was self-evident.

The Sunni-Shia rift is very real, and has been in effect ever since the days of Ali. It's not a hard thing to "play up", since they are always at odds with one another, and ready to have at it at the drop of a hat, with or without outside influence

Yep, thats pretty much the Lewis school of thought. I’ve no doubt that the Sunni-Shia rift is real. Most religious denominations hate each other: Orthodox Jewry v Non orthodox, Catholic v Protestant and that rather strange brand of American Christian Zionism v everyone else.

But if the rift is as ‘deadly’ as you suggest that would mean Islamic terrorism isn’t quite as co-ordinated as some make out and would beg the question of why do we support the Sunni (Saudi) over the Shia? Or are we doing the salafi's and qutbi’s work for them now.

There are frictions among all denominations, true enough, but they don't flare up into deadly confrontation nearly as often nowadays as they do in Islam. True enough, in the past they have, particularly between Catholics and Protestants, but that seems largely to have been outgrown these days. One would hope that Islam will some day undergo the same sort of growth.

Certainly, Islamist attacks are not as coordinated as our own politicians would have us believe. I've said over and over again that al-Qaida is more of a DISorganization than an organization, and they are but one ingredient in the mix. Most of the radicals are aimed in the same general direction, but that doesn't imply coordination. Their goals for the end game are vastly different, particularly in who they envision coming out on top. The Sunni radicals appear for the most part (as exemplified by al-Qaida) to seek after a restoration of the Caliphate into a global phenomena, while the Shia radicals have a different result in mind.

I believe that the west supports Sunnis more than Shiites because of an initial perception in the early days of this phase of the war (say, early 80's) that the Shiites were the ones "on the attack" against the west, particularly because of the Iranian hostage crisis, and events such as the Beirut Barracks bombing.

Furthermore, there are more Sunni than Shia, and I'm sure that figures into the equation.

Lewis and his acolytes continue to claim that ‘what went wrong’ is the Islamic population’s inability to come to terms or keep up with the modern world, and most certainly is not the fault of Western policy in the region.
According to them, none of the West’s actions are relevant, though the existence of the Eisenhower memo proves the US [once] thought otherwise:

“Yes, and the reason is, there's a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception because it's correct”

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

While that "inability to come to terms" is probably a factor in the current situation, it's a pretty myopic view in my estimation. The overall situation is quite a bit more complex than that. To concentrate on that singular facet will be to repeat history over again, with roughly similar results. Life is seldom so simplistic.

Western actions are of course relevant, but more so is the local PERCEPTIONS of western actions, and the fact that no real dialogue on a large scale cultural level has occurred to attempt to bridge that rift.

Seriously neno, we are our own worst enemy at times.

Agreed.

If the US fights a war in Iran it would probably have a massive stabilizing effect on the Middle-East. The Sunni extremists (Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc) would jump at the chance to take out the world's only Shia state, and plenty of Sunnis over the world would join in. From Morocco to Pakistan, the hard-core sunnis who are currently trying to take down their governments would happily fight to take out Iran AND their proxies in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine (Salafis view Shia as practically polytheist, and in Salafi countries like Saudi, Shia are subjected to heavy discrimination and sometimes outright persecution). Unite the Middle East? Just tell the Sunnis it's time to kill the Shia.

NO ISRAEL DOES,,, !!!

I hate to post just one line but that one lines says it all....Text