by Bauback
(Lifted from a comment on the Fakhravar thread)
I stumbled upon this blog and I want to make a few comments as an
Iranian American born and raised on the East Coast.
First off, the
frustration and high emotion (including insults) being expressed are
clear indicators that there are parallel processes at work (including
venting which discourages dialogue). We are all engaged in a
frustrating political world where voices are neglected so lets try to
make the best of it by "getting to the point" without having
non-Iranians walk away thinking poorly of our character.
To succumb to
our tempers does not serve a productive purpose and mitigates social
resources. I would like to share an independent opinion because of the
heavy handed arguments being made.
It is common among descendants of
countries that have experienced turmoil to be socialized by their
families into believing extreme arguments and eagerly supporting
political parties (which can discourage independent thought).
Unfortunately, many of our arguments are not our own and as the
sociologist Gouldner put it, we acquire them at too early an early age
to offer intellectual consent. This means we are all limited in our
mental categorizations, not just backers of one approach to social
change or another. The dichotomy of Shah/Western supporter or Mullah
supporter are more reflective of that which powerful political figures
encourage us to limit our minds to than what is best for the country
and its people. Having a narrow range of options is the best way to
avoid innovation (and the powers that be do NOT want innovation in
Iran).
That being said, it is common fact that the CIA removed a
democratically elected Iranian leader to bring in the second Shah
(former CIA officials even talk about it in a documentary on the
History channel). We all know the West has had its business in the
natural resources of other countries for a long time now. England has
also played an ENOURMOUS role in this, not just the U.S., and if you
research the origins of BP it will lead you to the Persian Gulf, Iran
and Mossadegh’s removal. Some have argued that in removing Mossadegh,
the U.S. triggered a cascade of political events that led to the now
dreadful Mullah situation in Iran.
Oil has shaped the geopolitical constellation of the Middle East to
its very core. In 1953, when nationalist Persian leader Mohammed
Mossadegh nationalised BP’s assets in Iran, the CIA and British
intelligence engineered a coup d’ etat to overthrow the regime and
restore the Shah to the Peacock Throne. The bitter memory of Western
intervention in Iranian politics stripped the Pahlavi regime of any
legitimacy, led to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and resonates in
Iran’s determination to enrich uranium in Bushire.
Link
I think countries should be held accountable for crimes, and that it
is a crime to overthrow a democratically elected leader – period. But
that won’t happen so it is neither here nor there. Next, let us be
clear that it is not above a very power hungry and selfish Mullah to
falsify voting documents, so I agree that the facts on the most recent
Iranian voter outcome cannot be considered realistically. We can’t even
get a real vote count in the U.S. so it is not that difficult to
imagine. Simply put, the majority of Iranians HATE the fanatics in
power and did not vote for them.
However, (and here is the part of the story that elicits strong
opinions and anger in Iranians who are very hungry for change) whether
we like it or not, no Western power is going to embrace Iranian
political change in the sole interest of happy and prosperous Iranians.
It is false to think this isn’t a game of control. If I am wrong, just
name a time that the U.S. went into another country for the good of
that country? Whatever your answer here, I promise there are
counterarguments suggesting that it was in U.S. self interest.
America
is using Iran as a board game for its own self interests just like the
other times they intervened. Fanatics are in power because of the West,
as are puppets like in Saudi Arabia. That is the game. Now, I am not
one of those people who sit around blaming countries for acting in
their self interest, I mean if they don’t, who will? (here I will
consciously avoid a tangent into the complexity of whether or not it is
possible for governments to one day act in the collective interests of
the whole world). However, our problem is a systemic one. Democratic
leaders in Iran are a dangerous thing to reckless people like Cheney
and Bush. This is why Neo Cons keep backing either a pro-America
potential or a religious fanatic. It saddens me that we as Iranians and
Iranian-Americans continue to swing with the U.S. Government’s pendulum
of puppet/Mullah while they benefit time and time again as Iranians
suffer.
No aspiring Iranian leader will work with American Neo Cons and
bring about the best for Iranian people – it may be sad but it is true.
Fakhravar may have the best interests of Iranians in mind, but he is
misled in thinking he would ever lead Iranians to a sustained empowered
Iran by siding with Bush. He claims that Iranians love Bush for
standing up to the Mullahs but we all know people in other countries
hate Bush and see him as the greatest warmonger they have ever
witnessed in their lifetime. In my international consulting travels
around the world I have seen nothing but contempt for our U.S.
government’s foreign policies. I have family in Iran and around the
world and I know the majority of Iranians feel no differently.
There is
a core of Iranians who benefited financially and otherwise when the
second Shah was in power, and those people in my experience are the
quickest to announce that Iranians love Bush, them and rich Californian
Iranians who save on taxes – but that is another story. One simple
explanation for this is their perceptions that they would likely regain
the spoils of their family’s name if/when an American-backed leader
returned to Iran, or that they would get some sort of preferential
treatment because their grandparents were in the “inner circle” (which
by the way left a minority of people well off, and many starving).
This
reinforces our default thought processes of embracing the ridiculously
simplistic dichotomy of Mullah or American Puppet. We all hate the
Mullahs, and some well off Iranians in American loved when the Shah was
in power, so we keep highlighting two options (I firmly believe anyone
who is invited back to power in Iran by American Neo Cons will be a
puppet). There has to be an Iranian people-led alternative. We all know
things are unacceptably bad in Iran with that idiot as “president”. The
current regime is completely unacceptable in Iran. However, we do not
know what Iran and the rest of the world will look like if America
drives the regime change, and this cannot be taken lightly.
What if the true strength of Iranians could be tapped in an
innovative way that would allow for them to decide the fate of their
country rather than having superpowers continue tampering? One reason
we don’t consider this is that there is a lot of money keeping fanatics
strong and scary in that country and superpowers have financial power
that can counter the Mullah’s strongholds. Another reason is that we
are tired, drained, and looking for a quick way to change the status
quo, which is something that superpowers play on time and time again to
manipulate us.
I for one would like a real revolution to happen from within and
agree with Annie that if the U.S. really wanted to help this happen,
they would change their economic policies. However, in my opinion any
governments with real power do not desire an empowered democratic Iran
with a leader who represents the people, which is why there is
something really illogical about turning to Western powers for help.
Like it or not, real sustained change will only happen the hard way
with sleeves rolled up and by the people themselves. And if that
doesn’t seem likely to happen anytime soon, it doesn’t mean we should
invite a reckless host of new variables in an already unstable region.
Hopefully we can consider one another’s perspectives in this blog
because between all of us, our knowledge base is powerful. To those who
are counter to Arian in this blog – imagine how frustrating it is for
an Iranian-American to hear you say that the U.S. Government should not
be involved in changing a country they have helped screw up so badly.
The natural thought is “oh, so now that the U.S. can actually benefit
the Iranian people (a questionable assumption), they should just bow
out?” Similarly, to those countering Annie and her supporters – imagine
how frustrating it would be to hear someone ask for one of the most
corrupt and violent Governments in the world to “liberate” Iran, when
they have such a horrific track record of destroying countries that
have oil and when their inner circle of power elites are so dependant
upon a war economy that it would be impossible to attack the Mullahs
for pure reasons and in a just way.
To all those Iranians who look to Bush for help, I would love to cry
out to you – Bush does NOT want to help us. What he and his people say
has more to do with international chess games than helping civilians.
It is hard enough to get him to help civilians of his own country, so
assuming his office has the knowledge/foresight to help Iranians is
just illogical. I would hesitate to assume we know what the best action
step would be just because we so desperately want change to happen. It
is easy for our desire for change to drive us to favor specific actions
prematurely. However, if we are too quick to do this, we forego the
possibility of homegrown innovation and end up just supporting options
that are created by the Western political figures that have had too
large a hand in Iranian fate already. A wise victim of abuse would
never seek love from his abuser.