Although having spent a great deal of time as a technical consultant in the Middle East, I cannot honestly state that I fully understand the region's complex culture - I am not a native. So I ask, why don't the 'media talking heads' admit the same lack of intimate knowledge - for the same reason?
Those who travel there, live in restricted compounds, carry out a few well guarded interviews with high ranking government officials, and then leave. While many others don't bother to visit that part of the world - at all!
I have never set foot into Iran, but I have spent considerable time in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. And during these travels I have made a lot of friends in these countries, eaten and slept in their homes and, to this day, maintain contact with many of them. And that 'real-time' intimacy has afforded me a reliable capability to read between the headlines, as to what is taking place in Iran. The 'media talking heads' appear not to have a clue.
Can I be wrong? Of course I can, but so can they. But to date, not a single one of these media sears (with the notable exception of columnist Patrick Buchanan) has verbalized the slightest reservation concerning the accuracy of their pronouncements, versus the reality taking place on the ground.
Well reality and the weather do not work that way. So for better or worse (definitely no worse than what the 'media talking heads' have come up with) here is my assessment of what - may - be taking place in Iran: it's called - Possible History in the Making - Again.
A Historical Parallel Universe
Many have criticized my Science Fictional approach to analysis, but I tend to ignore these great minds: they could not envision airliners as potential missiles to crash into buildings.
These individuals are part and parcel of an American political mind-set, akin to that of a passenger standing on the deck of the sinking Lusitania, calmly observing the Titanic disappear beneath the waves and wondering ..."Why didn't they see that iceberg?"
If one regards the iceberg as history in transit, the answer becomes ..."Because they refused to believe what they were seeing was a former distant possibility giving birth to a here and now reality."
The parallels between America's historical evolution and the one taking place in Iran are incredible. But even more astounding is how we tend to view our own past as 'one time historical events', created in the annals of time - just for us.
Think back to world of centuries ago, and the widely held belief that we, the inhabitants of Earth, were the center of the universe and the sun and stars revolved around us.
Now, think about the daily parallels we see played out before our eyes on the evening news as a reflection in time of - our own past.
America went through a brutal Civil War, which became the fulcrum of our future, as once did the Iran. We persecuted a large population of an indigenous minority as well as one imported for forced servitude (American Indians and African Blacks), and so did the Iranians with the brutal suppression of their Kurdish minority.
We suffered civil revolts against the political ruling powers in place - as the Iranians are undergoing now. And these bloody upheavals are being led by the young of their society, as was in similar periods of revolt that we underwent in the 1960's: during which time some protestors were killed. And we have had uncountable fraudulent elections, as well as highly suspect local and national elections in our past (Ref. Al Gore's presidential bid). Or to quote the late Mayor Daley of Chicago Illinois to his supporters: "Vote early and vote often."
We developed nuclear weapons and used them against another nation - twice. Fortunately for those still at war with Iran (Israel with nuclear weapons), the Iranians are not technologically quite there - as yet.
In the eyes of America Iran is a major state sponsor of terrorism, a viewpoint that conflicts with our own past. We supplied the Sandinista Guerrillas in Nicaragua, were complicit in the overthrow of Allende in Chile, backed an invasion of Cuba and carried out an unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
So what is the major difference? None are visible beyond the factor of - time.
In essence, we in America should not throw dispersions at Iran, its leaders and potential leaders in waiting, in a manner suggesting that - we in the U.S. have always worn clean underwear.
A Short History of Iran
Iran is an ancient nation once known as Persia. At one time in history, it was a major empire in its own right. But over time it has been overrun many cultures (by Arabs, Turks, Mongols and others), and as a result its territory has been altered throughout the centuries.
Iran has more often than not found itself in a tug of war between great powers, but has through force of belligerent leadership, managed to continually reassert a national identity of its own. And over the years Iran has evolved into a distinct regional political and cultural entity to be reckoned with by the world's superpowers.
Modern Iranian history began with a nationalist uprising against the Shah (who remained in power) in 1905, the granting of a limited constitution in 1906, and the discovery of oil in 1908.
In 1921, Reza Khan, an Iranian officer of the Persian Cossack Brigade seized control of the government. And in1925, he made himself Shah, ruling as Reza Shah Pahlavi for almost 16 years and installing the new Pahlavi dynasty.
Under his reign, Iran began to modernize and to secularize politics, as the central government reasserted its authority over the tribes and provinces. In September 1941, following the Allies' occupation of western Iran (United Kingdom-Soviet Union), Reza Shah was forced to abdicate. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, then became Shah and ruled until 1979.
During World War II, Iran was a vital link in the Allied supply line for lend-lease supplies to the Soviet Union. However, after the war Soviet troops stationed in northwestern Iran not only refused to withdraw, but backed revolts that established short-lived pro-Soviet separatist regimes in the northern regions of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan.
These puppet regimes came to an end in 1946, after the Azerbaijan revolt crumbled, and U.S. and UN pressure forced a Soviet withdrawal. Not too long after Iranian forces suppressed the Kurdish revolt.
In 1951, Premier Mohammed Mossadeq, a militant nationalist, forced the weak parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry. Mossadeq was opposed by the Shah and removed, but he quickly returned to power. His takeover forced the Shah to flee Iran, but he returned triumphantly when supporters staged a coup against Mossadeq in August 1953 (which many Iranians to this day believe was orchestrated by the CIA). Mossadeq was then arrested by pro-Shah army forces.
In 1961, Iran initiated a series of economic, social and administrative reforms known as the Shah's White Revolution. The core of this program was initially land reform, but grew rapidly to encompass a modernization effort which led to an unprecedented rate of economic growth; the bold program was fueled by Iran's vast petroleum reserves - the third-largest in the world.
In 1978, domestic turmoil swept the country as a result of religious and political opposition to the Shah's rule and especially the - SAVAK, the brutal Internal Security and Intelligence Service. In January 1979, the Shah left Iran and died abroad several years after.
On February 1, 1979, exiled religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in France to direct a revolution resulting in a new, theocratic republic guided by Islamic principles. He became Iran's national religious leader.
Iran's post-revolution period included an 8-year war with Iraq, regarded by many Iranians to have been materially supplied and instigated by the U.S. This national resentment led to the November 4, 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy compound by Iranian militants; and the beginning of a Cold War status between the two nations.
By mid-1982, a succession of power struggles eliminated first the center of the political spectrum and then the leftists, leaving only the clergy. There has been some moderation of excesses internally, but Iran is considered by many to have a serious human rights problem.
Following Khomeini's death on June 3, 1989, the Assembly of Experts--an elected body of senior clerics--chose the outgoing president of the republic, Ali Khomeini, to be his successor as national in what proved to be a remarkably smooth transition.
In August 1989, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was elected President by an overwhelming majority, and. re-elected in June of 1993 by a modest majority. Some Western observers attributed the reduced voter turnout to disenchantment with the deteriorating economy. (Ali) Mohammad Khatami-Ardakani was elected President in August 1997 with an overwhelming majority, gaining re-elected again in June 2001.
In February 2004 flawed elections were held for the 7th Majles in which many reformists were prohibited from contesting their seats. The carefully 'managed result' was that a much more conservative Majles took its seats in May 2004.
Iran's Nuclear Program Will Continue
No matter what happens in Iran during the next few years or who takes control, one point can be relied upon to remain fixed: Iran's nuclear program will continue.
Both contesting political sides (Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mahmoud Ahmadienjad) have made the keen observation that the world would care less about its neighbor, Pakistan, were it not for its cache of nuclear weapons. The significance of that point has not been lost on either of the two contestants for the country's top office - or the population they seek to control.
Vast reserves of oil and the real potential for the development of nuclear weapons are the only reasons we in America give a damn about what is, or is not, taking place in Iran. If not for those two factors, our level of attention would be equivalent to that which we give to Darfur.
What Does Iran Want?
The domestic turmoil that is taking place in Iran at the moment is completely separate from that nation's future goals. And regrettably, the United States does not appear to understand the true nature of the internal struggle.
Even those violently facing off in the streets of Teheran, are bound by an ambition that unites them: as Iranians they are no longer willing to be seen as a 'begging nation' - dependent upon the diplomatic largess of the superpowers. They don't want to be told who they must be friends with and accept as legitimate neighbors in their part of the world.
Nor are they willing to be restricted from any technical pursuit they so choose, be it nuclear, space research or otherwise. But most of all, they don't want to have their ambitions held to the fire of international approval. What they want is to be on friendly but equal terms with the western nations - especially America.
What is going on in Iran is not revolution but more an evolution, which the United States can possibly interfere with - but not stop. The Obama administration would do well to consult the wisdom of Science Fiction, and look to Star Trek's highly enlightened - Prime Directive:
Known as Starfleet General Order 1, the Prime Directive is the most important law in Starfleet, a law of noninterference. The Directive states that members of Starfleet are not to interfere in the internal affairs of another species [nation], especially in its natural development.
Iran should be afforded that curtsey and left alone by all nations, with particular reference to America, for the Iranians are in the process of warping through their own - idea whose time has come.
Simply put, Iran is determined to become the - United States of the Middle East.
|