October Surprise?

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO This is so ridiculous. First of all, the Shah was never "installed" by the USA in 1953. He was already there. There had been a Shah for a thousand years. What happened in 1953 was that Mossadegh was attempting to (illegally by the way) crush the power which the Shah did have, while simutaneously moving closer to Moscow

Oh come on. When the history is clear in black in white, why bother repeating this sort of foolishness? The official CIA history of the overthrow of Mossadegh is on-line. From an introduction by James Riesen;

The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans. Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist. The document shows that: Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister. The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed. Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government. The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.

Quote by: BobbyO There is no direct line from 1953 to 1979. Mossadegh was a secular guy, whom Khomeni et. al. would have hated as much as he did the Shah. The Islamic fundamentalists would have targeted him, and his ideological descendents as visciously as they actually did the shah. So kindly dispel with the rubble that the USA "caused" the '79 revolt. It ain't so.

The shah was a brutal dictator. The Islamists became the focus of a broad Iranian resistance to the shah. If the country had continued its democratic government there wouldhave been no Islamic revolution. Even under the current regime Iran is far more democratic than under the shah's dictatorship.

Quote by: BobbyO And even if you wish to say that the lack of democracy in Iran inspired, encouraged strengthened ect. the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists, what is the objection to the USA overthrowing a tyrant in Iraq and working to build a democratic state there? That it strengthens the hand if the Islamic fundamentalists? The USA is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

The invasion and occupation of the site of the last caliphate of Mohammed as well as the holy cities of Shi'a Islam by an infidel army can only strengthen Iranian Shi'a fundamentalists. Having an enemy, literally at their gate, is always a boon to the most repressive elements.

At the same time, the removal of a major secular regime in a country that is 60% Shia expanded potential Iranian influence enormously. So yes, as with most imperial interventions, the US is "damned if they do, and damned if they don't," which is why we shouldn't be so stupid as to continue forcing our will on others.

War Signals?

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1. As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran." According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

[underbear1]

Can there be an October SUPRISE anymore?
Seems to me anything that occurs in October will now be seen as totally political. I think political camps are set in stone long before Oct, and the rest might fill cable NEWS channels but won't change votes. I bet it doesn't really change voter turn out any longer, too many suprises kinda spoiled the suprise element.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp Oh come on. When the history is clear in black in white, why bother repeating this sort of foolishness? The official CIA history of the overthrow of Mossadegh is on-line. From an introduction by James Riesen; The shah was a brutal dictator. The Islamists became the focus of a broad Iranian resistance to the shah. If the country had continued its democratic government there wouldhave been no Islamic revolution. Even under the current regime Iran is far more democratic than under the shah's dictatorship. The invasion and occupation of the site of the last caliphate of Mohammed as well as the holy cities of Shi'a Islam by an infidel army can only strengthen Iranian Shi'a fundamentalists. Having an enemy, literally at their gate, is always a boon to the most repressive elements. At the same time, the removal of a major secular regime in a country that is 60% Shia expanded potential Iranian influence enormously. So yes, as with most imperial interventions, the US is "damned if they do, and damned if they don't," which is why we shouldn't be so stupid as to continue forcing our will on others. War Signals?

Nothing you citede, with respect to 1953, disputes what I wrote.

The Shah was "brutal" to the Islamic fundamentalists. They were the ones yelling because they were the ones targeted.

The worry that the Iraqi shiites would flock to Iran's orbit ought to dispelled: During the Iran-Iraq, tehran constantly worked to grab their loyalties: it never wavered from iraq.

BTW, rather than worrying about what agitates Moslems, perhaps we ought to focus on what does NOT agitate them?

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO Nothing you citede, with respect to 1953, disputes what I wrote.

If you really believe that, you either didn't read the sources or have serious comprehension issues.

Quote by: BobbyO The Shah was "brutal" to the Islamic fundamentalists. They were the ones yelling because they were the ones targeted.

The SAVAK targeted everyone.

Shah-an-Shah [King of Kings] Mohammad Reza Pahlevi was restored to the Peacock Throne of Iran with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry. CIA subsequently provided organizational and and training assistance for the establishment of an intelligence organization for the Shah. With training focused on domestic security and interrogation, the primary purpose of the intelligence unit, headed by General Teymur Bakhtiar, was to eliminate threats to Shah. SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses. The United States reinforced its position as the Shah's protector and supporter, sowing the seeds of the anti-Americanism that later manifested itself in the revolution against the monarchy.

Quote by: BobbyO The worry that the Iraqi shiites would flock to Iran's orbit ought to dispelled: During the Iran-Iraq, tehran constantly worked to grab their loyalties: it never wavered from iraq.

You miss the point. The majority of Saddam's soldiers were Shi'a. When a foreign army is threatening your country , you fight the foreigner even if they share your sect. Not that the neocons have figured this out. The occupation by a foreign infidel army is failing miserably.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp If you really believe that, you either didn't read the sources or have serious comprehension issues. The SAVAK targeted everyone. You miss the point. The majority of Saddam's soldiers were Shi'a. When a foreign army is threatening your country , you fight the foreigner even if they share your sect. Not that the neocons have figured this out. The occupation by a foreign infidel army is failing miserably.

Yes, the Shah alienated the Islamic fundamentalists- the same sorts who have subsequently denonstrated the need to be alienated. The overthrow of the Shah is proving itself to be one major catastrophe.

If the Iraqi shiites are going to fight the "foreigners" why worry about Iranian influence upon said Iraqi shiites?

[RickSp]

Bobby, the rebellion against the shah was broad based. Ignore or deny history, it doesn't change.

You are arguing a case never made. Iraqi Shi'as fought Persian Shia's in a a full fledged war. Nevertheless the more radical Shi'as in Iraq take inspiration and support from Iranian Khomenite Shi'as. The traditional Twelver Shi'as of Iraq are losing influence the longer the US occupation remains in place.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: BobbyO The overthrow of the Shah is proving itself to be one major catastrophe.

As is the "overthrow" of saddam.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee As is the "overthrow" of saddam.

Many Iraqis no doubt felt that Saddam's regime deserved to be overthrown. However, they clearly want us to leave and we ought to listen.

Grandpa h.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: grandpa Many Iraqis no doubt felt that Saddam's regime deserved to be overthrown. However, they clearly want us to leave and we ought to listen. Grandpa h.

I'm certainly not convinced that the average Iraqi believes that saddam's removal has been worth the cost.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee I'm certainly not convinced that the average Iraqi believes that saddam's removal has been worth the cost.

I agree. But my previous point still stands, I think.
Meanwhile, our media makes it sound as though it's solely a matter of Iraqi's sabotaging themselves.
It's clear that it's harder to find scapegoats when Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq. It's anyone but us.

Grandpa h.

[underbear1]

Who knew the cover-up of a pedofile chairing the committee to stop internet predators would be the October SUPRISE?Some how I doubt this was the suprise Rove hoped for, (and with his dubious past in Dupont Circle gay bars while Bush was governor, and earned himself the nickname Miss Piggy) I'm thinking Rove will stay as far from Foley scandal as he can, Mehlman has similar issues as being gay.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Zeebadee As is the "overthrow" of saddam.

Not at all. The Shah kept the Islamic fundamenalists and Iraq in check. The problems in that section of the world have been as a result of no regional power able to pick up that role. As a result, the USA has been drawn in.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: BobbyO Not at all. The Shah kept the Islamic fundamenalists and Iraq in check. The problems in that section of the world have been as a result of no regional power able to pick up that role. As a result, the USA has been drawn in.

The U.S. hasn't been "drawn" in, it has charged in, without ever considering what it was that we were getting in to. Iran and saddam were pretty much at an impasse, neither having the upper hand until we decided to impose ourselves on the region. Now we are stuck in Iraq, have no capability to challenge Iran, and unable to formulate a plan that would allow us to even extricate ourselves from the whole stinking mess. Thousands of lives have been wasted, thousands more will be sacrificed before a solution is found that will allow us to withdraw and still save face for bush. And that's exactly what it has come down to, we'll stay and fight in Iraq until bush looks good.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Zeebadee The U.S. hasn't been "drawn" in, it has charged in, without ever considering what it was that we were getting in to. Iran and saddam were pretty much at an impasse, neither having the upper hand until we decided to impose ourselves on the region. Now we are stuck in Iraq, have no capability to challenge Iran, and unable to formulate a plan that would allow us to even extricate ourselves from the whole stinking mess. Thousands of lives have been wasted, thousands more will be sacrificed before a solution is found that will allow us to withdraw and still save face for bush. And that's exactly what it has come down to, we'll stay and fight in Iraq until bush looks good.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, after an eight year war against Iran. saddam would never have moved against Iran had the Shah been in power, and certainly not against Kuwait. You are of course free to say that the USA should have let a sovereign country, a member of the UN, be swallowed by saddam.

[PatrickHenry]

BobbyO, you are of course free to mischaracterize the US role in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

Saddam was given a "green light" by the US State Department.

Your other masterpiece is alleging that the Shah kept Islamists in check. There were none in his era. They were created by the US to drive the USSR from Afghanistan. After the Shah's downfall. A little problem with "blowback."

[BobbyO]

Quote by: PatrickHenry BobbyO, you are of course free to mischaracterize the US role in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Saddam was given a "green light" by the US State Department. Your other masterpiece is alleging that the Shah kept Islamists in check. There were none in his era. They were created by the US to drive the USSR from Afghanistan. After the Shah's downfall. A little problem with "blowback."

Excuse me, it was the islamic fundamentalists who were the main drivers in the overthrew of the Shah. Khomeni returned to Tehran from France a national hero.

Even if you wish to say Iraq had a "green light" to go into Kuwait (it didn't) from the USA, it doesn't matter. the point I made is that the overthrow of the Shah was a catastrophe. the USA was sucked directly into the region as a result of it. had the Shah been around, it would not be washington which Saddam had to worry about.

[PatrickHenry]

The Shah was finished. His misrule was opposed by all factions of the Iranian population. Sic semper tyrannis!

The Ayatollah Khomeini was only one of those who sought change in Iran.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: PatrickHenry The Shah was finished. His misrule was opposed by all factions of the Iranian population. Sic semper tyrannis! The Ayatollah Khomeini was only one of those who sought change in Iran.

Sure. He wished to bring about Islamic fundamentalism, and to export it. You are of course free not to be against it.

Veil covered surfers, anyone?

[Jack]

Geez, the Shah, Saddam, Marcos...why can't we ever find a decent despot to finance secretly then have turn against us so that we have to spend a few more million to get rid of them?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Isherwood Geez, the Shah, Saddam, Marcos...why can't we ever find a decent despot to finance secretly then have turn against us so that we have to spend a few more million to get rid of them?

We didn't get rid of the shah or Marcos. In both instances the USa supported their removal.

saddam was a project of the USSR, so blame Moscow for him.