Attitudes Toward The Islamic Republic of Iran

Post Reply
solutions
Site Admin
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Attitudes Toward The Islamic Republic of Iran

Post by solutions »

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Was The U.S. Behind Saddam Hussein’s 1980-1988 War Against Iran?
From: Solutions
Date: Thu, April 30, 2015 8:42 am - MDT
To: ReadingLiberally@johnkarls.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

Do you believe the U.S. was behind Saddam Hussein’s 1980-1988 war against Iran?

And do you believe the U.S. has exhibited a constant hostility against Iran since its 1979 revolution?

And since during the 9.5 years of existence of Reading Liberally, you have repeatedly called attention to the implications of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, do you feel hostile toward Iran?

Your friend,

Solutions


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Was The U.S. Behind Saddam Hussein’s 1980-1988 War Against Iran?
From: ReadingLiberally@johnkarls.com
Date: Thu, April 30, 2015 11:13 pm - MDT
To: Solutions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

You have asked three separate questions.

*****
Do you believe the U.S. was behind Saddam Hussein’s 1980-1988 war against Iran?
*****

The short answer is that I have no way of knowing for sure.

But a shrewd guess is always possible.

It is true that many Americans (and Iranians) thought U.S. President Jimmy Carter had thrown the Shah of Iran under the bus during the 1978-1979 revolution.

And it is also true that only 7 months after the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 4/1/1979, the revolutionaries exhibited hostility toward the U.S. by permitting a motley group of students led by Mahmoud Amhadinejad to capture the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on 11/4/1979 and hold for 444 days most of the 66 American diplomat/citizen hostages.

[The American diplomats and civilian hostages were released on 1/20/1981 at the exact moment Ronald Reagan completed his 20-minute Inaugural Address in order to avoid giving Reagan an excuse to invade Iran and overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran.]

[When Ahmadinejad was first elected President in 2005, the U.S. Government decided to ignore the insult that had been intended by Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in authorizing Ahmadinejad to run for election -- by “turning the other cheek” and falsely claiming that Ahmadinejad had not been the leader of the students who captured our Tehran Embassy in 1979.]

But back to Saddam Hussein’s 1980-1988 war against Iran.

Yes, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran on 9/22/1980 only 8 months after Ronald Reagan became U.S. President.

And yes, during his Presidential campaign, one of Ronald Reagan’s major issues had been the violation of international law by the Islamic Republic of Iran by its failure to protect the American Embassy and, after its fall, the Islamic Republic’s failure to arrest the students who had been responsible.

However, there was a long history of border disputes between Iraq and Iran.

And there was widely reported a fear on the part of Saddam Hussein that following the Iranian revolution, the new regime would stir up trouble among Iraq’s majority Shiite population in southern Iraq (including Baghdad).

[Incidentally, following U.S.-led Gulf War I against Saddam Hussein (8/2/1990-2/28/1991) because of Saddam’s military occupation of Kuwait, the U.S. and the U.K. did protect Iraq’s majority Shiite population in southern Iraq with a “no fly zone” that was strictly enforced for 12 years until the beginning of the U.S.-led Gulf War II against Saddam.]

But again, back to Saddam Hussein’s 1980-1988 war against Iran.

The real question is whether U.S. President Ronald Reagan was so incensed by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s violation of international law that he supported Saddam Hussein’s 8-year war against Iran.

Yes, it is true that Ronald Reagan had strong personal views on many subjects which were often strongly influenced by strong moral views of what he thought was right and wrong.

But as a former Governor of California, he had not had any real experience in international affairs.

And his Vice President was George H.W. Bush who had served as our U.N. Ambassador (3/1/1971-1/18/1973), our Ambassador to China (9/26/1974-12/7/1975) and the Director of the C.I.A. (1/30/1976-1/20/1977) -- before Jimmy Carter became President 1/20/1977.

While Reagan’s first Secretary of State was General Alexander Haig who had served as NATO Supreme Commander (1974-1979) after serving as the Deputy National Security Advisor to President Nixon (1970-1973) and then White House Chief of Staff for Nixon/Ford (4/30/1973-9/21/1974) before departing for NATO.

George H.W. Bush and Alexander Haig were not only “heavy hitters” in the international arena, but they were practical.

And their top priority in the Middle East was to keep the oil flowing.

This was very similar to the Presidency of George H.W. Bush’s son, George W. Bush, with regard to the 2002 Venezuelan coup d’état attempt, the Venezuelan general strike (2002-2003) and the Venezuelan recall election (2004).

Venezuela was a major oil exporter and, together with Iran, it had founded OPEC (The Organization of Oil Exporting Countries) in 1960 by bringing together with them Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.

And Hugo Chavez, who was every bit as strong an opponent of the U.S. as Iranian Supreme Leader Khomeini (1979-1989) and Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei (1989-present), had become President of Venezuela (1999-2013).

But did President George W. Bush answer the repeated calls from the Venezuelan opposition to launch a military campaign against Hugo Chavez when his Presidency was “hanging by a thread” 2002-2004???

No!!!

Bush obviously wanted to keep Venezuelan oil flowing rather than engage in a military operation which might halt the oil flow!!!

So that’s a long-winded way of providing the “shrewd guess” in answer to your question = that Secretary of State General Haig and former Ambassador and CIA Director, Vice President George H.W. Bush, would have been horrified at the prospect that two of the world’s three largest oil exporters would go to war with each other as a result of which both oil flows might be cut off!!!


*****
And do you believe the U.S. has exhibited a constant hostility against Iran since its 1979 revolution?
*****

Digressing momentarily, it is true that the Soviet Union constantly tried to foment hatred of the U.S. in the Middle East during the Cold War that ended in 1989.

And that following Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran (1980-1988), Iran stepped into the role vacated in 1989 by the implosion of the Soviet Union by trying to foment hatred of the U.S. throughout the Middle East.

So although my shrewd guess is that the U.S. was aghast at Saddam Hussein’s 1980-1988 war with Iran, the overriding U.S. policy in the Middle East then and ever since has been to keep the oil flowing.

And yes, since the Iranian policy has been to stir up trouble all over the Middle East since the end of its war with Saddam Hussein in 1988, I personally do not find it surprising that the U.S. would try to contain such trouble in order to keep the oil flowing.


*****
And since during the 9.5 years of existence of Reading Liberally, you have repeatedly called attention to the implications of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, do you feel hostile toward Iran?
*****

As we have studied many times during our 9.5-year existence, Iran’s insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons has forced Egypt, Turkey and The Gulf State Six (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman) to EACH ANNOUNCE THAT IT WILL ACQUIRE NUKES AS SOON AS IRAN GOES NUCLEAR.

And that the incessant threats to annihilate various countries issued by Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei indicate that he will probably start a nuclear war in no time flat.

And that since virtually all of the world’s agricultural fertilizers come from petrochemicals and since 50% of the world’s oil & gas comes from the Persian Gulf or downwind from the P.G., 50% of the world’s 7 billion population will probably become unsustainable overnight.

Does all of this make me feel hostile toward Ayatollah Khamenei???

I certainly wish that he seemed as benign as the leaders of the world’s other nuclear powers.

[And the leaders of the several dozen world powers that could go nuclear overnight if they were not restrained by the horror of nuclear proliferation.]

And I certainly wish that Ayatollah Khamenei had not “poisoned the well” for so many other Iranian politicians.

After all, as a practical matter, Ayatollah Khamenei controls all political life in Iran.

Which means that even the leader of Iran’s Green Revolution, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, had to proclaim during the 2009 presidential election, that he was in favor of the Iranian nuclear program.

And presumably Mir-Hossein Mousavi also could not have opposed any of Ayatollah Khamenei’s trouble-causing projects around the Middle East.

But Mir-Hossein Mousavi is not important except insofar as his experience provides an inkling of the character of who will succeed Ayatollah Khamenei in 10-15 years, which is when the Obama Administration is fond of claiming Iran will become a civilized nation.

First, the so-called moderate Iranian politicians may be every bit the international threat that Ayatollah Khamenei is.

But second, Ayatollah Khamenei’s suppression of Mousavi and his pending purge of the 2009 troublemakers from the ranks of candidates for the next Assembly of (Islamic) Experts should lead to the conclusion that Ayatollah Khamenei’s demise in 10-15 years will occur when only Khamenei clones are left.

And I fear that it would be too much to hope that the Khamenei clone who becomes his successor as Supreme Leader for life would turn out to be the pleasant surprise that Mikhail Gorbachev was!!!

So to your question.

Which was whether I am “hostile.”

I have tried to provide a thorough description of my viewpoint.

So I suppose the answer to your question depends on the definition of “hostile.”

If I had been asked to provide an adjective, it would have been “distraught”!!!

Your friend,

John K.

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments - Why Foreign-Government Corruption Threatens Global Security – May 13”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest