Iran Paul

Perhaps we’ll see a rematch between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul over US foreign policy on Wednesday.

Before you hear Paul trash his country again for the origins of the conflict between the United States and Iran – it’s time for another Ever Red State Network History Lesson.

Paul is correct when he states that the Islamic Revolution of 1979 had much to do with radical Muslim hatred of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. It is true that the Shah was installed as Iran’s leader in 1953 by in a CIA-backed coup of the Mohammad Mosaddegh government.

But the assumption Paul makes when he originates the conflict at that moment of history obscures the real culprit behind this 58-year tale of tension. Not surprisingly, if the year was 1953 and the United States was on one side of the conflict, you can guess who was on the opposite side, operating by proxy.

Iran’s turbulent times in the early 1950s were the product of a tactic the West has been loath to comprehend, much less identify. But it can be found in the strategies of community organizers and leftist rabble rousers: find people who already have a degree of anger or hostility toward your enemy and make false, expedient allegiances with them.

This is the big secret of World War II that the American left would just as soon you did not understand: as awful as Adolf Hitler was, Joseph Stalin was way out in front of Berlin, Washington and London, playing the one against the other two and hoping to destroy all three in the process.

Anyway, this is about Iran. (Although if you research the name “Iran” you’ll find a curious coincidence with Nazi Germany: it means “Land of the Aryans,” and you’ll never guess the decade in which they changed it from “Persia” to “Iran”!)

The clues are often dressed up by the worldwide liberal media, but Ron Paul’s glib mudslinging at the US as imperialist meddlers is the first thing that should make your radar go up. Anyone who casually slanders America in the same way Osama bin Laden and Noam Chomsky do, while claiming to be a conservative libertarian and running for the presidency, is immediately suspicious.

The second step in detecting the truth about Iran is to remember that American history is written by its losers, the leftists who dominate academia, the press and the record-keeping bureaucracies around the world.

Take this piece, for example, written by Renato Redentor Constantino. You can tell by the way he describes what was taking place in Iran in 1952-53 that something went very wrong:

“The Iranian giant’s (Mosaddegh’s) commitment to social refoooorm was unrivaled in his country’s history, while his towering presence in the international arena as a voice of poooooor countries presaged the era of giants such as Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Indonesia’s Sukarno and the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba.”

“During Mossadegh’s time, Iranian peasants were freed from forced laaaaabor in their landlords’ estates, factory owners were ordered to pay beeeenefits to sick and injured workers, and unemployment compensaaaaation was established. The giant caused 20% of the money landlords received in rent to be placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as pest control, rural housing and public baths.”

“The giant supported women’s riiiiights and defended religious freeeeeedom and allowed courts and universities to function freely. In addition, the colossus was known even by his enemies as scrupulously hooooonest and impervious to the corruption that pervaded Iranian politics.”

You can tell where Iran was headed when Great Britain appealed to the newly-elected Dwight Eisenhower for a change of policy from the weak, diplomatic one pursued by Harry Truman. They were headed in the same direction as Argentina, China, North Korea and Guatemala.

But for the sake of argument, you assume that Argentina, China, North Korea, Guatemala and Iran – and then Paraguay, Cuba, Chile, Uruguay, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, and on, and on, and on … all of these countries wanted “democracy, women’s rights, peasants freed from forced labor, pest control, rural housing, public baths, unemployment benefits” and so forth.

Just like you now want them from President Hussein, right?

You know, or at least you ought to know, just from reading that article by an admitted Greenpeace environmental activist, that the people of these nations were swirling the same bottomless pit of Marxism you now swirl.

But you say, “Well, that doesn’t justify us meddling in Iran’s affairs.”

Au contraire, dear reader. It most certainly does, just as intervening with Saddam Hussein in 1990 to protect the world’s most petroleum-rich nation from being overrun did. The entire Western World is threatened every time Muslim and/or communist radicals attempt to seize control of the petroleum industry of the Middle East.

And Mohammad Mosaddegh most certainly did nationalize the British-controlled Iranian oil industry, among all the other developments he made that attracted backing from Moscow.

What’s that you say? You didn’t know that Mosaddegh was a leftist? Hell, you’re probably still wondering who Mosaddegh was! That’s exactly how the left would like you to think, because if you knew who he was, you wouldn’t buy the narrative that the Iranian Revolution is actually our fault.

Ron Paul didn’t tell you, either. He knows that most of us can’t be bothered to look into this, and so he uses it as a populist demagogue technique. He knows that he simply has to say it, and many of us will immediately think, “Well, that is true …”

That bastion of inviolable respect for private property rights, Ron Paul, fails to mention that Mosaddegh was the leader of the Iranian National Front Party, a coalition of – you guessed it – labor unions, communist radicals and Muslim fanatics.

Call me crazy, but those three groups don’t sound like people who believe in respecting private property.

The National Front built a strong power base in the Iranian parliament throughout the 1940s, gradually increasing their opposition to Western ownership and domination of their petroleum business. Mosaddegh’s predecessor, Haj-Ali Razmara, became prime minister in 1951 and pleaded against nationalization.

But the Iranian left made such a decision impossible, as their communist wing, the Tudeh, staged nationwide strikes and riots in “solidaaaaarity” with Iranian oil workers. Like good Wisconsin labor union leaders, the Tudeh and the National Front Party violated Ron Paul’s precious principles of untouchable private property rights by trashing and destroying private property. Eventually, they also confiscated the private property of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Then as now, the left understood in every country where they operated that nature abhors a vacuum. The news from around the world was that socialists and communists were winning everywhere. The Soviet Union was developing atomic weapons. China and North Korea had fallen to the reds. Their only strategic foe, the United States, seemed powerless to do anything about it.

Until Dwight Eisenhower took office.

Ike was no transformational, anti-communist crusader like Ronald Reagan. But he had enough sense to know that Moscow could not be trusted, nor could they be allowed to operate unopposed, nor could their allies and clients in various countries be permitted to pretend no affiliation with the global socialist revolution.

So Ike backed the coup of the Mossadegh government, just as he backed the overthrow of Guatemala’s ragtag band of socialist rebels who threatened private agribusiness interests, and backed the Bautista regime in Cuba against Fidel Castro throughout the 1950s. He established greater ties with Spain’s anti-communist dictator, Francisco Franco, and backed Paraguay’s counterpart, Alfredo Stroessner. After France abandoned Indochina (Vietnam), Ike began supporting the South Vietnamese leadership against its radicalized north.

How would this have turned out if Ron Paul had been President of the United States?

You might argue that at a minimum, all of these budding Soviet clients would have at least made the decision for themselves without US meddling.

But I submit to you, regular victims of leftist election-rigging as you are, that no such sovereign decisions were made in any of these countries. The radicals we overthrew became powerful through their own shenanigans. You ought to be able to discern that by reading again how Mosaddegh is described:

“The colossus was known even by his enemies as scrupulously honest and impervious to the corruption that pervaded Iranian politics.”

 There just aren’t any leftist politicians – or politicians in general, for that matter, but especially left-wing politicians – who measure up to such standards.

And judging by the absence of context to his demagogue arguments about Iran, Ron Paul is about as viable of a candidate for the American presidency as Mohammad Mosaddegh or Barack Obama.

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

September 3, 2011 | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: 1953, 1979, communism, coup, detente, domino, dwight, effect, eisenhower, iran, islam, left-wing, mosaddegh, muslim, paul, radicals, revolution, ron, shah, socialism, soviet, union | Leave a comment