[lit-ideas] Re: Iran (1), The Revolutionary Imperative

You've got a "balanced" book on Iran?  Give me the title.  I'm always in the
market for a good book on a subject I'm interested in.  I've read a fair
amount about Iran but plan to read more before whatever is going to happen
happens.

However I'm not interested in the Cold War at the present time.  I have been
in the past, but not at present; so I don't really care what the CIA did in
Iran before Khomeini -- just as I don't care about the KGB sponsoring
terrorism in that region during the Cold War.  I have heard though that
there is a large group of former students that wish they had the Shah back.
Reports I've read and heard indicate that there is a sizeable pro-American
element in Iran and the administration and others have hoped (vainly) that
they would overthrow the Imams. 

You say Ilan Berman is a Neocon.  Did you look him up?  I don't really know
very much about him, just what I read in a few reviews and on the jacket.  I
would be surprised to learn he is a Neocon.  The Neocons have written very
little.  Also, very few would claim the term.  It seems to include a policy
of exporting Liberal-Democracy, but it can be argued that exportation was
not the prime reason for regime change in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Perhaps Bush would have followed the advice of those who thought a benign
dictatorship most appropriate for the region if not for the Neocon idea of
exporting democracy, but in the days since Bush took office I have found
very few books that could be termed Neocon.

I think you are wrong about Khomeini being influenced by Communist tactics.
He and Sayyid Qutb were both influenced by Stalinism.  Qutb said as much in
his writings but Khomeini implied that he originated almost everything on
his own with no help from anyone but Allah. Nevertheless we see Communist
terminology in his writings and Communist tactics being applied through
Hezbollah. 

Lawrence

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:44 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iran (1), The Revolutionary Imperative

From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> No, Berman's book is not about what preceded the Ayatollah.  He documents
> just those things he writes about.

Of course he avoids the past. It's simply too embarassing. But without
explaining that, 
there's no way to understand the present.

> Where did you get the document you refer to?

Certainly not in The Land of the Free, where there is no censorship. Oh, no!
It couldn't 
happen here.

The book was widely available in Europe in the early 80s. It was fairly well
known. I had a 
copy in German. Too bad I don't have it anymore; I'd scan it and post it to
the web.

> I have read that the Shah was the CIA's man.

Not merely the CIA's man. The Shah was installed by the CIA. Why? Because
Iran had a 
democracy. The CIA couldn't tolerate such nonsense, so they overthrew the
democratically 
elected prime minister, installed a playboy twit, and then ran the country
for decades as a 
private property to get the oil. Opponents were hunted down by SAVAK, the
secret police, and 
imprisoned, tortured, or just murdered.

That's why there was an Iranian Revolution: out of sheer hatred and disgust
with the USA.

When Bush says that he wants to create democracies in the Middle East, the
Arabs laugh. They 
know the USA's history with democracies in the Middle East. The USA
destroyed democracies 
and installed brutal dictators.

> The Ayatollah, as Sayyid Qutb, was a big fan of the USSR.  He patterned
his
> Islamic Revolution after the USSR's Marxist Revolution.

The Islamic fundamentalist Ayatollah was a big fan of the atheist Soviets?
Oh, right. And he 
snorted cocaine and danced the hootchie-koochie with Playboy bunnies.

Ayatollah Khomeni rejected both the USA and the USSR because they were both
atheist. He was 
a very devout, highly educated cleric. He installed an Islamic republic,
where Islam is the 
central authority. Tudeh, which were the Marxist in Iran, came under severe
repression after 
the Revolution.

The Ayatollah didn't pattern his revolution on the Soviet model. Hardly.
After the collapse 
of Shah, Baktiar took over the government. Khomeini returned from several
decades of exile. 
Five million (or more) people gathered at the airport for his return. The
government 
collapsed (it had no support) and Khomeini simply declared an Islamic
republic, with himself 
at the head. There was no revolution in the Russian or French sense; no
battle against 
authority, no underground movement, etc. The interim government just
collapsed and fled.

Lawrence, please. Read a balanced, fair history of Iran. You're reading only
books by 
ultra-right NeoCons who are trying to create justifications for more
invasions. They flat 
out ignore history. The stuff you're quoting is either so one-sided as to be
false, or it's 
just plain wrong. Honestly, I'd guess some of these books are disinformation
or propaganda 
by the CIA.

Don't you people remember all of this? We (okay, except Erin) lived through
this. It was in 
all the papers.

The Iranian Revolution is important because like the French and Russian
Revolutions, it's a 
turning point in world history. The Iranians were able to throw out the
colonialists (the 
USA and the UK had controlled Iran). This was the first successful Middle
Eastern change of 
power against the colonialists.

We are watching the second change today: Iraq will become a major Islamic
country. Both the 
Shiite and the Sunni leadership have asked the USA to leave and they want
the timetable. 
Both have said that it's justified to fight against an occupation force.
Iraq doesn't want 
the USA. When the USA leaves (and it's a matter of time), there won't be a
democracy. It'll 
be an Islamic republic. With both Iran and Iraq as Islamic countries, Saudi
Arabia will 
fall. The Saudi royal house is utterly corrupt. With those three major
countries as Islamic 
republics, the rest of the Islamic world will follow along. The implications
for the West 
are very severe: 50-70% of the world's oil is in the Middle East. They will
control the oil.

yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: