About Iran and Aug. 19, 1953

Nothing could be farther from the truth and is another example of how people can stitch together events to make a case for hatred and war.

You want to know the genesis of the hatred of Iran leadership and many of its citizens toward the United States? I don’t need to go into details. It is all on the Internet, if one wishes to expend some energy and deal with the truth, not propaganda.

The hostage crisis had absolutely nothing to do with Islam. It had to do with the fear that the United States would try again to do what it had done on Aug. 19, 1953 — a date burned into Iranian memories and taught to their children — in contravention of international law, illegally forcing a regime change.

I will gamble that only a handful of readers even know what happened on that date that inevitably led to the change of Iran from a Western friendly, growing secular, non-religion-driven republic to a restrictive Islamic Republic. Yes, before that date Iran was the first true democracy in the Middle East, even though the Bush administration tells the story it wished to make Iraq the first democracy. But it wouldn’t surprise me that none of them ever read history.

Iran was a poor agricultural nation, in which its major income came from its oil fields, one of the biggest in the world. Before 1953, the British and Americans operated the fields and paid Iran commissions for their use.

Along came a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, who realized that was a stupid arrangement. He nationalized the oil fields with the intent of collecting all of the profits and paying the British and American oil companies a commission for operating them.

The British, who owned 80 percent of the concessions, went ballistic, but by that time the world had come to realize the British Empire was a tiger without teeth. So, entered the Americans, who owned the rest of the concessions, to combine with the Brits to do something about it. Clearly and ultimately posited through released U.S. documents, with the approval of President Eisenhower, they funded and participated in a "coup d’etat” that ousted Mossaddeq and reinstalled the previously exiled Shah.

This is not a conspiracy speculation. The CIA station head in Iran, Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy, bragged about it on American TV (I actually viewed that program) and books have been published reflecting pride as to how this was accomplished.

There are many arguments that the Shah was a tyrant, who lived in incredible splendor in this poor land, reigned in terror, ignored the constitution and favored the ruling elite. In 1971, he even threw a $100 million party celebrating 2,500 years of his monarchy that brought in nobility and celebrities from around the globe.

My confirmation came directly from a design colleague who, before she and her wealthy and prominent family needed to flee for their lives after the 1979 revolution, was a best friend with his queen Farah and whose brother was best friend to his son. She confirmed all of this was true by showing me letters to prove the relationship.

The irony was that the Ayatollah Khomeieni, whom he had exiled for fear of an attempted domination by the Islamic clergy, took the opportunity of the revolution against him in 1979, to return from Paris and establish an Islamic Republic still in power to this day.

Although Iran still operates as a republic with democratic voting protocols, there are now two powers above the president, an Islamic Council and a Supreme Islamic Leader, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed services, who intervene, mostly, on matters of conformity to religious principles.

So the current president may rant and rave, but he has no real final power and can still be shut up by those above him.

Now, about the "hostage crisis.” With Aug. 19, 1953, still burning in their souls, the students at several Teheran universities observing that the exiled Shah, after wandering from country to country, was about to be permitted by President Carter to enter the United States, presumably for cancer treatment at the Mayo Clinic, became fearful that another anti-Iran plot was being hatched in the United States and elected to take hostages.

Of course, by all of our American standards and values, this was inhumane, incomprehensible and inexcusable, but we had lost our credibility as a nation to the Iranians by our 1953 act of regime change. The hostage thing was originally intended to be only a short-term symbolic act, but it was received with so much support and enthusiasm from the still angry nation, it stretched to 444 days.

An interesting historical fact: It was widely believed that the release of the hostages was negotiated by the Republicans to help Reagan defeat the wishy-washy, perceived incompetent Carter and would end after he was elected. If that was true, that never happened. The hostages would have been released the day after Reagan won the November vote. Actually, because of Carter’s ongoing support and unstinting praise of the deposed Shah, the release coincided with the exact moment that Carter released his power to the new president on Inauguration Day.

The lesson is, had we not supported the Aug. 19, 1953 coup d’etat in the first place, it would be unlikely we would have an American hating Iranian regime today. And, as happens each time in modern history, when we endeavor to intervene in other countries with nation building, and will, likely, happen in Iraq and Afghanistan in the near future, we screw up our credibility and promote the image of a meddling and striving world-dominating nation.

Looked at from an Iranian point of view, when the jackass current president of Iran speaks about bringing the United States into line, by dealing with it only if it shows the proper respect, he is voicing a proud people who trace their history back 2,500 years as Persia, once the most powerful nation in the known world. Because, that is what Iran is, Persia. The modern name of Iran means only Aryan, because that is what they are, they are not Arabs.

I certainly do not support Iran’s development of nuclear power if it includes nuclear weapons but, looked at from their point of view, they are surrounded by five of the seven world’s nuclear powers, Russia, Pakistan, India, China and Israel and most likely, also, a sixth, the United States., with nuclear naval ships in the Persian Gulf.

There are moderate political figures in Iran who are challenging the current president in the June 12 elections and, also, strong resistance in the nation’s universities, as well as many of the growing number of young who are resisting Islamic restrictions and wish to bring the nation into, at least, the 20th century. And the Iranian voters have made unchallenged democratic choices in two recent elections, which have surprised the world.

I am writing this for only one reason, hoping we will not be propagandized into another international conflict a la the Bush administration. A little patience and a lot of mutual respect, which seems to be the modus operandi of our current president, and we may have another friend in the nation of Iran, again.

Keith Kreitman has been a Foster City resident for 22 years. He is retired with degrees in political science and journalism and advanced studies in law. He is the host of "Focus on the Arts” on Peninsula TV, Channel 26. His column appears in the weekend edition.