Of Shahs and Ayatollahs

Showdown at U.N.? Iran Seems Calm

Elaine Sciolino in the NYTimes: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and the country's ultimate authority, who once stood before the United Nations and branded it "a paper factory for issuing worthless and ineffective orders," has also endorsed the strategy. In remarks to leading clerics on Thursday, he vowed to "resist any pressure and threat," adding, "If Iran quits now, the case will not be over."

Iran has never had much use for the Security Council.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, the Council at first did not even call for a cease-fire or the withdrawal of the Iraqi troops to the border.

When Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers later in the decade — the first verified use of chemical weapons since World War I — the Council refused to impose sanctions.

Iran had only itself to blame, the Council seemed to say. The country was seen as a renegade state that could not be trusted. It violated international law when it seized the American Embassy in 1979 and held diplomats hostage. It continued the war against Iraq for years after Mr. Hussein brought his soldiers home.

This article is ridiculous. For starters it fails to mention the U.S. supplied Iraq with the chemical weapons and also provided it with targeting data and satellite photos.

Further, how did Iran have itself to blame for being invaded by Iraq? Hussein was trying to take advantage of a change of government in Iran at the time--you think this bloodthirsty dictator would've acted differently if Iran hadn't taken American hostages in 1979?

And the hostage crisis didn't occur in a vacuum. The U.S. installed the dictator/shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi into power in Iran in 1941, ousting his father because they thought he'd be more pliable. (And he was, basically anyone who helps another country overthrow his own father is gonna be pretty dependent on that outside power cause he sure won't be able to count on those who know him best).

Then, when the populist prime minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh took steps to nationalize Iran's oil industry, the U.S. overthrew him and placed absolute power in the Shah's hands. What followed was a generation of torture, murder, corruption and national humiliation as the Shah enriched himself and his cronies while kowtowing to his American masters.

This is a man who spent $300 million on one party--$1.5 billion in today's dollars!--while millions of peasants were starving. The United Nations, of course, looked the other way.

And we wonder why Iranians see the UN as toothless.

The ironic thing about all of this, of course, is if the U.S. had its government overthrown by a foreign power that then installed a medievally-repressive regime, and after regaining our independece we were then promptly invaded by a country supported by that foreign power, we'd probably be pretty hostile toward that foreign power.

Why would we assume other countries have any less pride or sense? So let's not pretend the current state of U.S.-American relations is the result of crazy ayatollahs thumbing their noses at international norms.

They would never have had a chance to be in power were it not for us.

Public domain photo of Shah's coronation via Wikipedia.