 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May-June 2008, pages 74-75 Waging Peace Takes on Iran: Kinzer and Bennis
WASHINGTON DC’s Busboys and Poets restaurant hosted a March 7 lecture on “The Folly of Attacking Iran” by Stephen Kinzer (whose book All the Shah’s Men is available from the AET Book Club). The following week Phyllis Bennis appeared at Busboys to discuss her new primer, Iran in the Crosshairs: How to Prevent Washington’s Next War. Kinzer, an award-winning foreign correspondent who reported from more than 50 countries, was speaking on behalf of Just Foreign Policy, a group of experts, members of Congress and military analysts traveling across the U.S. in order to articulate sensible foreign policy options toward Iran. (For additional information visit <www.justforeignpolicy.org/iran/index>.) Kinzer’s latest book, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, cites the 1953 coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, led by Kermit Roosevelt, as the first CIA overthrow. According to Kinzer, Mossadegh, like many others to follow, actually supported “American principles” like social justice, democracy, and a government representative of the people. “If the leaders were not democratic,” Kinzer noted, “they would not have been overthrown.” Historically, he added, Washington seems to punish foreign countries seeking nationalist policies that epitomize esteemed “American values”—benefitting their own peoples—because it would be disadvantageous for America. One of the questions often ignored when making the decision to overthrow a nation concerns the long-term effects of the process. “Although operations seem successful at first,” Kinzer noted, “[they] wind up causing tragedy” for the targeted country and U.S. national security alike.
Under Mossadegh, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the country’s oil. At that time, however, Britain was receiving an exorbitant amount of oil from Iran—including 100 percent of the fuel for the British Navy—while Iranians on the whole reaped no economic benefits. The British thus went to Washington for help to place “the shah back on the peacock throne” to prevent the nationalization of Iran’s oil. But, according to Kinzer, the overthrow of Mossadegh “also inspired radical fundamentalism in neighboring countries...[whereas if] we had allowed Iran to develop naturally, we would have had a thriving democracy in the Middle East for 50 years.” Kinzer invited the audience to consider the result of a U.S. invasion of Iran—possibly an explosion of anti-American violence, or an Iranian retaliation against Israel and attacks on U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. In fact, Kinzer warned, “the worst is what we cannot imagine.” Saying he believes that the U.S. and Iran are “not fated to be enemies forever,” and that with unconditional negotiations both can realize their common strategic interests, Kinzer argued that “Iran can help stabilize Iraq—they are our ticket out.” But Iran might not help stabilize Iraq until the U.S. reduces its presence, he added. First, however, the U.S. needs to emerge from what Kinzer described as its “hangover of the 1979 hostage crisis” and overthrow of the Shah. Whereas Kinzer focused on the “bigger picture” of U.S.-led overthrows in relation to Iran, Bennis—whom Busboys owner Andy Shallal introduced as the “princess of primers” While a U.S. attack on Iran would take the form of a “surgical strike against facilities,” Bennis predicted, from an Iranian perspective it would constitute an act of war. Under Article 54 of the United Nations Charter, Bennis stated, a U.S. attack on Iran would be a pre-emptive one, and as such would be illegal. Iran would thus have a right to defend itself under Article 51. This could include targeting all the U.S. troops in Baghdad’s Green Zone, Israel, the Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain, the Strait of Hormuz, and U.S. troops throughout the Middle East, Bennis warned. —Nina Hamedani |
||||||||||
