Kissinger: ‘Iran Is a Natural Ally of the United States’

Cybercast News Service ^ | October 13, 2014 - 11:49 AM | Melanie Hunter

[SunkenCiv]

We don’t need to guess who his fellow travs are on this one.

[SunkenCiv]

“As long as Iran is ruled by the ayatollah and bases itself on its sectarian philosophy, we have to be careful. But basically, as a country, Iran is a natural ally of the United States. It’s the ideological, religious component that makes it an antagonist,” said Kissinger...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"You’re also painting all Iranians as radical Twelvers just because of their perceived animus against the Shah among other things. Was that your intent?"

First you make accusations that I'm defending Mossadegh. When I ask you to show me where I did this, you ignore it and just make more accusations. This next accusation is that I'm painting all Iranians as radical twelvers. Where did I do this???? What I painted the Iranians as is a bunch of people who were oppressed by the Shah's regime and therefore had no love of him when he was overthrown. You make wild accusations against me and then can't back up what you are saying.

Similarly, when I share with you why the Shah was a bastard (my characterication of him) you completely dismiss the mounds of evidence of his totalitarian state. No proof of the allegations against the Shah or SAVAK? Theres mounds of it. There's books of it. Literally!!! My guess is that you never heard of SAVAK before this conversation and are approaching this whole conversation in blissful ignorance. Well, keep drinking the koolaid my friend...

[Olog-hai]

“Mounds of proof” against SAVAK and yet none is produced. Because of the liberal sources? What things look like instead is a man embattled by communists and their Islamist allies, and then finally betrayed by a US president that was supposed to come to his aid (Carter).

Remember, Kissinger’s premise is that the Iranian people are “natural allies” of the US. But to say that a vast majority switched to the Ayatollah versus the Shah indicates a hatred of the USA by said majority instead. Which is it?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Mounds of proof” against SAVAK and yet none is produced. Because of the liberal sources?"

"SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting brokon glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm

From Global Security's website. Would you call them a left wing organization? You can delude yourself with the your own world beliefs. Most of us would rather live in the real world, rather than the one we want it to be. Perhaps if you were Iranian and had a relative that had been tortured with these methods just because they protested against the Shah, you might not be so sad to see him go. The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.

[odds]

Guys, Guys, Guys, am afraid neither the Shah nor Henry Kissinger are relevant in today’s Iran. Though we all have a perspective! The Khomeinist revolution in Iran was a complex and very multi-layered event. So sorry to interject.

[Olog-hai]

GlobalSecurity.org, seriously? Founded by left-winger John E. Pike, formerly of the communistic Federation of American Scientists and the liberal Brookings Institution, never mind CFR member? The man who attacked the CIA any chance he got? Yes, I’d definitely call them a left-wing organization.

BTW, people who say that “the world is not so black and white” usually have an agenda, usually a liberal one.

[Olog-hai]

Complex and multi-layered? Probably not. The commies helped undermine the Shah and get Khomeini in there to hurt the USA and Israel; pretty simple. The global communists continue to aid the Islamic Republic any chance they get, for the same purpose.

[odds]

It was complex and multi-layered. The so-called revolution didn't just happen on the spur of moment. It was in the making for at least 7 year prior.

Yes, commies and islamists were often called by the Shah as "the alliance of reds and blacks". Back then Iran had the USSR (Reds) who were constantly agitating in northern parts of Iran through certain Iranian groups.

Interestingly, while the reds were hated by the Shah and kept mostly in check to stop their agitation, the blacks (islamists), were largely left alone. However, there was much more than that to the so-called revolution. A rapid rise in the middle-class. A rapid propelling of society (which wasn't entirely ready) neither for a "western style democracy" nor for entire social freedoms. And so many other important points.

To the Shah's credit, he was no "bastard" and certainly "no American servant or bastard". He was a true patriot. He along with his father before him, and the Shah's wife, the Empress, tried to bring Iran back from the depths of, basically, social and economic despair well into the mid 20th century as it was at that time. They succeeded in many ways, even if they had to bring some people along kicking & screaming. Education and health as well; all in all no insignificant feat, but most challenging.

I can't go into it any depth right now as I'm pressed for time. But it certainly wasn't simply because of the commies or the Islamists, nor because of human rights or democracy that the revolution happened. So many other factors all coming together at that time to make that disaster happen.

All I can say at this time is that to be fair to what the Shah and his father incredibly achieved in just under 50 years, one must look at where Iran was just before the Shah's father took over - that's just one clue.

It is most unfortunate that Americans constantly think that their form of government or way of life/thinking can be replicated in a few years in another country, which has a completely different culture, social norms, religion, history and so on..

These things are processes (not products one can simply install). Processes that take time, long time, and need to be adapted to suit local needs, and often gradually introduced to be embedded. More later, when I got time.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The Khomeinist revolution in Iran was a complex and very multi-layered event. So sorry to interject."

That's what I was trying to explain to him! I was responding to his statement (originally) that went something like "if the Iranians were so western, how come they didn't defend the Shah when he was overthrown". The short and simple reason is because he ran a totalitarian oppressive regime and under those conditions, anyone else is not such a bad option. Just because he was our allay does not mean he wasn't a dictator. We had a lot of those type of allies during the cold war.

[Olog-hai]

---

It is most unfortunate that Americans constantly think that their form of government or way of life/thinking can be replicated in a few years in another country, which has a completely different culture, social norms, religion, history and so on …

---

Actually, US liberals thought that European-style democracy could be replicated in another country. They have thought that for ages. What US liberals seem to remain ignorant of is the fact that European-style “democracy” is perfect for setting up tyrannies with toy parliaments.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"BTW, people who say that “the world is not so black and white” usually have an agenda, usually a liberal one."

Ya' know, I'm a retired Marine and have fought for this country three times. I don't have to justify my patriotism or love of this country to anyone, especially you. If you don't want to acknowledge that the Shah did some bad as well as good things then you are just ignorant and remind me of the monkey closing off his eyes, ears and eyes. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Yes, he hated communists and fought against them and he was a good cold war partner for us. That doesn't mean he didn't have flaws. As I pointed out earlier, a good communist fighter could be said about a lot of dictators during the cold war. People like Franco and Marcos. That doesn't mean they didn't oppress their own people. When you are one of those oppressed peoples, you are not as interested if your leader is fighting commies. It's not black and white. Go on in your ignorant bliss.

[Olog-hai]

But you throw hard-left-wing sources to prove your arguments. And then when I don’t accept them, stand on your service record. With all due respect, lots of lefties stand on their service records too.

If you’re defining “did some bad” as going after terrorists, then I wonder what you’re on about.

[odds]

The short and simple reason is because he ran a totalitarian oppressive regime and under those conditions, anyone else is not such a bad option. Just because he was our allay does not mean he wasn't a dictator.

You know what my regret is? That he wasn't a true enough dictator by your definition or any other definition. Had he been a real totalitarian dictator, there would've been no Islamist today in Iran, and we would not be having this discussion.

IOW, my regret is that Islamists mostly, and the Communists secondarily were not annihilated in Iran. They should have been, completely. No too bits given what others think.

One more point, an "ally" works two ways. I personally have no time for an ally that pretends to be an ally, then topples you at the earliest chance it gets. Alliance is fleeting, isn't it.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"But you throw hard-left-wing sources to prove your arguments."

From historian Robert Wright:
http://books.google.com/books?id=11M5JXWJ3rMC&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=Savak+torture+robert+wright&source=bl&ots=jVkCBB6B7i&sig=X1L89MWcrWhxkbOj_pDeLSa1rMY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GeM_VOmWDI2wyASnrYLoDg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Savak%20torture%20robert%20wright&f=false

From a firsthand account of Savak:
http://www.ghandchi.com/14-Savak.htm

A column by old time muckracker Jack Anderson:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=19760530&id=V5ofAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z9QEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3835,3334606

From the book Modern Iran: Roots and Results of the Revolution
http://books.google.com/books?id=tTqPdDNgfYoC&printsec=frontcover&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

But I suppose all of these historians, witnesses and columnists are all left wing idealogues bent on their hatred of America. Yeah, right. The fact is, you cannot accept simple facts. I pointed out my service record and I'll point out all of my past posts on here because it means two things. One is that I've done a few things in my life more than sit around in my hometime and listen to talk radio to get my opinions. I've actually experienced America's foreign policy successes and blunders first hand. I've put skin in the game, have you? Two, as for me being a lefty, look up my past posts if you like. You will soon realize that I've been a long time poster on here and am definitely not a lefty. You just throw that out there because you actually have no arguments other than you're a lefty. A rather stupid and sophmoric argument.

[odds]

What US liberals seem to remain ignorant of is the fact that European-style “democracy” is perfect for setting up tyrannies with toy parliaments.

Agreed. When people at large aren't ready for it, it certainly results in that.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Alliance is fleeting, isn't it."

Yes, it is. I suspect that if five or ten years before his fall, the Shah would have submitted to a constitutional monarchy the Pahlavi dynasty would have continued. Of course we could have possibly kept him propped up. There would have been a lot of bloodshed there. The problem is that it wasnt' just the commies and islamists he was killing/torturing. It was the actual people who wanted some form of liberal democracy. A very similar situation to Egypt. There was a group of young students who wanted liberal western style rights and democracy, the movement got hijacked by the Islamist and we got the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamists in Iran were more organized than the students. I suspect that a lot of the true revolutionists were killed of by Khomenie's cronies...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Agreed. When people at large aren't ready for it, it certainly results in that."

This is what has happened in a lot of the revolutionary wave of 2011. It is what is happening in Iraq. That's why we have Isis. Because Al Malaki was more interested in being a Shia and persecuting Sunnis. If Iraqi's are to survive, they can't think of themselves as Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, etc.. They have to think of themselves as Iraqis. Of course, we could have certainly helped this situation by not pulling our troops out and putting pressure on Malaki. The two countries we turned into functioning liberal democracies after WWII (Germany and Japan) had no previous experience with it. We kept troops there, we provided the framework and we pressured the leaders into doing the right things. Look at both of them now. They are our allies and competitors in business only.

[odds]

It was the actual people who wanted some form of liberal democracy.

No. You see, it isn't what 200, or 2000 people think or thought. The population of Iran back then was 35 million in total. The 2000 was absolute max and I highly inflate number for 'intellectuals' wanting democracy or those propped up. It had to do for what the majority were ready for or not. And, in Iran's case back in the late 1970s, most were not ready for a 'liberal democracy'.

The Shah in fact publicly said that he was gradually moving towards a more open democracy, and clearly indicated that his son would run a different government. It had to take time.

Only now the new generations understand how idiotic their parent 'intellectuals' were. Thanks to the mullahs regime.

[odds]

Please, don’t compare Iran with Iraq. That’s so very different ballgame. No comparison. I wouldn’t even know where to start to explain... It’ll be a mess the USA won’t forget in years to come.