In the past week actions taken by the USA and Iran have fired tensions with long historic issues. Modern media hasn’t touched on many of these issues, so that’s where I come in, let’s delve deeper into these issue and explore what’s exactly going on between America and Iran.
The History Part 1: 1941-1979
We start by focusing on Iran; more specifically on Iran’s leader after World War 2. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi also known as the Shah (emperor) controlled Iran from 1941-1979. He is key to the start of this issue as he was installed by military intervention for the Soviets and the UK during Wold War 2 and was backed by the West during the cold war. The Shah’s link and backing by America was key for the US, as it allowed them further support in the region, access to oil fields, and the friendly relations upheld between Iran and Israel. In 1953 the US and UK cemented their influence in the region after assisting the Shah in a coup against then president Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had earlier been in a power struggle with the Shah and the Anglo-Iranian oil Company. Using UK and US Spy networks Mosaddegh was deposed in a military coup, allowing the Shah to extend his power from a constitutional to absolute monarchy; This created anti-Shah and anti-American sentiments within the Iranian working class. Furthermore, anti-American and anti-Shah tensions would further be heightened in 1977, as President Carter further alienated the Iranian people.
Carter considered Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi an ally and friend. In December 1977, he visited Tehran and toasted the shah for making Iran “an island of stability” and for “the admiration and love which your people give you.” It was a delusional toast, one that demonstrated a total lack of understanding of historical legacies and the political fires raging in Iran.
Peter L Hahn
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/22/how-jimmy-carter-lost-iran/
These events would contribute to the Shah’s downfall, as well as his policy’s of modernisation, friendship with Israel and his hostility towards the growing left population. . After months of civil unrest the Shah departed in January and an interim revolutionary government was set up headed by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, the US secretly backed the return of Ayatollah Khomeini from France in 1979.
The History Part 2: 1979-1980
The Anglo-American intervention in the Shah’s regime had caused resentment from Iranian people, and in October 1979 this was intensified as the US allowed the Shah to enter the United States for medical treatment. This angered the revolutionaries and caused them to fear the return of the Shah to Iran. This heightened the rhetoric of the Ayatollah, who referred to the US as “Great Satan”(This is important to note, as Iran see the war against America as a holy war and as a devout religious nation, they are driven by this hatred as seen in recent days). On November the 4th 1979 Iranians loyal to Khomeini stormed the US embassy in Tehran, capturing the marines and staff; then holding them hostage. This led to a disastrous attempt from the American’s to rescue the hostages, this became an international embarrassment from President Carter’s presidency. Following these events anti-Americanism grew even stronger in Iran, strengthened by American support for Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran turned against him. As we can see tensions have been high between the 2 states since 1979. Tensions were left to simmer until the events of January 3rd 2020 bought this topic back into the eyes of the media.
The Anglo-American intervention in the Shah’s regime had caused resentment from Iranian people, and in October 1979 this was intensified as the US allowed the Shah to enter the United States for medical treatment. This angered the revolutionaries and caused them to fear the return of the Shah to Iran. This heightened the rhetoric of the Ayatollah, who referred to the US as “Great Satan”(This is important to note, as Iran see the war against America as a holy war and as a devout religious nation, they are riven by this hatred as seen in recent days). On November the 4th 1979 Iranians loyal to Khomeini stormed the US embassy in Tehran, capturing the marines and staff; then holding them hostage. This led to a disastrous attempt from the American’s to rescue the hostages, this became an international embarrassment from President Carter’s presidency. Following these events anti-Americanism grew even stronger in Iran, strengthened by American support for Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran turned against him. As we can see tensions have been high between the 2 states since 1979. Tensions were left to simmer until the events of January 3rd 2020 bought this topic back into the eyes of the media.
The Issue Today: The Mainstream View
On January the 3rd an American airstrike targeted and killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani near Baghdad in an unexpected airstrike. The media quickly picked up the story informing the population who at the time were none the wiser to who this man and his actions. One thing however is quite striking about these media posts and videos; their information varied and changed as, to be frank, no one in the media quite knows the truth behind what Soleimani has done.
In his decades-long career at the helm of the Quds Force, the unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards responsible for directing Iran’s unconventional conflicts abroad (think Syria, Yemen and Iraq over the last two decades), General Soleimani was responsible for countless deaths, including those of Iraqis, Americans, Syrians and Iranians to name a few. Soleimani posed a direct and ongoing threat to civilians across the Middle East, as well as to American personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. What is more, he perpetrated his crimes in the manner of a common terrorist; that he has died like one is only fitting.
Giulio Terzi di Sant’Agata
https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/04/was-soleimani-s-killing-justified-yes-a-million-times-yes-view
“We took action last night to stop a war, we did not take action to start a war.” “Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion, contributing to terror plots as far away as New Delhi and London. His reign of terror is over.” “He was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and and personnel but we caught him in the act and terminated him.”
Donald Trump
Pentagon said Gen. Qassem Soleimani was “actively developing” plans to kill American diplomats and service members when he was killed in a U.S. drone strike Friday near the Baghdad airport shortly after arriving in the country.
Ben Fox
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/legal-basis-for-us-killing-of-iran-general-depends-on-threat/2020/01/03/17509eb2-2e4b-11ea-bffe-020c88b3f120_story.html
As a reaction to this we have no evidence that we can either confirm nor deny the truth to the US’ claim that Soleimani was planning an attack. Thus America’s justification of the attack is neither true nor false.
However within this paragraph I will make the case for why he is not a terrorist. The following paragraph is not fact, this is simply my personal opinion. I believe that the word terrorist is quickly becoming overused in today’s society, the word is swiftly losing meaning and is becoming an easy way to label your enemies; however, let’s go back to basics and look into this. He isn’t a terrorist as he is not killing people for the very reason terrorists kill people; political motivations. I will also make this point very clear; This man was not a good, nice or innocent man, he is evil and sadistic. However, let me put one simple point across to you; if I am a general for an army, and I give orders that lead to the death of innocent people, does that make me a terrorist, the answer is no. That action would make me a war criminal. War criminals (if you are unaware) are tried in court (even Nazi’s) therefore this is an improper action and If we label him as the war criminal he is, then blowing him up like that is murder and also a war crime. Say however you feed into the narrative he is a terrorist, well for a start he has ordered the death of around 600 US military personnel in an active war zone (although actual statistics claim the number is a lot less, around 100; there is nothing wrong with that, if your enemy kills you in an armed situations that is not unlawful. If you use the argument following that by saying that there is no war going on against Iran/Iranian proxies, I will leave you with the question, so why are American’s fighting them? Furthermore, the man has used criminal tactics to win battles, that is correct and has killed thousands of civilians directly because of unlawful action, this still does not make him a terrorist. We have to be able to judge that this man is evil without placing labels on him such as this. The problem with this is that the USA has done the same thing in the same war, The USA and Coalition has killed in Syria and Iraq an approximation of 10,000 civilians by both air and ground troops (source: The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) documented a higher number of civilian deaths up to the end of the major combat phase (May 1, 2003). In a 2005 report,[87] using updated information, the IBC reported that 7,299 civilians are documented to have been killed, primarily by U.S. air and ground forces. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Additional_statistics_for_the_Iraq_War) and international Coalition Forces 3,037 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Civilian_deaths)) , so keeping up standard, all those US and Coalition soldiers and personnel that are responsible for these high levels of fatalities are also terrorists, but no, these members of American and other Coalition forces that killed civilians willingly are tried as war criminals, and rightly so. The USA’s labelling of this man as a terrorist can arguably be a sign of pro US propaganda, rather than actual fact.
Now let’s look and some other possible motives behind the recent events and evaluate them, these are in no particular order.
Number 1: The Israel Link
Under the Trump administration the bond between Israel and the US has grown stronger, with Trump taking a pro-Israel stance in contentious foreign affairs (like recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel). This is critical to US thinking in the middle east, as Iran’s anti-Zionist agenda and ties to Hezbollah have posed a threat to Israel’s power in the region. This would have made Soleimani a target for America; as Soleimani was an organiser of Iranian proxies in the Middle East, he posed a threat to Israeli security and so therefore was a target to America.
Israel knew, UK didn’t: Benjamin Netanyahu ‘was warned by the US of its plans to kill Qassem Soleimani ahead of the drone strike’
Jack Newman
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7851877/Benjamin-Netanyahu-warned-plans-kill-Qassem-Soleimani-ahead-drone-strike.html
The fact that Israel knew before Britain suggests the nature of this issue was different to the usual security posed by so called ‘terrorists’. It is entirely possible that America had received intelligence surrounding a threat to Israeli assets in the area.
Number 2: The Saudi Link
A perhaps more obscure link and harder to find evidence for is the link between The US (specifically Trump) and Saudi Arabia. Some of you may not know that the series of proxy conflicts between Saudi Arabia and Iran have been dubbed the ‘new Cold War’ (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/11/2012111311424048459.html). This is important to know as the actions taken in escalating the Yemeni civil war by Iran in 2019 would have caused more worry to the Saudi government. The Saudi link works like so: America aid Saudi in taking down a target that is causing issue for them in the area (as well as causing issue for the US, kind of a 2 birds 1 stone situation). This benefits the US as they secure oil fields in the area in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, thus allow them to keep business with the nations. This benefits Trump as one of his major backers is from Saudi Arabia, and is known to have passed money onto Trump through his hotel businesses. This further helps Trump as successful foreign policy is known to boost approval rating and support, so with the election coming up, the attack is well timed to help Trump win re-election. This link is purely speculation, however a possibility nonetheless.
In summary, these tensions don’t seem to be going away under the current Republican policy in America. There is an argument to suggest however, that if a non-interventionist Democrat was to win in 2020 we could see a change in policy. Iran’s anger towards the US created during the cold war is at boiling point, but can be cooled by actions taken to avoid conflicts. In this situation I personally advocate for a non-interventionist approach in the Middle East, as previous actions have caused more harm than good.
Thank you for reading!
Suggest a new topic at: Billy.duff@outlook.com or on Twitter: @OpinionatorNews
The Opinionator 