Share

I Can See Tehran From My House!

by: Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
President Barack Obama stepped up criticism of Iranian government crackdowns on protesters on Monday in a press conference at the White House. (Photo: Getty)

    Being a total history geek, I confess that there's almost nothing as entertaining to me as a good historic house tour. It's a great way to get a feel for how someone from the past lived his or her life. I realize that this nerdish interest would seem to indicate that conversely, I have no life of my own, but bear with me.

    An hour or two spent at Teddy Roosevelt's Sagamore Hill home on Long Island, or Mark Twain's rambling riverboat of a house in Hartford, Connecticut, or even Chartwell, Winston Churchill's home in the Kentish countryside of England, is an ideal portal into the mind of an historic personage and the times in which they lived.

    A large part of a recent weekend in Chicago was spent visiting Frank Lloyd Wright's home and office in nearby Oak Park, Illinois, and the mansion of a 19th century industrial tycoon whose daughter made miniature dollhouse recreations of homicide scenes, published in a collection titled, "The Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death." You can't make this stuff up.

    Luckily, my girlfriend Pat and my sister Patricia are as nerd-like as I am, so on a beautiful spring Saturday last month, while visiting my sister upstate, we drove over to the home of William Henry Seward in Auburn, New York.

    Seward served as Abraham Lincoln's secretary of state - and Andrew Johnson's, too, that hapless Tennessean who succeeded Lincoln after the assassination and came within a whisker of being convicted in the Senate after impeachment by the House of Representatives.

    On the evening of Lincoln's murder, Seward also was attacked, targeted for death by one of John Wilkes Booth's accomplices. He survived a vicious stabbing and lived for another seven and a half years. On display in the Seward House is a tiny scrap of bloodstained bed sheet from the night of the assault.

    The trappings of the home are evidence of an educated and well-traveled man of erudition, imagination and especially foresight, for it was Secretary of State Seward who negotiated the purchase of Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867.

    He paid $7.2 million for it - almost two cents an acre - and was attacked by politicians, the media and the public for a foolish waste of government money - a "polar bear garden," critics called Alaska - "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Icebox." Of course, now the sound you hear is Seward's ghost laughing all the way to the Federal Reserve.

    This year marks the 50th anniversary of Alaska's statehood, and so Gov. Sarah Palin arrived for a visit to Auburn and the Seward House just a couple of weeks after we were there. Presented with a picture of Seward negotiating the Alaska deal, the Syracuse Post-Standard reported Palin said to the surrounding crowd, "They're looking at a globe and they're pointing to Alaska in this painting, and I'll betcha anything what Seward was pointing out was: 'Lookie there, you can see Russia from Alaska.'"

    More likely, Seward was saying something like, "Now can I go to bed?" The Alaska treaty was quickly negotiated during an all-night session at the State Department when the czar's ambassador, Baron Edward de Stoeckl, interrupted Seward's Friday evening whist game to tell him he suddenly had his government's approval to make a deal. Staffs were hastily assembled and the papers signed by 4 AM on March 30. I was struck by the speed with which Seward pulled this off, especially in contrast with the deliberate pace President Obama has taken with regard to the Iranian elections. But they're really not all that different.

    Consider that when Seward and the Russians pulled their all-nighter it was a time when global communications were slower. It would be a while before news of the treaty reached the Russian capital of St. Petersburg. The transatlantic cable was finally in place - just - but communications back and forth with Russia were slow. In fact, a company had just abandoned a scheme to extend telegraph lines from California to Alaska, then across the Bering Straits into Siberia.

    It would be more than a year before the House of Representatives allowed the check for the purchase to be cut. So, there was plenty of time to mull over the ramifications of the treaty - and Seward, a knowledgeable and cautious diplomat, had been in talks with Russia about Alaska off and on for years.

    President Obama said about Iran at his Tuesday press conference, "We don't know yet how this thing is going to play out. I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not." In comparison to Seward's time, news travels in a nanosecond today. All the more reason to consider even more carefully before making decisions, especially ones that could hurt the very democratic cause you support and which will be manipulated by the Iranian government for its propaganda purposes no matter what.

    At a private fundraiser for the Seward House, The Associated Press reported that Governor Palin had "sharp words" for Obama's national security policy, but it was a week before the Iranian elections and she has since had little or nothing to say about the situation there - as opposed to Republican leaders in Congress and other neocons who have lashed out at the president's caution. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like," said South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham. And Sen. John McCain announced, "He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election, and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights."

    All well and good, but as Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution writes, at Foreign Policy's web site, "The fact is, no matter how much Americans like to think they are the ones shaping events in Iran, it's just not true. The dramatic events in Iran have been wholly internally driven. They are the product of three decades of semi-competitive Iranian elections, a sophisticated population that warily guards its limited rights and freedoms, the tensions of a longstanding elite power struggle, and the ever-important force of unintended consequences - among other factors."

    GOP leaders who question and challenge President Obama's Iranian strategy thus far would well remember their late Republican colleague William Henry Seward's calm prescience in the face of opposition. As an admirer wrote, he was "one of those spirits who sometimes will go ahead of public opinion instead of tamely following its footprints." That's how history is made.

  

»


Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday nights on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

I always agree with Mr.

I always agree with Mr. Winship! However, in this case I disagree! President Obama should have come out immediately in support of the protesters in Iran. They needed our support. The Supreme Leader and the false President elect were going to say whatever they wanted about the US anyway. It didn't make a difference when Obama kept quiet! It certainly didn't keep the rulers from saying and doing what they wanted with the election. However, Obama's coming out early in support would have made a big difference to the Iranian people in the streets! Its not about the US making any difference in the election process or the ruling state for that matter, but about supporting freedom and democracy for the people where ever it is! Remember we used that cover to go into Iraq!!

Funny how Alaska wouldn't

Funny how Alaska wouldn't even be a state save for a big-spending federal government.

Well I didn't see any

Well I didn't see any country coming to our (We The People)defense when G.W.B. stole the election. Why should we butt into there's?

"Amye" seems to forget that

"Amye" seems to forget that when Bush the Elder gave encouragement to the Kurds in Iraq, they ended up with a lot of dead Kurds. I'd say this is a time to keep a low profile, this is an internal problem for Iran and shooting off our mouths will get people (the kind we like) to get shot.

I keep hearing this argument

I keep hearing this argument that the leaders would blame us anyway, That's of course, true. But the people in Iran who are on the fence about joining the movement against Ahmadinajahd might WELL have second thoughts if they thought the US was behind the movement rather than their own clerics. THEY might well hold back if they thought the US was the prime motivator, and it's THEY who we should hope will join the revolt and it is THEY who might well react badly to any perceived intereference by our government.

Obama & Winship are right on

Obama & Winship are right on target. I am especially proud that Obama has not given in to the bellicose demands from the Right. Had he done so he would have only undermined the Iranian demonstrators by giving the government cause to blame the Great Satan for interfering in internal affairs. We are much better off to keep our big mouths shut. Historically, we have interferred in Iranian politics way more than we ever should have: the CIA assassination of Mossedegh (sp?), the only truly democratic elected ruler of Iran, and the placement of the tyrannical Shah and his hated secret police in his place. We should let the Iranian's decide Iran's fate and stay the heck out of it.

'"Suzanne Maloney, a senior

'"Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution writes, at Foreign Policy's web site, "The fact is, no matter how much Americans like to think they are the ones shaping events in Iran, it's just not true. The dramatic events in Iran have been wholly internally driven."' Whenever you see the Brookings Institute stating that the US is NOT shaping events anywhere, you can bet your shrinking dollar that a lot of covert cash went into support for the opposition's demonstrations, just as it did when the CIA and MI6 (on behalf of the oil companies), toppled the legally elected premiere of Iran, Mohamed Mosaddeq, in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah. Iran is a complex and multi-ethnic society; reducing it to "democracy" vs. "totalitarianism" is just so typical of the myopic American mind set. Our American Empire is hell bent on gaining control of the petroleum resources in Iran and nothing is going to stop them. After all, our "way of life" is non-negotiable.

I think that the protestors

I think that the protestors knew that they had our support, at least from WE THE PEOPLE gave it to them. As far as diplomatic rituals between governments, I'm sure they may be as suspicious as we are as to what goes on. Those of you who think President Obama should have giving more support to the protestors', what do you suggest? Should we have flown threatening aircraft over their air space, I don't think we can do that, or should we have starting bombing. President Obama has handled this perfectly, and I sure the h**l hope he continues along those lines.

What good would it have done

What good would it have done for the Obama administration to "come out" in support of the protesters? Remember what happened to the Kurds of Iraq when the first Bush administration urged them to rise against Saddam Hussein? Unless we are prepared to back up our words with action (which would have been disastrous), caution is the best policy. As Obama said, the Iranians have to solve this themselves.

91 million destabilization

91 million destabilization fund. Did I read hear that President Obama is in charge of a government which spends 91 million dollars per year to destabilize Iran's government?

I suggest that people who

I suggest that people who can make silly comments like this -- "All well and good, but as Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution writes, at Foreign Policy's web site, "The fact is, no matter how much Americans like to think they are the ones shaping events in Iran, it's just not true. The dramatic events in Iran have been wholly internally driven." go back and read John Mark's essay "Hot To Spot a Spook." The work of people like Marks, Marchetti, Agee, Stockwell, and others taught the 70s and 80s how to recognize CIA operations. It seems we have forgotten those lessons. I guess Maloney either forgot that Congress appropriated $400 million for covert actions against Iran or she thinks the money was spent doing nothing. Iranians know a CIA operation when they see one and 70% of them voted against the CIA candidate. That should tell us something -- except that as Americans we are so drenched in our own propaganda that we cannot see any longer.