Share

US Policies May Have Contributed to Iran Revolution, Study Says

by: Borzou Daragahi  |  The Los Angeles Times

photo
Ford's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the shah of Iran (1975). Kissinger warned Ford not to pressure Iran on oil prices because such pressure could precipitate the rise of a radical regime in Iran. (Photo: AFP)

    A report based on declassified documents suggests that the Nixon and Ford administrations, angry with the shah for his support for raising oil prices, worked to curb his ambitions.

    Beirut - A new report based on previously classified documents suggests that the Nixon and Ford administrations created conditions that helped destabilize Iran in the late 1970s and contributed to the country's Islamic Revolution.

    A trove of transcripts, memos and other correspondence show sharp differences over rising oil prices developing between the Republican administrations and Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi in the mid-1970s, says a report to be published today in the fall issue of Middle East Journal, an academic journal published by the Washington-based Middle East Institute, a think tank.

    The report, after two years of research by scholar Andrew Scott Cooper, zeros in on the role of White House policymakers -- including Donald H. Rumsfeld, then a top aide to President Ford -- hoping to roll back oil prices and curb the shah's ambitions, despite warnings by then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that such a move might precipitate the rise of a "radical regime" in Iran.

    "The shah is a tough, mean guy. But he is our real friend," Kissinger warned Ford, who was considering options to press the monarch into lowering oil prices, in an August 1974 conversation cited by the report. "We can't tackle him without breaking him."

    Analysts and historians often contend that President Carter, a Democrat, fumbled Iran, allowing the country to eventually become one of the chief U.S. opponents in the region. But the report suggests that his Republican predecessors not only contributed to the shah's fall but also were inching toward a realignment with Saudi Arabia as the key U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf.

    The examination of pre- revolutionary Iran has special relevance today. Cooper said Iran's economic situation just before the revolution resembled its current state, this time with big-spending President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad banking on high oil prices to sustain his power.

    "Ahmadinejad's fiscal recklessness is eerily reminiscent of the shah's, with Iran's inflation rate running at approximately 30% and Iran's current deficit approximately $12 billion -- not to mention widespread underemployment and unemployment," Cooper said in an e-mail.

    The report, based mostly on documents stored at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library in Ann Arbor, Mich., opens a window on an unruly period more than 30 years ago that precipitated Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which established a template for religiously inspired Muslim movements throughout the Middle East.

    As high oil prices in the early 1970s began strangling the U.S. economy, Washington began to sour on Iran, the documents suggest. After an oil embargo over American support of Israel ended in March 1974, U.S. officials considered the shah the principal culprit in keeping oil prices from falling and wanted him to put on the brakes. At one point, Rumsfeld, who later served as the current President Bush's Defense secretary, warned Iran's chief arms procurement official that Tehran was losing friends in Washington.

    "Don't try to get around me," he reportedly told Gen. Hassan Toufanian, in an encounter described by the Washington Post three decades ago and cited in the report. "Remember, Kissinger and I have to approve all [arms] exports."

    Chief among those advocating pressure on Iran was William Simon, who served as Treasury secretary and energy czar under the Nixon and Ford administrations. He blamed the shah for high oil prices and wanted the U.S. to use weapons sales to Tehran as leverage.

    "He is the ringleader on oil prices, together with Venezuela," Simon told President Nixon in July 1974, referring to the Iranian ruler. "Is it possible to put pressure on the shah?"

    Over the years, Kissinger advocated a friendlier line on Iran and the shah, who had been brought back to power by a U.S.-engineered coup in 1953. The report suggests that Kissinger had special insights into the country's instability. At the time, university campuses in Iran were in turmoil, and guerrillas were attacking U.S. facilities and assassinating key officials. Even in 1974, a CIA analysis sounded the alarm, saying the shah's ambitious buildup of the country was causing economic polarization and cultural clashes that were roiling Iran.

    By late 1976 the shah was in deep financial trouble, facing a huge cash crunch. He wanted the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries oil cartel, or OPEC, to raise oil prices by 25%, a move the U.S. opposed.

    "There is unanimity among my advisors that the world economy health is not good," Ford told Iranian Ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi in December 1976, according to the archives. "Any increase in the price of oil would have a serious impact on the world financial structure."

    But U.S. officials, especially Simon, had been working with Saudi officials behind the shah's back to seek help on oil prices in exchange for political and military support for the Arab kingdom. The Saudis stunned OPEC by announcing at a December summit in Doha, Qatar, that they would boost production to 11.6 million barrels a day from 8.6 million barrels, driving down prices.

    "We should get credit for what happened at OPEC," Kissinger told Ford. "I have said all along the Saudis were the key. . . . Our great diplomacy is what did it."

    But it would prove to be a Pyrrhic victory in terms of one American ally. Iran was cash-strapped, having spent much of its reserves on American weapons and the shah's Great Civilization programs, which spurred inflation by flooding the country with money.

    The shah was broke. Declining oil revenue amid continued inflation forced him to abandon ambitious plans to modernize his country.

    "The collapse of the Doha summit, and the Saudi decision to undercut the price of crude and boost its output to try to flood the market, rushed the Iranian economy to the precipice," Cooper writes in his report.

    The shah's government, shaken by the loss of oil revenue, imposed a harsh austerity budget that threw thousands out of work, collapsed investor confidence and panicked middle-class Iranians. Economic chaos and unemployment quickly spread.

    Within a year of the Doha summit, the first mass demonstrations that grew into revolution broke out on the streets of the Iranian capital.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  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.

What tripe! With a bit of

What tripe! With a bit of sleight-of-hand, the Los Angeles Times ignores the dirty little not-so-secret of Iranian mis-rule and the prominent US role by beginning the clock around 1979, because to turn the clock back to 1953 would certainly cause problems for the corporate press: they wouldn't have a boogie-man to blame, and would have to, instead, point the finger of blame to (who else but) our own policies and the President's CIA. Only willful ignorance and the myth of professional journalism could make such a glossing over of history possible, and only a gullible people, conditioned after years of similar propaganda, would accept such revisionism and still believe that the news and the truth are the same things. To put it plainly, the United States overthrew a democratically elected president, named Mosaddeq, via a coup in 1953, and ushered into power a pro-western (meaning pro-corporate) dictator. The coup was not an isolated event, nor was it unique. The US has for decades, under administrations, both Democratic and Republican, engaging in such crimes, and there is nothing to indicate that the practice has ceased. These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed. Simply because the LA Times refuses to acknowledge it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The LA Times ought to be ashamed of itself, but being the corporate lackeys they are, I am certain that no such shame will sully their pages, just as the truth dare not. "Far from being the terrorists of the world, the Islamic peoples have been its victims, principally the victims of U.S. fundamentalism, whose power, in all its forms-military, strategic, and economic-is the greatest source of terrorism on Earth.... People are neither still nor stupid. They see their independence compromised, their resources and land and the lives of their children taken away, and their accusing fingers increasingly point north: to the great enclaves of plunder and privilege. Inevitably, terror breeds terror and more fanaticism. But how patient the oppressed have been. Their distant voices of rage are now heard; the daily horrors in faraway brutalized places have at last come home." John Pilger

Fr Tothus - points out the

Fr Tothus - points out the truth. Even Bin Ladin is ultimately our creation.

Huzzah! Finally somebody

Huzzah! Finally somebody tells the truth about the beginning of the "troubles" with Iran. Leaving out the fact that we engineered the overthrow of their duly elected President Mosaddeq is like leaving out the evidence that a large, unattended campfire caused the forest fire. Apparently, the LAT has memory loss. Well, they certainly are not alone, as most other news sources never, ever mention Mosaddeq and Iranian history begins with the Shah already in place. I also commend Fr Tothus' rec. of John Pilger's books. This Aussie journalist gets far to little attention. Thank you Fr Tothus!

WE REAP WHAT WE SOW. I'm a

WE REAP WHAT WE SOW. I'm a Christian college student attending a parochial campus. In our intermediate-level class on political histories, unfortunately, we learned that more Republicans than Democrats or Independents like to meddle in the affairs of other nations, by propping up foreign dictators in the name of trying to justify some right-wing ideological belief systems being promoted by "manifest-destiny" chicken-hawks, back in the United States. MANUEL NORIEGA and SADDAM HUSSEIN were the latest tyrants to be backed by "neo-conservative" Republicans like Dick Cheney. LOOK WHERE THAT GOT US.

Perfectly correct, Fr.

Perfectly correct, Fr. Tothus. Why is it that the American media never mention Savak?