Is it 1953 all over again?

Fri, 07/17/2009 - 3:16pm

This bit from the Los Angeles Times' account of today's Tehran protests is veeeeeeeeerrrrrry interesting. 

At times the two camps appeared to be shouting directly at each other, exposing the still-festering election rift within Iranian society and the political establishment underneath both at the Friday prayer enclosure on the university campus and on the streets outside.

As Mousavi supporters chanted "Death to the dictator," against Ahmadinejad, his supporters chanted "Death to opponents" of Khamenei.

As hard-liners repeated their signature cries of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," riled-up Mousavi supporters overpowered them with chants of "Death to Russia" and "Death to China," the Islamic Republic's powerful United Nations Security Council protectors.

This little exchange underscores the fact that the United States is not the only great power with a stake in the outcome of what happens in Iran. 

That said, one wonders if Russia and China will respond by doubling down on the current regime -- i.e., aiding and abetting Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards in order to ensure a friendly Iran. 

If this happens, 2009 could be a bizarro-world replay of 1953, when the United States backed a coup in Tehran order to ensure a U.S.-friendly regime.  That move gave the United States 25 years of a friendly Iranian government,  immediately followed by thirty years of a hostile Iranian government. 

Readers, does this analogy hold up? 

Daniel W. Drezner | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

"Current regime"???

by hass on Fri, 07/17/2009 - 4:40pm

This is a conflict between members of the current regime, not between a secular or pro-Western Liberal versus tyrannical dicators. It is only wishful thinking by some in the West that the conflict in Iran amounts to another "color revolution". The people don't oppose the regime, and neither does Mousavi nor Rafsanjani.

Mousavi is a hardline regime insider who was specifically vetted and pre-cleared to run for office. Nevertheless we are supposed to think that his election posed such a threat to the system that the regime resorted to mass election fraud to prevent him from winning? Nonsense. There was no election fraud, and the conflict is merely between two power centers in the same regime.

But, what's with all the

by blue13326 on Fri, 07/17/2009 - 5:43pm

But, what's with all the death-wishing? It'd be odd to hear a crowd of Americans shouting 'Death to Iran', or really a crowd in most countries. There's something very very messed up about a people who constantly chant death to the countries they're told are their enemies, don't you think? Or maybe it's just refreshing honesty, who knows?

Iran is misunderstood

by antiMKO on Sat, 07/18/2009 - 2:29am

So I suppose what they shouted death to potato they really wanted to kill them potatoes right?

People in the west need to stop reading things too literally.

A closer translation would be "down with".

So no, normal people in Iran do not wish death upon anyone. Even their worse enemies.

If they constantly shouted

by blue13326 on Sat, 07/18/2009 - 11:42am

If they constantly shouted death to potatoes I would think they wanted to kill potatoes. How could one think otherwise?

I'd also think they were crazy, which leads to another question: How come people who constantly shout death to potatoes are crazy, and not people who shout death to America or death to the Jews?

This is a sidenote, but one

by Brett on Sat, 07/18/2009 - 1:09am

This is a sidenote, but one thing to keep in mind is that Operation Ajax (the American-British coup attempt) actually failed - the Shah got cold feet and fled to Iraq and then Rome. He came back, though, because Mossadegh (who had been turning increasingly authoritarian, and was being marked by all the major factions in Iran) proceeded to dissolve the Majilis and crush the Tudeh Party, at which point things snowballed.

The myth persists because

A. The biggest American involved, Kermit Roosevelt, was a massive self-promoter who attributed everything to himself in the account he wrote of it, and

B. By the time Roosevelt published his account in 1979, anyone who could have refuted him with first-hand accounts other than the CIA was on the run, or dead, and the CIA destroyed all of their records of the incident aside from one long report that contradicts pretty much everything Roosevelt said.

The comparison is legitimate

by waltereggars on Sat, 07/18/2009 - 11:38am

The comparison is legitimate enough on its face, however it is only half of a working comparison. Even if we assume that the situation in Iran is identical, the parallel only works if we assume that Russia and China have the proper motivation and means to prop up a regime as the US did in 53. Not likely. They will remain reliable UN security member vetoes, but are not likely to put their neck out too far for Ahmadinejad.

Russia must act with restraint to conserve its finances and diplomatic trump cards in to deal with Georgia and other hot spots that seek to break away from the bloc. China has a strict "no strings attached" policy and is predictably timid outside of its borders. This is especially true given the instability of Tibet and Xinjiang. It is in China's best interest to remain distant enough to ensure a consistent oil supply should there be regime change.

The only wild card issue is the possibility that China may see backing Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards as a means of appeasing Muslim extremists vowing payback for the treatment of Uighurs. It is a wild card because Turkey, the most vocal critic on China's crackdown, is straddling the fence with regards to Iran. There is pressure to get Turkey to go along if Isreal chooses to intervene and use the US bunker busting bombs provided by the US to wipe out Iran's nuclear program. However, relations between Turkey and Iran are relatively stable. Since Turkey is leading the charge against China with regards to the Uighurs, China may be waiting to see whether Turkey will support Iran or turn a blind eye to the US plan to let Israel do the dirty work and take out Iran's nuclear enrichment sites.

There seems to be growing evidence that Israel will in fact do this for the US and in return Israel will make concessions in the Gaza strip. That would be at least a short term diplomatic win-win for the US. It would also be a good reason for China not to get too cozy with the current Iranian regime. China does not care who is running a country so long as they get what they want. Africa is a perfect example of this. Even though they might be keen to court favor with the Muslim community, they are not likely to jeopardize future oil deals without more justification. They don't understand religion and are not likely to extend themselves even further into any Muslim affairs given the recent revenge vows a an Al Qeada "affiliate" organization.

In the end, Russia can't afford to get embroiled in Iran and China doesn't have the stomach. Expect their support to remain primarily confined to using their voting power at the UN to impede western actions against Iran.

Russia is too busy. China is too timid.

No

by Zathras on Sat, 07/18/2009 - 3:23pm

The analogy does not hold up.

Iran in 1953 was an overwhelmingly rural country with a government dominated by a very small segment of the population and with politics conducted on a different level in Tehran compared to the rest of the country. Foreign assistance to one faction or another in Iranian politics could be decisive then. It is hard to see how it could be decisive now.

How, exactly, would China in particular "double down" in support of the Khameini-led regime? It has no obvious stake worth the risk of becoming a known factor in Iranian internal politics; the Iranian clerics for their part have no good reason to want to be seen within Iran as clients of the overtly atheist Chinese. For the Russians, less calculating than the Chinese and somewhat more likely to look for ways to spite America and Europe for its own sake, the material incentive to build a reputation as Khamenei's sponsors is not much greater as long as there is any doubt that the factions on top in Iran now will stay there indefinitely.

What the Chinese and Russians have in common is an interest in being on good terms with the winning side in Iran's power struggle. That interest should dictate caution so long as the identity of the winners remains in question.

Wake up to the realities to have us on your side!!!

by one on Sun, 07/19/2009 - 6:03pm

The sounds that are being heared from Tehran echo a completly different reality that is perceived by most analysts in the world in general and the west in particular.
I was in my early 20's when the Iranian revolution against the Shah took place.I,too happened to support his downfall in the hope of witnessing an Iran that we are just about begining to make after a "30 year delay" .As a young man with no patience and experience I had thought the change,that I am now witnessing as well as feeling, will take place immidiately after the revolution but contrary to my hasty beleifs it is hear now with a "3 decades delay" while this time it is definitely here to stay.The Iranian and the Islamic revolution have so far been two words with distant meanings but for the first time in the history of Islam in Iran they are being "conviniently" nationally forged to fight any sort of extremism that are generally being carried out in the name of Islam and Iran and the Iranian nation in particular.
As moslems, the name "Islamic" Republic or just Iran does not bother us as Iranians as long as our system is democratic in true sense.Our system is going through a natural evolution of a true civil society unheared of,at leat, in this part of the world.
Iranians as a people of over 25 centuries of written history
welcomed Islam only after making their own version of it that is Shiiasm,Iran's main religion as well as several neigbouring countries,and are now on the verge of reflecting a loving ,kind and peaceful version of Islam that has been developing and maturing in the post revolutionary Iran.I am very optimistic that, not in a distant future, We Iranians will have no reason to envy your democracies, even at their best,again, this is something of grave importance for the entire world ,moslem world in particular.To be honest We have been delayed for just over a century to acheive our goal of a true democracy but now the time has arrived.Iranians had their first victorios democratic revolution over 100 years ago ,it is now being revitalised.Unlike then this time the difference is the population that is mainly young and highly educated, unwilling to be the subjects of a cleric exserting absolute rule!!and the movement is being led by people who shared my visions of the revolution.
Unlike all the recent news blackouts about the riots in China,Berme...the riots in Iran were well covered by ordinary citizens turning in to journalists to access the outside world and project the realities taking place in New Iran.We are different and expect a different approach.....Please wake up...Thank you..H.A.Bakhtiari

Does Analogy Hold Up?

by AllanGreen on Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:27am

back then we claimed that Tudeh and Coms. were behind a push to nationalise Anglo-Iranian (future BP). The BBC went bonkers with it, road roughshod over its Farsi staff, and spewed daily propaganda onto the land of the Arya.

Were the Commies there after all?

This time, Obama was sitting with his hands in his pockets, while people's heads were bashed in. China was mum, and Russia made the mistake of giving a photo-up to Ahmedi-nejad and nothing more.

Neither China nor Russia did more than say Siemens-Nokia, or Cisco, and in fact, considering that all eyes were turned to Obama - that's where they should stay. Let's not try to see a conspiracy behind everytime we muck up. There is no perpetual need for "rational" actors such as Beijing scheming with Moscow (they have enough of their mundane problems, with electricity and running water).

The eyes should remain on Obama. He did NOTHING for 3 days. While Sarkozy denounced the fake election. IF he has the power to radically alter our public opinion on Israel (read Rothkopf's post), he had the power to turn the nation's interest towards Iran.

Instead we got pigeon poop. What the hell do you expect the Ruskies and Chinks to do (no offense meant, feel free to edit the pejoratives), support Mousavi while we ignore him!?

Ha.