Crash 79

 by Ardavan Bahrami  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Those fanatics that the West campaigned to free from Iran’s Savak prisons in the late 70’s – in the name of human rights – eventually came to occupy positions in the newly established republic in Iran, and their ideological descendants orchestrate today’s international mayhem.

. . . Their conclusions were unanimous: That madman, the Shah of Iran, had inexplicably used cobalt as the contamination agent in the six nuclear bombs which had exploded in the Middle East. Cobalt has one of the longest half-lives of any substance known to man. The oil fields of Saudi Arabia, of Kuwait, of Iran, would remain totally inaccessible for at least twenty-five years. The Arabs were through as a world power – and as a threat to Israel. Of course, the Western industrial powers were through too . . . For the world was now forced to live with a bank system that lay in ruins, with monetary chaos, and with the prospect of having to survive on half its former oil reserves. The lights, everywhere, gradually began to flicker and fade.

The Crash of ’79 was complete.

Paul E. Erdman’s colossal #1 bestseller novel was published in 1976 while the recent fuel crisis was very fresh in Western memories. It was an exciting novel, translating complex world monetary and economic issues into simple language for every reader to understand. Using real life personalities, as well as current affairs of the time, it made its message convincing and even made plausible the false portrayal of the Shah of Iran depicted by Western propaganda machinery during the 1970’s.

Nevertheless this calamitous prophecy written three decades ago has never been more pertinent than today.

The Middle East has been on news headlines for at least the past thirty years. Our region is the only part of the blue planet where almost every nation has economic interests. Thus, conflicts between international interests and regional ambitions have not always been compatible. Nevertheless, today more than ever before, this region is playing a pivotal role in shaping the future of our world. No matter which direction it takes — deeper into Islamic fanaticism or towards secularism and therefore, democratic values – its tremors will encompass a radius stretched from the South China Sea to the Atlantic shores.  Naturally, such ‘devastation’ or ‘progress’ will have a direct impact on the rest of the world for decades or generations to come.

Various American governments have attempted to tackle the issues in the Middle East by enforcing prescriptions that so far have borne no results.

Under the banner of “Human Rights – For All,” US Democrats in the late ‘70s took office and embarked on this crusade. They wanted this fundamental principle brought to all nations that they believed did not enjoy the rights of man. In reality, however, Iran’s Imperial government seemed to be the only victim of their ‘benevolent’ campaign.

The consequences of Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy has since spread like a plague around the globe. The American foreign policy goal of establishing human rights in Iran resulted only in freedom of speech for the Ayatollah Khomeini and his gang; up until then, our government had limited this freedom, preventing the world from facing a more dangerous fanaticism than that of the Nazis.

Jimmy Carter’s international campaign, just a few years prior to the collapse of communism, helped give birth to a new world threat, born out of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, which has since grown to threaten many free nations. This dilemma, if not dealt with intelligently and soon, will become a domestic issue for most European countries with large Muslim populations.

Today the West is struggling to secure any sort of peace and stability in the Middle East. Those old enough, do remember the region back in the 70’s, when exactly such characteristics – with few exceptions and/or incidents – were applicable to the region. However, today the West appears incapable of guaranteeing the security of their own citizens in their own cities.

Many have begun to question the sincerity of the West in facilitating the growth of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. After all, wars and post-war reconstructions have always been a very lucrative business, offering employment in the Western world and increasing production in all walks of life. So if that proves to be correct, then where better to push for such continuous reconstruction then the only region – the Middle East – that can actually afford all the West can offer, in good old hard cash!

Despite what we have witnessed since the advent of religious fanaticism: the international assassinations and terrorism; analysts, journalists and the so-called experts and scholars, seem to be only scratching the surface. While the concerned politicians, activists and those who care are looking for reasons and solutions, no one seems to realize or is brave enough to draw a link between the new enemy and its ideological mother – the international religious fundamentalist terrorism – born out of the Islamic revolution in Iran.

It is worth mentioning here, that those the West campaigned to free from Iran’s Savak prisons in the late 70’s – in the name of human rights – eventually occupied positions in the newly established republic in Iran. The very individuals who orchestrate today’s international mayhem – where the entire Western civilization tries or perhaps pretends to eradicate – are the very ones that 1970’s Iran had effectively muzzled.  Their triumph in Iran, however, and the establishment of their Islamist-Nazi regime, financed by Iran’s petro-dollars, eventually guaranteed the 9-11's we have witnessed in the past 28 years around the globe.

Decades later, US Republicans picked up a new banner: this time, “Democracy – For All” was the new prescription for the people of that region. Whether this was based on the successes of their earlier efforts or if we believe optimistically, to correct their earlier humongous miscalculation; so far they have achieved nothing except to push the region and the world into deeper and darker crises.

No one in the West or among the people of the Middle East has ever objected to the essence of the Americans' slogans, i.e.; the US foreign policy. The objection among the people of our region has always been in the implementation methods employed by the Americans.

The US always seems to believe their prescription should be shoved down every nation’s throat – without an accurate diagnosis – and it should cure. The US has failed time and again but seems never to learn from its mistakes; nor does it ever take a lesson from history.

I cannot help to question – having failed to spread human rights in the Middle East back in 1979, not to mention their ‘ally’ and ‘friend’ Saudi Arabia, which has never been in the spotlight of such a campaign – how successful or honest can US intentions be in bringing about multi-party systems to our region?

In certain circles – back in the late 70’s – there was a belief that creating a ‘Green Belt’ – a chain of Islamic governments – would lessen the burden of responsibility for the US and, therefore, the prevention of Communist expansion could be dealt by regional players themselves.  But there is also a more sinister opinion which holds that the world’s economy is always in need of enemies; hence, the new bipolarity: Islam vs. Christianity is the way to replace that of the Cold War.

Carter’s foreign policy fiasco not only failed to bring human rights to any part of the world; his efforts laid the foundation for what the West is fighting in the streets of not only Middle Eastern cities, but in New York, Madrid and London. Carter presented the future generation a phenomena that if ignored would end up costing Americans and Europeans far more than imaginable.

Let’s have a flashback! Back in the heyday of the 1970s, the Imperial Iranian government’s foreign policy was formed with the assumption that to guarantee peace and stability in the region, mutual dedication and collaboration among key regional players was essential. Mr. Carter himself applauded His Imperial Majesty in his famous New Year speech at Niavaran Palace, congratulated him for his achievements and calling Iran an island of stability. This took place in an era where economic and social developments in the region, and particularly for Iranians, had broken historical records. It was to this end that Pahlavi Iran played a pivotal role: Iran and Iraq had signed the Algiers Accord in March of 1975, ending border disputes and hostilities through delicate diplomacy. Iran assisted the Sultanate of Oman – at their request – by taking military actions in that country in order to avoid a communist takeover, which would have had undesirable consequences for Western industry, as well as our region, but especially for Iran’s economic projects. Iran’s Imperial government’s engagement with Egypt and Israel too, eventually resulted in the Camp David peace accord – promising a better future for them as well as for the Palestinians, despite the fact that today it is Jimmy Carter who has taken most of the credit.

However, I find it somewhat ironic that those who dedicated their lives to secure what today the West claims to be aiming for, i.e.; peace and stability in the Middle East, were neither supported nor protected, but instead eliminated by the religious fanaticism that since 1979 has crept into the foundations of every religion and society. These men: the late Shah of Iran, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Robin of Israel, fought successfully against dogma and as a result had brought peace and progress to their nations.

In more recent years, the war against Saddam Hussein led by America has brought further instability to a region that since the establishment of the Islamic Republic has been nothing but a cauldron of atrocities, destructions and catastrophes.

Americans marched into Iraq carrying their new banner: ‘Democracy.’  I have written before that democracy – especially in countries where religion still plays a pivotal role — cannot be safeguarded if it is not coupled with secularism. Democracy’s survival depends on unity, sovereignty and stability; however, these novelties are found in direct proportion to the existence of a strong secularist establishment supporting and reinforcing a true secularist identity of that nation – above races and/or religions which may be building the mosaic of that country.

It is hard to understand why politicians and experts on the Middle East – who draft foreign policy, advise or implement their theories – never express or emphasize the need for secularism in the region.  The result of such short-sightedness – whether intentional or not – is what we witness today in Iraq.  Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis are expected to create a unified, democratic and/or a federal Iraq without any attempt to promote secularism.  If the US or the West aimed to achieve democracy in that country, shouldn't Iraqis be empowered to develop democratic institutions by supporting and encouraging that society to move away from fanaticism and to bring in secular leaders?

Of course such an idea may not have flourished, as long as the roots of the ‘new world enemy,’ i.e. the Islamic regime, remains in power next door.

In Western democracies, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews, black and white, speaking various languages, live in harmony; just like Iranian society used to be before the Islamic revolution.  However, such differences are not highlighted or given importance in European countries. Why then, is such knowledge not applied when the West speaks of promoting their prescription for democracy to our region?

Reza Pahlavi, heir to the Iranian throne, is one of the few politicians who has voiced his concern and belief that secularism is the key to establishing any form of democracy. Other than him, I do not recall anyone else even mentioning this fundamental principle. Those who seek alternatives to the current situation in the Middle East should support this new voice.

They say that history repeats itself, and I hope this is the case for our region today. The world today lacks visionary leaders. We need leaders in the Middle East who are supported by humanists and those who believe that the advancement of the human race and society is only possible through science and technology. Such individuals should be supported by all free men and women who cannot only give rebirth to but also expand the true secularism that Ataturk laid the foundation for in Turkey.

Reza Pahlavi – whom I’d prefer to address as Reza Shah II — has this ability to stand out, make one last move in this dangerous world chess of dogma vs. reason, to either win and take over or to lose and retire.

No one from the US government or in Europe is willing or even capable of delivering the true and lasting prescription for establishment of a true secular, democratic and in some cases federal system in the Middle East. But there are influential individuals and bodies among American and European societies that are keen on and capable of supporting and advancing such ideas.

What Iran needs today is a fresh start. We need someone who can make the world stop and listen. To present world leaders and of course industrialists a long-lasting solution for peace and security in the Middle East where everyone is kept content! Such ideological implementation would encourage existing democratic institutions in countries such as Turkey, Israel and India, and help similar voices throughout the Islamic world to rise above dogma and bring about an era of enlightenment to our region based on mutual understanding and respect.

Yes, it is possible for you, Your Majesty, to take advantage of our dire situation today and be a new Reza Shah the Great or even a new Ataturk. The world surely has changed since their days, but human desire for betterment is as strong today as it was in the Iran and Turkey of the 1920.

Today is the time to act; to change tactics and approach. Tomorrow there could be no Iran, so what do we have to lose?

The decision is solely yours, Your Majesty. History shows that one final push needs to be made, in the right direction. The question remains, however, whether you can be an Ataturk!

Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Terrorism, War on Terror

Read more articles by Ardavan Bahrami