THE UNITED STATES OVERTHROWS A PROGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT IN IRAN FOR OIL on August 19, 1953

Harry Targ

Code Pink

The history of U.S./Iranian relations has been long and painful. Before the dramatic United States involvement in that country, Iran’s vital oil resource had been under control of the weakening British empire. In 1901 the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now British Petroleum) consolidated control of much of the production, refining, and export of Iranian oil. Local oligarchs received only 16 percent of the oil revenue from the global sale of the oil.

After World War II, with a young monarch Mohammad Reza Shah serving as the Iranian ruler and Iranian masses living in poverty, Iranian nationalists mobilized to seize control of their valuable resource. Upper class nationalist Mohammed Mosaddegh became Prime Minister and asserted the power of the parliament over the monarchy. The parliament voted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

The British government enlisted the United States in 1953 to overthrow the Mossadegh regime using covert operations directed by the CIA. After Mossadegh was imprisoned and the Shah given full power to impose his will on an angry population, a new oil consortium agreement was established in 1954 which allowed five U.S. oil companies to gain a 40 percent share of Iranian oil. Anglo-Iranian would retain another 40 percent, and the rest would be given to rich Iranians.

Over the years, the Shah’s regime became the bulwark of US power in the increasingly vital Persian Gulf region. In the Nixon period, Iran was defined as a key “gendarme” state, which would serve as a surrogate western police power to oversee the region. Presumably Iran would protect the flow of Gulf oil to the United States, Europe, and Japan. By the 1970s, the Shah’s military was the fifth largest in the world.

To the great surprise of left critics of the Shah’s dictatorship, the CIA, and the Carter administration, the Shah’s regime began to crumble in the summer of 1978 as large strikes were organized by oil workers against the regime. In January, 1979, massive street protests led by the religious community doomed the regime. As Iranian soldiers refused to fire upon street demonstrators, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, urged the president to send troops to Iran to save the U.S. regional policeman, the Shah, from overthrow. That proposal was rejected by Carter.

After jockeying for power in the post-revolutionary period, religious leaders consolidated their power over the political system. To add embarrassment to loss of economic and geopolitical control over the vital Persian Gulf region, Iranian students took 52 U.S. diplomats and military attaches hostage and held them for 444 days. In 1980 Carter authorized a military rescue effort that failed. The bungled military operation further damaged the image of infallibility that American foreign policy elites, and the public, held about the nation’s power and destiny.

In the 1980s, to challenge Iran’s potential for becoming the hegemonic power in the Gulf, the Reagan administration sided with Iraq in the brutal war between it and Iran. In 1988, shortly before the end of the Iraq/Iran war U.S. planes shot down a civilian Iranian airliner killing 290 people aboard.

Subsequent to the ignoble history of U.S. support for the Shah’s dictatorship, militarization, the overthrow of Mosaddegh, the embarrassment of the hostage taking, funding Iraq in the brutal Gulf war of the 1980s, the United States has maintained hostility to Iran despite occasional signals from the latter of a desire to establish better relations and a short-lived nuclear treaty. U.S. policy has included an economic embargo, efforts to create region-wide opposition to the regime, expressions of support for a large and justifiable internal movement for democracy and secularization in the country, and encouragement for growing Israeli threats against Iran which recently led to Israel’s bombing of Iran.

Along with interventions in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia the US coup in Iran in August 19, 1953 epitomized United States interventionist foreign policy since the end of World War II.

COMEDIANS: THE NEW REVOLUTIONARIES

 Harry Targ

Reddit

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!". ^{Karl Marx}

“Comedians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your jokes.” Harry Targ

 

(Richard Pryor on racism and capitalism:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TCFfmecFYpw)

The twenty-first century is strange. Most of the modest social benefits provided by many governments are being reversed. Contrary to expectations in a “post-Cold War” world, violence has increased and competition between Cold War adversaries continues. And to quote from Vijay Prashad, we are living in an “age of cruelty.” We are helpless observers as a holocaust is being perpetrated on the people in Gaza. And while a police state is rounding up “illegals,” convicted felons are being pardoned, (and some elected or appointed to office), masses of people are hitting the streets to protest virtually all these egregious immoralities perpetrated by ruling classes and political elites. And it has gotten to the point with these horrific developments that we must look to comedians to save us.

And before we look askance at a defense of comedians, we should recognize that they historically have stimulated us to think about the human condition. Paradoxically profit and criticism have over the years conflicted. In the post World War Two period a panoply of comedians have surfaced who generated popularity and profit, and at the same time challenged the evils of capitalism, war-making, class antagonisms, racism, and patriarchy.

For those of us growing up in the fifties Tom Lehrer was cheerfully accessible while communicating ideas about atomic war, hate, and militarism. And while Lenny Bruce was too acerbic for some he spawned subsequent generations of very radical comedic talents including George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and Lily Tomlin. And then radical/political humor became mainstreamed on television including Saturday Night Live, the Daily Show and the John Oliver program. Television series such as MASH critiqued war, Other programs, some funny and some serious, analyzed commercialism, greed, ruling classes, and racism.

So now in a period where democratic discourse is more threatened than ever, even more than the McCarthy era of the 1950s, fascist sectors of the ruling class, after attacking the universities, the media, protesters, and “foreigners,” are targeting the comedians, the last refuge of deep criticism of the US political economy. 

As we rise to defend academic freedom in the universities, vibrant curricula in K- twelve educational institutions, the right to protest (and vote) and independent media, we cannot forget the comedians. Historically, they have communicated radical ideas to larger sections of the population than many others who have resisted monopoly capitalism and war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIES AND FOREIGN POLICY: AN OLD STORY: Lest we forget

 

Harry Targ

We live in a World of Cognitive Warfare

 A 2021 document prepared by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)  suggested that “in cognitive warfare, the human mind becomes the battlefield. The aim is to change not only what people think, but how they think and act. Waged successfully, it shapes and influences individual and group beliefs and behaviors to favor an aggressor's tactical or strategic objectives.”

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2021/05/20/countering-cognitive-warfare-awareness-and-resilience/index.html)

This NATO document, of course, is addressing the world of international relations but the concept of “cognitive warfare” seems to parallel efforts “to change not only what people think, but how they think and act.” This project animates the efforts of media conglomerates-print, electronic, social media platforms. Changing how people think and act has its historic roots in campaigns to convince citizens to support wars, consume cigarettes, forget climate disasters, and to find flaws in populations because of class, race, gender, sexual preference, and/or religion. The processes of “branding” are similar in all realms of human experience.

Perhaps challenging the process of “branding” should be on the agenda for all those who seek a more humane society. Break up “branding machines.” Democratize the ability to describe and express experiences. And, in the educational sphere, teach students to analyze brands and to evaluate their relative accuracy.