Full Circle ? Gas cartel planned.

[moono]

The Americans certainly didn't but I have my doubts that the British didn't. Oh right, I already said.

 

[ViolentPanda]

yeah but my point was that i didnt think the brits or the CIA wanted the shah overthrown and werent directly involved

The Yanks put Pahlavi in, and at first the Ayatollahs didn't mind. Pahlavi's state crushed the progressive elements of Iranian society and that suited the god-botherers fine.

The problem for Pahlavi was that there was always unrest festering away below the surface, and that meant more and more repression against his own people (including the god-botherers) and that he had to make concessions to his people on the social front in order to stabilise his regime, including listening to plans to either tax or re-nationalise Iranian oil, including holdings and concessions granted to British and American oil companies.

The Yanks have ridden the Islamist tiger in many post-WW2 middle eastern regimes (most notably Egypt and Iraq, but they've interfered elsewhere too) and they attempted to play both Iranian ends against each other. They thought they'd be able to nudge Khomeini towards foreign (for which read "oil") policies more favourable to the US than those offered by Pahlavi. They were wrong.

The above is vastly simplified but, I believe, essentially correct.

 

[disownedspirit]

ok
i agree that khomeni issued statements in support of the shah a long long time ago
but it seems to me that the US tried to get in the islamists good books after the revolution had started. both the british and US secret services were involved in supplying the savak with info and advice on how to torture and oppositionals

as ive said already the person (entezam) responsible for initiating these contacts was given a life sentance for treason,
pressure from below pushing a leader in to conflict with his imperial masters is one thing but to suggest that the US thought the revolution was a good thing!!!

i think that i agree with nino more than vp, it could be argued that the revolution was hijacked by the mullahs . and would the US prefer a religious regeime to a socialist one, of course, but to jump from that to US and UK oil companies ( and by extension govts) wanted the shahs overthrow stretches it abit. i may however be wrong have you got a link?

 

[nino_savatte]

yeah but my point was that i didnt think the brits or the CIA wanted the shah overthrown and werent directly involved

The Brits and the Yanks didn't want the Shah overthrown: he was their boy.

 

[disownedspirit]

The Brits and the Yanks didn't want the Shah overthrown: he was their boy.

that was my point thankyou

 

[nino_savatte]

that was my point thankyou

Ah, right then.

 

[ViolentPanda]

ok
i agree that khomeni issued statements in support of the shah a long long time ago
but it seems to me that the US tried to get in the islamists good books after the revolution had started. both the british and US secret services were involved in supplying the savak with info and advice on how to torture and oppositionals

as ive said already the person (entezam) responsible for initiating these contacts was given a life sentance for treason,
pressure from below pushing a leader in to conflict with his imperial masters is one thing but to suggest that the US thought the revolution was a good thing!!!

i think that i agree with nino more than vp, it could be argued that the revolution was hijacked by the mullahs . and would the US prefer a religious regeime to a socialist one, of course, but to jump from that to US and UK oil companies ( and by extension govts) wanted the shahs overthrow stretches it abit. i may however be wrong have you got a link?

I just go by the public record.

Have a flick through James Dreyfus' "Devil's Game". It's a history of US involvement with Islamist extremism from roughly the 1920s to the present day. It gives good footnotes and has a fairly comprehensive bibliography too. It's not a particularly riveting read, but it does the job of priming people with plenty of pertinent data.

As for whether the US thought the revolution was a "good thing", they thought it would secure them better and cheaper access to Iranian oil. They were wrong. They thought they had Khomeini in their pockets and that they understood him. They were wrong.

 

[disownedspirit]

i would have thought it was the other way round. the US through the CIA thought it could use the middle class elements of the revolution to reign in khomeni and maintain a fairly uninterupted supply of oil, there is no way i can see that the US could think that the overthrow of one of their clients would lead to cheaper oil. and i cant remember reading anything saying (so what? you may ask) the US supported khomeni, although the US did want to normalise relations, but i think the memory of operation ajax was too strong for the iranians. when it became clear the new iranian regeime didn't want to play the US turned to other ways of attacking them

ill try and get hold of the book tho ta

 

[nino_savatte]

i would have thought it was the other way round. the US through the CIA thought it could use the middle class elements of the revolution to reign in khomeni and maintain a fairly uninterupted supply of oil, there is no way i can see that the US could think that the overthrow of one of their clients would lead to cheaper oil. and i cant remember reading anything saying (so what? you may ask) the US supported khomeni, although the US did want to normalise relations, but i think the memory of operation ajax was too strong for the iranians. when it became clear the new iranian regeime didn't want to play the US turned to other ways of attacking them

ill try and get hold of the book tho ta

IIRC, there were others involved in the revolution until they were hounded out by Khomeini. The communists, for instance, really got shafted.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i would have thought it was the other way round. the US through the CIA thought it could use the middle class elements of the revolution to reign in khomeni and maintain a fairly uninterupted supply of oil, there is no way i can see that the US could think that the overthrow of one of their clients would lead to cheaper oil. and i cant remember reading anything saying (so what? you may ask) the US supported khomeni, although the US did want to normalise relations, but i think the memory of operation ajax was too strong for the iranians. when it became clear the new iranian regeime didn't want to play the US turned to other ways of attacking them

ill try and get hold of the book tho ta

I think you're missing the point that the US was actually laying an each-way bet, backing both sides, in the belief that if the shah came out on top (which they hoped would happen and attempted to engineer) then he'd "see sense" and put an end to any concessions to populist governance, and that, if by some disaster the Islamists won through, then they'd remember who had been sending them seed money for decades and oblige their paymasters accordingly.

 

[disownedspirit]

I think you're missing the point that the US was actually laying an each-way bet, backing both sides, in the belief that if the shah came out on top (which they hoped would happen and attempted to engineer) then he'd "see sense" and put an end to any concessions to populist governance, and that, if by some disaster the Islamists won through, then they'd remember who had been sending them seed money for decades and oblige their paymasters accordingly.

so do you think that it was pressure from below or adecision from the religious leadreship that lead to the embassy hostages and the harder line with the US
although playing both sides sound plausible enough the US arming both iran and iraq in the 'imposed war'

 

[ViolentPanda]

so do you think that it was pressure from below or adecision from the religious leadreship that lead to the embassy hostages and the harder line with the US

My (strictly personal) opinion (based on some reading around the subject) is that it was planned and executed by revolutionaries, and taken over (and taken advantage of) by the religious leadership.

although playing both sides sound plausible enough the US arming both iran and iraq in the 'imposed war'

It's a fairly convenient method for assuring you get what you want.