Download PDF of this full issue: v10n1.pdf (4.1 MB)

Why the Embassy? Iran and the USA

By VVAW

Flag-waving demonstrators shouting "War Now!" and a constant barrage of radio, TV and news articles are now enlightening the American people about what is going on in Iran and about the plight of our hostages held in the U.S. Embassy.

Not since the Gulf of Tonkin incident has there been such an outpouring of patriotism in the U.S. and like the Gulf of Tonkin (which was used to justify our involvement and aggression in Indochina), there is more to this situation than meets the eye--especially the eye that sees only through the U.S. media.

U.S. involvement in Iran did not suddenly begin with the present government. In the early 50's the Iranian people got tired of the Shah and kicked him out. (The Shah jetted off to Italy where he lived the life of a playboy prince.) Meanwhile, the people of Iran set up a democratic, secular government and abolished the monarchy. And was the U.S. happy with this secular, democratic government? Not a bit. Instead, the government sent in the CIA which set up a special team in the U.S. Embassy to overthrow the legal government. It used the Embassy as a base to bribe criminals, influence the military and set off a coup that toppled the Iranian government. The Embassy then sent word to the Shah to return from Italy.

At first, the Shah refused, afraid that the CIA coup was bit secure enough to insure his throne. He only returned after personal assurances from the U.S. of massive aid and support. He vowed revenge and proceeded to institute a bloodbath against every democratic force--the Shah's infamous "White Revolution of Terror." Working out of the Embassy, the CIA helped to set up SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, which was funded, trained and guided by the U.S. In return for all the "favors." The Shah guaranteed the oil companies access to Iranian oilfields; U.S. military bases (by July, 78, there were over 45,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Iran); and the Shah would act as U.S. front man in the Middle East.

For 25 years Iran saw an absolute monarch at the top, his rule carried out by members of his family and assorted lackies who ruled by terror; at the bottom were the millions of suffering Iranians with a 50% infant mortality rate, 80% lacking adequate housing; 100,000 political prisoners faced torture in the Shah's prisons.

The anger of the Iranians boiled over again and again. Still, the U.S. continued in its support of this corrupt dictator. Finally, the Iranians rebelled even against jets, tanks and U.S. supplied weapons, with demonstrations and strikes. People died, but again sent the Shah packing--he wandered around the world, living in splendor and luxury with the money stolen from the Iranian people. In Iran, the large numbers of the people followed Khomeini one of the most consistent and uncompromising voices against the Shah for the past 25 years (his sons was amount the thousands killed by the Shah).

And then the Shah turned up in New York City, ostensibly for medical treatment (something that he couldn't get in Mexico, apparently). While the U.S. Embassy in Teheran warned against it, still the Shah appears in the U.S. The man who was placed in power by the U.S. 25 years earlier, who was supported, funded, and fondled by the U.S., comes to the U.S. Iran boiled over, angry Iranians too the U.S. Embassy (base for the coup 25 years earlier), to the personnel captive and demanded that the murderous U.S. puppet monarch be sent back for trial.

Were the Iranians crazy? Was this an act of horrible provocation, or an act of angry fear concerning another coup attempt out of the U.S. Embassy?

The U.S., suddenly deeply concerned about international law, didn't give one damn for that same international law when it toppled the democratic government in Iran--or in Vietnam in 1963 or in Chile in 1973--and in every case out of the U.S. Embassies.

Were the Iranians crazy to want their number 1 criminal back, or was it a natural response to a ruler who used to buzz saw off the legs or the "disobedient"?

The U.S. response has been to cover up the history of U.S. involvement in Iran and center on the hostages as if no other factor was involved. The government has used the very real fears and thirst for justice among the people of Iran to build up patriotism here at home. It has used the lived of the hostages as a gimmick to shore up smiling Jimmy's presidential prospects.

It comes as no surprise to us that the U.S. government would not want to talk about history (did they in Vietnam?); it comes as no surprise that the lives of the hostages are used as political poker chips by our Government (remember the POW's)? And it certainly comes as no surprise that the U.S. would be perfectly willing to ship its young men off to die for oil companies' profits in the Mid East (minus Chip Carter, of course).

But we suspect that the government was a little surprised that the Iranians would take the challenge and chance to safeguard their independence from the U.S. It must have also come as a surprise that military enlistments, far from jumping as expected, have gone down--the calls for war were, it seems, for someone else to fight it.

As for VVAW, we want the hostages back. The best way to get them back is to have a tribunal around the Shah--let the government put pressure on Panama to get him sent back (we have certainly pressured governments before). Stop all the threats whose main purpose is know-nothing patriotism, and Four More Years!