The American-British coup of 1953 took place via implementing Operation Ajax, which is itself a turning point in the history of Iran’s relations with the United States and the United Kingdom, especially the United States, clearly showed the stance and orientation of the United States foreign policy toward Iran.
Some writers have described the United States policy in this period as a “two-sided policy,” meaning that the United States, on the one hand, sought to gain oil concessions and cut off the hands of its rivals, and on the other hand, sought the failure of the Iranian national movement; therefore, it cut off its economic relationships with Iran during the Mosaddeq government whereas those relations and aids resumed with the appointment of Fazlollah Zahedi. It is in such a process that Herbert Hoover came to Iran in 1954 to settle the oil disputes and lay the groundwork for holding more negotiations with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The negotiations resulted in the formation of the 1954 Consortium Agreement which gave the rights of extracting petroleum to a Consortium of eight European and American companies. Eventually, 40 percent of the shares of the Consortium were allocated to British Petroleum (BP), and 35 percent was split equally between five American companies.
Three years later, on June 16, 1957, Iran and the United States signed the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights. According to this agreement, the Iranian government pledged to compensate the United States in case of the nationalization of the United States' capital and interests in Iran. In addition to pursuing economic and trading goals, the United States government also turned to political-military and security goals to consolidate and expand its dominance. Accordingly, in line with the United States policy after World War II based on which numerous politico-military agreements were concluded and military alliances with pro-Western countries were formed, in 1955 the United States sought to establish the Baghdad Pact between Iran, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Iraq, and Pakistan on the basis of the idea of the “security belt” to strengthen the SEATO-NATO relations.
In 1958, when a coup d’état in Iraq caused this country to withdraw from the Baghdad Pact, it was renamed the Central Treaty Organization or CENTO. Although the United States has participated as an observer in this Pact, in fact, with Iran’s accession to the treaty, the political, economic, and security goals of the United States were fulfilled which laid the groundwork for the expansion of the all-round American influence.
Leading Iran to join the Pact, which was initiated by the United States, was itself another important success in expanding the United States' influence and domination in Iran. The famous French writer André Fontaine, in his famous book “History of the Cold War,” points out that: “Western governments, or indeed the United Kingdom and the United States... thought that by signing this treaty they had achieved a great political victory which will be a complement to their success in overthrowing Dr. Mosaddeq’s government.”
The expansion of American domination was not limited to this extent, but also included the internal authority of the country, which is the most important manifestation and crystallization of sovereignty; That is, a decade after the infamous coup d’état of 1953 and taking the Shah back to the country, on 1964, the National Assembly passed a law granting American citizens, military advisers and their families immunity from prosecution (Capitulation) in Iran. Capitulation which is the most obvious manifestation of a country’s domination by a stronger country is condemned in international law because it violates state sovereignty and authority. Moreover, this is severely condemned in Islam, and Imam Khomeini was sentenced to exile due to showing strong objection to this shameful agreement.
The acceptance of Capitulation by the Iranian regime was not only submitting to American domination in the political and legal dimensions but also was an act of humiliating the Iranian nation in the face of American advisers. “Following the occurrence of some incidents for the United States military and other personnel in Iran, the United States government – out of arrogance specific to the great powers – laid down a condition for the continued presence of its technical advisers in Iran, i.e., their immunity from facing trial in Iranian courts. The Shah also accepted the United States' demand and ordered his prime minister, Mansour, to introduce a bill to parliament in this regard. This reminds Iranian people of an unfortunate memory of how the Russians defeated Iran in 1828 and imposed such an article on the Iranian government in favour of their own citizens. This law was remained enacted until 1921 when the Iran-Soviet Friendship Treaty annulled it. People’s objection to and dissatisfaction with this blatant violation of the sovereignty and independence of the Iranian judiciary system was such that even the puppet members of parliament opposed the bill and only because of the pressures voted in favour of it. However, the effect of such a bill was far greater than the violation of the constitution, wounding the national pride, or the blatant display of the presence of imperialism. This phenomenon influenced the beliefs and emotions of the people in a way that they began feeling that from now on their private lives and prestige depend on blue-eyed foreigners’ demands and decisions.
Less than a decade later, events took place in the Persian Gulf region that marked a turning point in the history of regional developments and Iran-United States foreign relations; In other words, the United Kingdom due to various domestic and international political-economic problems was no longer able to establish its presence in the region, and hence it left the Persian Gulf and eastern Suez in 1971. the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from these areas created a power vacuum in that region and also it was the good news for the United States. The United States sought to fill the power vacuum in this critical and strategic region in its favour as quickly as possible before the Russians took the lead. But because the Americans were engaged in the Vietnam War at that time, it was difficult for them to have a direct military presence in the Persian Gulf. Hence, the Nixon-Kissinger doctrine called the “two-pillar policy” was promulgated. The two-pillar policy was emphasizing on the use of indigenous forces in the region in order to maintain political stability and pursue the vital goals of the United States. Therefore, the United States wanted Iran and Saudi Arabia to be the military (Persian Gulf Gendarmerie) and economic pillars respectively taking the roles that the United States government defined for them. In his book “U.S. Military Strategy in the Gulf,” Amitav Acharya describes the United States role in leading Iran toward its goals: “In the 1970s, the United States’ policy toward the Persian Gulf was focused on efforts to encourage Iran to play a key role in securing the region and defending the interests of the West.”
Addressing the significant role of Iran, a country which seeks to meet the United States strategic objectives, the author adds that, “later on, Henry Kissinger emphasized Iran’s favourable role, which not only would cover the strategic goal of the United States, but also was something achievable for the United States at no cost, as the Shah intended to use the oil revenues for financing arms purchases from the United States.”
The United States emphasis on the role of Iran as the “gendarmerie” in the Persian Gulf region, which was given to this country to promote political stability in the region and ultimately pursue vital the United States goals, was very pleasing to the Shah of Iran. “For most of the Iranians, this role was a clear indication of the Shah’s attitude of flattery towards the United States and the damage of depending on this country. This public perception gradually turned into this view that there is a deep sense of dependence on the United States in Iran.” In his book “Paved With Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran,” Barry Rubin while referring to this issue and examining the psychological attitudes of the Shah because of his attempts to militarize Iran, depicts the Shah’s interest in buying weapons. The outbreak of the Fourth Arab-Israeli War (Ramadan War) in 1971, and the oil embargo placed by Arab countries against the United States, Israel as well as the pro-Israeli countries – the first oil shock – increased oil prices tenfold; That means the oil price would rise from $3 a barrel to $12.
On the other hand, the Iranian government broke the Arab oil embargo in order to show its political loyalty to the United States and Israel and end the oil crisis. As a result, Iran’s income has increased tenfold, and as some sources pointed out, this figure rose from $2.3 billion to $23 billion. This increase in revenue leaves the Shah free to increase arms purchases, and the Shah, with the slogan “quantity, quality, speed,” turns Iran into a warehouse of Western and American weapons. Making such major weapons purchases raised concerns among the Arab countries of the region, and even then, the Foreign Minister of Soviet Union Gromyko warned the Shah about such large purchases. It is important to note that as the United States' influence in the region and Iran has grown since 1971, the military domineering relations between the two countries also have been strengthened. During 20 years, between 1950 and 1971, Iran’s total arms purchases from the United States did not reach $1 billion, whereas from 1971 to 1978, when the United States “two-pillar policy” was introduced and Iran took the role of the gendarmerie in the region, this figure reached $19 billion. In his book “Iran, Israel and the United States” Henry Paolucci also refers to a similar figure about Iran’s arms purchases from the United States:
“It should be noted that during 1948-1972, Iran’s arms imports from the United States were $1/2 billion, but when the Nixon Doctrine appointed Iran as the United States regional representative in the Persian Gulf, its arms purchases rose to $18 billion in the next six years.”
George Ball, the former the United States Undersecretary of State, while pointing to similar figures reveal the high point of the United States hegemony and domination of Iran during the Shah’s reign and talk about the direct role of the United States in Iran’s military policy:
“According to George Ball, the former the United States Undersecretary of State, from 1953, when Shah came to power, to 1972, we had full control of the Shah. We made decisions for him and dictated whether you need this weapon or not.”
Referring to the oil-for-weapons exchange and the huge volume of Iran’s arms purchases from the United States after taking on the role of the regional gendarmerie, a reliable source states that, “By the end of 1974, the Pentagon had sold almost half of its total global arms exports to Iran.”
The unhealthy and unilateral relations between the United States and Iran go beyond the military, political, and economic dimensions, and affect the cultural issues as well. Although when Reza Khan came to power the process of destroying the cultural identity of Iran and eliminating the Islamic values and beliefs of society began by taking measures such as promoting the removal of women’s hijab, banning holding mourning ceremonies for Shi’ah Imams, etc..., but this trend accelerated during the time of Mohammad-Reza Shah such that it can be clearly seen in the books, magazines, newspapers, film and television programs, etc., of the pre-Islamic Revolution period.
However, the important point is the efforts of the West, especially the United States, to actualize the cultural metamorphosis of Iran and expand its cultural domination. In this regard, Gasiorowski the famous American writer says, “Iran and the United States also had cultural cooperation and relations, such as student and artist exchange programs, and close ties between the two countries’ media were established. Based on these exchanges, thousands of Americans travelled to Iran to fulfill the goal of the westernization of this country, and this led many Iranians to realize exactly how close Iran and the United States were.”
The result is that Iran and the United States did not have a healthy and uniform relation from the beginning of their relations until the victory of the Islamic Revolution, which is a period of 16 years (1883-1979). The United States, which established foreign relations with Iran at the request of the parliament and government of Iran (Qajar) in order to neutralize the hegemonic rivalries between Iran and Russia, gradually consolidated its influence and domination by removing Russia and the United Kingdom from the Iranian political scene; That is to say, it alone has followed the footsteps of these dominating powers and even went further than that. The most appropriate interpretation of the relationship between Iran and the United States and the nature of this relationship is provided by Gasiorowski, the famous American author: “The close ties between the United States and Iran during the former monarchy is a perfect example of a dominant international relationship, that is to say, a well-known reflection of today’s world politics.”
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments