The following article is a theoretical review of the process of United States-Iranian relations from the beginning of foreign-diplomatic relations until the victory of the Islamic Revolution. In this article, we try to briefly examine the difficulties of this era which lasted for 96 years (1883–1979) and determine the trends and anomalies of American domination in Iran. However, the establishment of relations with the United States by Iran was aimed at suppressing the dominant rivalries of Russia and the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, the process of further developments and events implies the expansion of American influence and domination on the economic, political, military, security and cultural dimensions of Iran. These seemingly friendly relationships turn to one-sided and domineering relationships. This research is “an introduction to further studies, which can be cited as the process and manifestations of Iran’s anti-domination policies concerning the United States since 1979.”
The Policy and Patterns of Domineering Relations
In reviewing the development of relations between Iran and the United States and its difficulties until the Islamic Revolution, we must necessarily take into consideration factors such as the time, policies governing the global, status of Iran, the system of government in Iran, and in particular the colonial competitions between two dominant world powers, namely Russia and the United Kingdom in Iran. Due to the weaknesses of the Iranian regimes, these two powers superseded each other in gaining economic and cultural-political preferences.
The above-mentioned domineering rivalries and the blackmailing of Russia and the United Kingdom eventually dictated the ruling regime to lessen the power and pressure and the rivalry between the two powers by opening the way for the involvement of a third-power. This newly empowered third power was the United States that claimed that nations have the right to determine their own destiny.
The adoption of an isolationist strategy and non-interference in global affairs at the time aggravated the situation and led Iran to establish more firmly relations with the United States.
To visualize and illustrate some aspects of the unhealthy relationships between Russia and the United Kingdom with Iran and the weaknesses of the ruling regime, we would refer to the political history of Iran and the personal writings of Nasir al-Din Shah:
“If I want to go to the north of the country the ambassador of the United Kingdom would oppose. When I want to go south the Russian ambassador would object. Oh, poor dead man who do not have the right to travel to the north and south of his country!”
The onset of political relations between Iran and the United States dates to 1883 when the United States’ embassy in Iran was founded. This phenomenon which coincided with the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Naser al-Din Shah resulted in the presence of religious representative groups, Christian missionaries, and American advisers within the political scene of Iran.
Samuel Benjamin, the first American ambassador in Iran, in pursuit of expanding his influence in Iran to compete with the Russian and British powers and exploiting this competition, points out that:
“As long as resistance prevents the United Kingdom and Russia from dominating Iran, the United States must seize the trading opportunities in this country. Every nation is ambitious and they have the same right to expand their territory.”
Following the diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States in 1888, a political delegation from Iran entered the capital of the United States, which carried a message from the Shah of Iran to the President of the United States. In this message, while outlining the Russian and British malicious intentions in Iran, the demands for implementation of American diplomacy and justice, the establishment of a new civilization and providing security for the country, were raised. In addition, the message stated that:
“Now that we have achieved the prosperity of establishing friendly relations with a fortunate and peaceful nation, we would like to strengthen our relations with you to protect our country from the invasion of neighbouring countries. We hope this request will remain hidden from anyone other than the President of the United States.”
With the onset of the Constitutional Revolution and the struggle of revolutionaries against the autocratic regime of Mohammad-Ali Shah, the response of the United States’ Department of State indicated that American policy is still a continuation of non-interventionist policy, even if it is interpreted as indifferent and interested in expanding the foundations of democracy in Iran. In this regard, Jackson, the United States’ ambassador to Tehran at the time, strongly rejected any kind of asylum requests at the United States’ embassy and was proud that the United States’ embassy was the only embassy in which there is no refugee. Naturally, this policy is perused in an attempt to avoid receiving asylum-seekers. While condemning religious missionaries and those who were affected by the nationalist movements of the Iranian people, Jackson raised the issue of rebuking such groups.
Harvard Baskerville, a young teacher hired by missionaries to teach at Tabriz Missionary School, was one of the main opponents of American policy in terms of objecting to the constitutionalism movement. He had relations with constitutionalists and hence the American consul in Iran, William F. Doty, warned him that:
“I ask you not to be involved in this rebellion at all.”
After Baskerville states that he had taken a gun to defend the lives and property of the Americans and support people who are fighting against the lawlessness, crimes and sexual assaults, the missionary also disclaimed responsibility for his actions and wrote:
“Our missionaries keep themselves away from engaging in such issues and unfortunately the teacher has become misled.”
Until the Iranian national oil industry was nationalized the United Kingdom was playing a domineering role in Iran. In the meantime, the Americans were struggling to expand and consolidate their influence and domination, and even removing the United Kingdom from the political scene of Iran.
Some experts believe that political and temporal supports of the United States from the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry was an attempt made by the United States to remove its rival, the United Kingdom, from the political scene of Iran. However, later, a joint coup took place by the two counties against the Mosaddeq government and the anti-colonial movement of nationalization of the oil industry in an effort to return the Shah to the country.
Dr. Mark Gasiorowski, a professor of political science at the University of Louisiana, and a prominent scholar of American relations with the Third World countries especially Iran, who is renowned for honesty and openness, believes that the role of the Eisenhower administration in the coup of August 19, 1953, is much more highlighted than the role of the United Kingdom, and states that:
“Success in the execution of the coup was not possible without the help of the United States... The coup was an end to the gradual process of Iran towards establishing a popular government and to the interference of foreign agents and governments. They were manifested in the Mosaddeq movement... the tyrannical regime was imposed on Iran during the years after the coup with the widespread assistance of the United States… The role of the United States in the coup and, subsequently, in consolidating the dictatorship, profoundly influenced the future relations between Iran and the United States.”
The acceleration of the political and diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran during this period has changed the neutral and non-interfering nature of such relations into being expansionist and domineering; what the author elaborates in his research titled “The US Foreign Policy and the Shah,” would show the vassalage nature of the relationship between the regime of Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi and the United States government. The occurrence of the American-British coup, which has been acknowledged by the West itself, formally and openly embodies the growing influence of American domination in Iran. In the introduction to the above-mentioned book, Colonel Gholamreza Nejati states:
“Although Iran was involved in the United States’ global strategy since the outbreak of World War II and the Cold War, the preconditions for establishing a domineering relationship with the United States began in the early 1950s. With the rise of the anti-colonial movement of the people to nationalize the oil industry and then the coup of 1953 along with the huge amounts of military and finical aids to support the coup leaders, such domineering relations were developed and peaked from the 1960s afterward.”
The execution of the coup of August 19, 1953, by the United States and the United Kingdom, can be considered in many respects. First, carrying out such actions to bring the Shah back to power indicates that the United States and the United Kingdom had not a more desirable alternative that may run the government and secure their economic, military and political interests.
Second, the coup d’état that was executed by the two powers showed their influence and dominance in Iran’s internal affairs. Third, a strong feeling of owing to the two powers was developed in the Shah because of their assistance and support.
Hence, a person and a country would more than ever accept the domineering demands of those great powers. In addition, as far as the foreign policy of such a country is concerned, it would try to meet the demands and orientations of the great powers especially the United States.
In an article titled “Censoring American History” in New York Times, we read:
“The CIA’s assistance in organizing the coup of 1953 by which the Shah returned to the monarchy, is no longer a secret. After the coup, while inviting Kermit Roosevelt the head of the CIA in the Middle East to have sherry[GS1] , the Shah said: “I owe my throne to God, the people of my country, the army and you.”
Likewise, Henry Paulucci in his work “Iran, Israel and the United States” writes:
Later on, a loyal Shah would return to his palace and while drinking alcohol and eating caviar says that: I owe my throne to God, the people of my country, the army and you (Americans).”
[GS1]I think “sherry” it meant here – it’s a kind of wine
leave your comments