The Neocons & Mossadeq
It's no surprise that neoconservatives were not thrilled with Obama's speech in Cairo. What was interesting was one of the specific points they took issue with: Obama's reference to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in 1953.
It is something worse than absurd to use a speech on Islam to apologize for America’s part in the overthrow of the Mossadeq regime in Iran in 1953. Mossadeq was a secular nationalist, passionately opposed by Iran’s religious establishment. That establishment finally seized power for itself in 1979, and since then it has made a martyr of Mossadeq. For the United States to apologize to the present Iranian regime for the overthrow of Mossadeq would be a little like president Eisenhower apologizing to Josef Stalin for the murder of Trotsky. Agreed, we didn’t much like Trotsky — but Stalin is not the man to receive that apology, and neither are the mullahs the people to receive an apology for the events of 1953.
Huh? Stalin ordered Trotsky's murder - not the U.S. This analogy only makes sense if U.S. agents murdered Trosty, then turned around and apologized to some future Communist dictator.
And either way, it's irrelevant. The fact that Mossadeq was "passionately opposed" by Iran's religious establishment doesn't exactly excuse the U.S./UK-backed coup against him - does it? And since when does the "passionate opposition" of Iran's religious establishment carry water with Frum? They're passionately opposed to Israel too - does that excuse their antisemitism?
And here goes Max Boot:
Another example of moral equivalency: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.” That is accepting the (false) narrative of the Iranian Revolution, which holds that America’s role in overthrowing Mossadeq more than half a century ago — a development that would not have been possible had the leftist prime minister not lost support in the Iranian street — is just as bad as the campaign of mass murder and kidnapping that Iran continues to support at this very moment.
Again, I'm not sure I understand the argument. Clearly the Iranians aren't saying the overthrow of Mossadeq is as bad as the Mullah's domestic repression. I think Boot's trying to say that the Mullahs blame their hatred of America on the decision to overthrow Mossadeq and, later, to back the Shah's repressive regime.
I don't doubt the Mullahs whip out Mossadeq as a propaganda figure to use against the U.S. But that should not make America's honest grappling with the incident verboten. This hue and cry over Obama's mild critique of America's poorly considered intervention in Iran is understandable, however. If we look back on that incident and conclude that it was a mistake, we'll be less apt for Round 2.
---
Photo via Wiki Commons.
