News ID: 216365
Published: 0249 GMT June 08, 2018

Washington’s 73-year-old hostile policies toward Iran doomed to failure

Washington’s 73-year-old hostile policies toward Iran doomed to failure

By Our Staff Writer

Adoption of hostile policies against Iranian nation has been a customary habit of the White House since the end of the World War II.

This hostility, which of course intensified after the victory of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, had been expressed in different styles by each US government since 1945.

Many maintain that US President Donald Trump’s entry to the White House in January 2017 has marked the beginning of a period in which Washington has formulated and implemented the most hostile and biased policies in its history toward Tehran.

This comes as during the past 73 years after the World War II, US has never put aside its enmity toward the Iranian people and has expressed this hostility in different forms using various methods and techniques.

Following the devastation of Europe and the Soviet Union becoming weak after the attritive and attenuating First and Second World Wars, the US, claiming to be the world’s leader, in addition to countering the expansion of communism and Eastern Bloc, did its best to increase its international influence replacing the world powers in the pre-wars era.

From many observers’ point of view, Harry S. Truman, the 33rd US president who was a Democrat, made the first attempt to dominate the Iranian territory. His conflict with Russians in 1946 to end their occupation of Iran was, as attested by many, the first serious confrontation between the Eastern and Western Blocs following the end of the World War II.

After British and Soviet forces left the Iranian territory, using a series of military and economic contracts, the US attempted to spin the wheel of colonialism in Iran alone. This came as, years later, documents were discovered in Truman’s library uncovering a joint plot by Washington and London to bombard oil installations in Iran and the Middle East in case of the Soviet Union catching hold of them.

Years after the end of Anglo-Soviet occupation of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq’s nationalist government in practice countered London by nationalizing the Iranian oil industry in 1950. Given Truman’s liberal views, Mosaddeq had greatly counted on him supporting Tehran in the face of London’s excessive demands. He perceived the US as a world power that could help Iran get rid of the colonialist countries that had plundered the Middle Eastern state for years.

The coming to power of Dwight D. Eisenhower as the 34th US President (1953-61), foiled Mosaddeq’s plans and, eventually, Washington, hand-in-hand with London, orchestrated and launched a coup against his popular government to become Britain’s accomplice in plundering Iran’s national wealth.

The final days of Eisenhower’s tenure as US president was concurrent with efforts by the then-Iranian monarch (Shah) Mohammadreza Pahlavi to strengthen the pillars of his authoritarianism and totalitarianism in Iran. However, John F. Kennedy’s election as the 35th US president (1961-63) and his ideas regarding the necessity of establishing and spreading democracy in the countries that were Washington’s allies, heightened the second Pahlavi’s concerns. A major part of worries voiced by Mohammadreza Pahlavi were removed following Lyndon B. Johnson’s coming to power as the 36th US president (1963-69) who compromised more with Washington’s dictatorial allies.

During the tenures of Richard Nixon, the 37th US president (1969-74) and his successor Gerald F. Ford Jr., (1974-77), the US expanded its influence in Iran and signed a number of military and arms deals with the Middle Eastern country.

Having been elected as the 39th US president (1977-81), James Carter Jr. traveled to Iran in 1977 and described Iran under the Shah as the island of stability.

With the intensification of Iranian people’s revolutionary efforts, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security advisor, insisted that a policy called ‘Iron Fist’ should be adopted to suppress uprising against Mohammadreza Pahlavi’s despotism.

After the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Carter’s democrat administration used every means possible to counter the Islamic Republic’s increasing power from supporting opposition expats to conspiring to invade Iran which led to US failed military operation in Tabas Desert, northeastern Iran in 1980.

Carter’s frequent failures to carry out US anti-Iran plots, led to the entry of Ronald Reagan, the 40th US president, into the White House. During his term in office, Washington reneged on the Algeria Declaration – a set of agreements between the Washington and Tehran brokered by the Algerian government and signed in Algiers on January 19, 1981 – and became Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s main supporter in his invasion of the Iranian territory.

George H. W. Bush (1989-93), Bill Clinton (1993-2001) and George W. Bush (2001-09) all adopted similar hostile policies against the Islamic Republic. During Clinton’s term in office, the severest sanctions were imposed on Iran targeting the country’s foreign trade and oil exports. The tenure of his successor, Bush, marked a turning point in the adoption of hostile policies by Washington against Tehran. During his term in office, sanctions on Iran continued and White House leaders kept uttering threats against the Islamic Republic.

Although Barack Obama (2009-17) entered the White House chanting the slogan of change, he failed to make any crucial alteration in Washington’s major policies toward Iran. He also imposed severe sanctions against Tehran although managed to reach an agreement with Iran on the country’s peaceful nuclear program through diplomatic means in the end.

Following the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the sanctions Obama had promised to be lifted as per the Iran nuclear deal, have now been reinstated with more embargoes pledged to be imposed.

In addition to withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, Trump has made other moves to show the same hostility his predecessors expressed toward Iran. However, he will certainly fail to face a better fate as a result of his plots against the Iranian people than the ones met by his predecessors. He also is doomed to failure.

 

   
KeyWords
 
Comments
Comment
Name:
Email:
Comment:
Security Key:
Captcha refresh
Page Generated in 0/2798 sec