"The current crisis over Iran's nuclear energy program is a crisis contrived by Washington in its drive to return Iran back to Washington's fold - a drive that began even before the Shah was overthrown back in 1979."

According to recent statements from the US State Department, Washington is preparing for "a long struggle" against Iran. An Office of Iranian Affairs was recently opened inside the State Department and an "embassy-in-exile" was just opened in Dubai. The main purpose of the Dubai installation will be to broadcast propaganda into Iran and help coordinate US-sponsored exile groups and black ops against Iran. (3/7/2006) As for the possibility of other countries like Russia or China heading off any showdown between Iran and DC, Washington's statements at the UN seem to indicate that Washington is once again only interested in making demands and ultimatums, not in genuine negotiations. [1]

What this all means is that Washington is considering overthrowing another government in the Middle East. For Tehran, this is old hat. Indeed, one of the first successful regime changes undertaken by the post-World War Two United States took place in Iran in the early 1950s. In a textbook case of subversion and overthrow, Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA ended the popularly elected government led by the secular Mohammed Mossadegh because he insisted on enforcing laws that nationalized Iran's oil. When the Iranian people revolted against Mossadegh's forced resignation and placed him back in power, Mr. Roosevelt organized a coup that made Reza Pahlavi the Shah of Iran and put him in complete control (with Washington behind the scenes). The Shah then began a 25-year reign of terror that saw the Iranian oil industry (and the Pahlavi family's wealth) expand, the Iranian military and police budget grow to obscene proportions, and most of the Iranian people's poverty increase.

From the beginning of his rule, the Shah had many enemies. In order to maintain control and keep his enemies down, the Shah imprisoned thousands of students, workers and others that opposed his rule. In addition, his secret police - the SAVAK - were known for their brutal methods of torture and their wanton executions. The repression increased the opposition until finally, in 1979, the groundswell became so vast that he was forced into exile. Out of what seemed to be nowhere to the western observer, the Ayatollah Khomeini appeared in the capital of Tehran, ready to take over the reins of the revolutionary government. Khomeini, who spoke the words of the revolution, won the day in the struggle for power that ensued after the Shah's government disappeared, and proceeded to methodically destroy all opposition to his socially reactionary and economically stagnant program. After ten years of rule, Khomeini died and was given a martyr's funeral, with millions of Iranians mourning in the streets. Since his death in 1989, the Iranian government has continued to repress its opponents, despite some liberalization of its Khomeini era laws. Constantly rife with rumors of corruption, the economy has prospered although many Iranians continue to struggle.

The election of the fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidency in 2005 was seen by many observers as a reaction from the rural and urban poor to the government's growing corruption and the failure of that government to provide basic needs. The current crisis over Iran's nuclear energy program is a crisis contrived by Washington in its drive to return Iran back to Washington's fold - a drive that began even before the Shah was overthrown back in 1979. For whatever reason, Ahmadinejad has played into Washington's hands nicely by making bellicose statements and by appearing to be hiding the program's true intentions. Whether or not Iran's nuclear program is intended purely for energy production, the perception is that it isn't. Therefore, there is little Iran can do at this point in terms of changing world opinion except back down - an unlikely scenario.

Despite efforts by Russia and China (among others) to defuse the possibility of war, Washington continues to threaten the Iranian people in this latest chapter in its long struggle against their country. Besides increasing the likelihood of war, threats from Washington also serve to unite the masses of Iranians behind their government and provide Tehran with a justification for further repression of its opponents. Such repression could in turn, force a situation where the theocracy's opponents align themselves with those in Washington who wish to invade - a scenario that is surely a step backwards in the Iranian people's struggle towards the goals of the 1979 revolution. After all, history has certainly made it clear that Washington is interested in Iran's oil and strategic position, not the people of Iran. If the Iranian people want to realize the stalled hopes of their revolution, the theocracy must go the way of the Shah and the true voices of democracy and independence must take front and center again. Any Iranians that consider themselves to be part of those voices would be best served by keeping their distance from Washington's money and support.

Ron Jacobs is an anti-imperialist activist and writer. He is the author of The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground (Verso, 1997) and currently lives in Asheville, NC, USA.

Endnotes

1. Of course, all of this could quickly become irrelevant, given a number of statements by Israeli government officials, the most recent being from the ultra-hawk Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who told the media on March 8, 2006, " My answer to the question (Will Israel attack Iran?-RJ) is that the state of Israel has the right to give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves." (AP)