A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO THE PAST AND PRESENT OF US-IRANIAN RELATIONS.

(written on 4th Jan, 2020 - after General Soleimani's assassination, and few days before the Iranian retaliation and mistaken shooting of the Ukranian civilian aeroplane)

When Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and the other liberals among the founding fathers established the USA they probably envisioned it to be a new form of the ancient roman republic - where the people would be supreme. What they didnt realize was that the roman republic was less of a democracy and more of an oligarchy which, morphed into the roman empire - an oppressive autocratic bloodthirsty (although cultured) vast political entity whose main profitable business (and finally reason for demise) was war, war profits, more wars and even more war profits.

The USA parallels ancient rome to quite an extent in this. War is the USA's main biz, increasingly for the last 60 years; The military industrial complex - you know that it decides it all - and even a popular prez like kennedy can be silenced if he toggles too much with MIC's purse, and no one is punished!

As regards the present, Iran has always been an opponent - a thorn in complete US domninance in the middle east - since 1979 when the shah of iran, a tyrant who was a big US friend, was thrown off in 1979. the shah had led a brutal regime which catered to a small elite (the few pics which go around fb showing iranian elite society women in skirts as a sign of progress conceal that most people groaned under exploitation). this pent-up anguish finally helped his overthrowing by a coalition that included several groups of liberals, leftists, orthodox islamists and communists .

But then the infighting between leftist-liberals (a chronic international disorder :p ) as well as the weakened position of the communists (the shah had particularly targeted them during his rule) helped Khomeini's orthodox setup consolidate itself as ruler. this has resulted in an official theocracy but a social scenario where various shades of 'liberal iran' and 'orthodox iran' clash at various fronts even today. it is a country where, at the same time, woman are blocked at various fronts and majid majidi directs his golden movies....somewhat like we ourselves... :)

But, thatz the domestic set up. internationally, 'modern rome' backed saddam to attack iran. however, contrary to expectations, the iranians didnt crash and the result was a 8yr stalemate war which caused huge suffering to people of both sides, of course with huge profit to weapons-sellers all over ( note - it was in that heated environment that, in 1988, a US navy ship shot down a civilian air iran plane with 350 people 'by mistake'; george bush even awarded the officers!) ....

Few years later, the US attacked saddam over kuwait! ya, some allies are more profitable than other allies. we all are more familiar with what happened after that - including the emergence of ISIS from the gutted remains of the unfortunate land that was once the sovereign nation of iraq. The point to note is that saddam, assad, hussain, gaddafi, nasser all are/were authoritarian 1- party regimes with some kind of 'pan-arab ideology' (it was a natural post-colonial political faith of the 1950s - arab lands for arabs, just as Indian for Indians). but they were/are not the hyper-orthodox taliban saudi isis type. You can even see that in their dress sense - no flowing saudi-style arab dress, it's suit boot for them....the usa, in contrast, right from 50s, has backed conservative rw islamic guys like the saudi wahabi regime, pakistan's zia ul haq, the taliban and the isis.

Add to this what all wars have been fought for in the past 3000 years of recorded human history. more riches. more profits. more taxes ( i doubt if even the mythical trojan war was fought over who would bed helen. thatz just the sexy-coating. actually, it was for control of the aegeian sea's maritime trade). just last month, the bolivian president was overthrown in a coup and it seems that came just a week after he questioned a germany company's attempt to control the vast lithium ores of bolivia. the middle-east scenario is better known. as kissinger the evil said, 'oil is too important to be left to the arabs'. in this context, dont forget that the genesis of modern US-iran conflict was the 1953 iran coup that threw off an elected iranian govt and helped the shah, only cos the iranians wanted to nationalize their own oil and not allow the british and americans loot it ( few years later, the british and french would help israelis do a similar thing when nasser nationalized the suez canal! so much so for Western loyalty to democracy!).

Coming back, obama still had a semblance of reducing tension with iran. Got a good deal, in US favour. a smart man, he probably also realized iran is too big to handle especially with his army bogged down in both af and iraq (the trouble with iran is that the country is so big. look at the map....) and these are things that make intelligent politicians think before they jump.... of course, Trump, like some people elsewhere in this part of the solar system, has no idea of anything. Worse he has no idea that he has no idea of anything! and he also doesnt care for anything besides the next round of elections!! Plus he probably is a certain psychological crappy inferiority complex case who likes to undo what was done earlier just cos he likes to do it....!!!

Phew, thatz the overall past. the assassination (or 'sarkari bomb attack') today is a continuation of all that - cos Soleimani was a brain that enabled assad and russia and punctured the ISIS. you have to give him credit for checking the aggression of the isis and the replacement of assad by a US-puppet regime (the remnants of the isis must be celebrating tonight). i dont mean he was a messiah; but he was undoubtedly a good soldier who shifted the balance more in favour of his country and (consequently) against the US and israeli hawks and had an important role in defeating isis. i am pretty sure no1 reading this would have liked to see isis black flags all over that battered region, right? ....

Erudite friends, from whom i try to learn, are kind-of divided on the role of the zionist hawks today. some of them say this is trump's own idea; others say, israeli think-tanks must be among the idea givers. after all, assassinations are their forte. and this certainly weakens assad, weaknes iran, weakens rus, helps trump, US hawks and the MIC.... certainly for trump, with elections next year, this is a boost. i donno if this can stall a constitutional impeachment, but it solidifies his bhakt lot behind him.... (what about the NRIs?)

As for the Iranians, they will have to retaliate. naturally. they will have to do something. wouldnt we? question is when? where? how? ... probably depends on what putin and xi can impress on them....
and of course, the immediate bad news for all of us that oil prices are rising. if the iranians do even a partial blockade of the strait of hormuz, it could spiral up further...

ps: anything for Indian ruling establishment in this? will we jump in? ....

(pic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Major_General_Qassem_Soleimani_at_the_International_Day_of_Mosque_05_(2).jpg; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_(24949318110).jpg)