US-Iran History Is Why Obama Should Be Quiet on Protests

Critics of President Barack Obama, mostly Republicans, are seething because he has not been more forceful in ripping the theocratic leadership in Iran for its forceful handling of protesters who are angry with what they see as a stolen election.

What these shortsighted naysayers should do is go pick up a history book or take a quick trip to Langley, Va., and let the CIA tell them our own sordid past with Iran.

Whenever U.S. relations with Iran are raised, everyone seems to want to refer back to 1979, when our embassy was overrun by militants and Americans were taken hostage for 444 days. The nation and the world were captivated by the drama, and many consider the affair to be the chief reason President Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election.

The Iranian revolution of that era is what led to today's theocratic rule in Iran, where the clerics hold sway over every facet of the country. They replaced the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, himself a dictator who ruled with an iron fist with the help of his CIA-trained death squads. How did he come to power? The United States helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran because of oil.

To understand the hatred of the U.S. in Iran, we have to go further back than 1979 — to 1953, when Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh had the gall to care more about his country than about what Britain and the United States wanted. The two superpowers were angry that he nationalized oil interests. At the time, Anglo-Iranian Oil, now known as British Petroleum, was receiving 93 percent of oil proceeds, and the Iranians were getting 7 percent.

So with the CIA leading the charge, along with British intelligence, we helped destabilized the country, blocked the importing of goods, spread leaflets around the country blasting Mossadegh for a lack of leadership, and used local goons to lead protests. It was this effort that led to the installation of the Shah of Iran, who subsequently had Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini exiled. Khomeini was a revolutionary leader who used his voice to label the U.S. the "Great Satan" for its actions.

Nice history lesson, you might say, but what does it have to do with today? Everything.

Khomeini rose to power by blasting the U.S.

for intervening in the affairs of Iran. It was the younger voices in Iran who responded to his criticism of the U.S., and they cast their lot with a revolutionary figure rather than with the pro-West Shah of Iran.

One of those young men who cared more about their own country than about the interests of the United States? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now the president of Iran. (A fascinating account of our sordid history with Iran is detailed in Stephen Kinzer's "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq.")

President Obama knows that every word uttered by U.S. leaders can be turned right around and used against the protesters who are in the streets. He also understands how deep resentment of the U.S. is in Iran, and if the clerics can successfully get people to believe that the U.S. is behind the protests, they have the possibility of using America as the scapegoat.

Isn't it ironic that the president's conservative critics want him to stand up for democracy in Iran when it was the United States that chose to destroy democracy and install a dictator we could control more than 50 years ago?

Folks, democracy never can be imported. It must be homegrown. Look at our own civil rights movement, the democratic movement in Poland and all of Eastern Europe; they were driven by the people at the bottom, not the top. We are seeing a remarkable amount of courage in Iran. The people there are tired of being treated like children and are putting their lives on the line to demand change in the country.

Rather than inflame tensions, the U.S. should continue to issue tempered comments and allow the people in the streets to drive this issue. This should not become a U.S. vs. Iran discussion. If the focus remains on those demanding change in the streets of Iran, especially if the beatings and oppression continue — remember Selma, Ala., and "Bloody Sunday"? — then those who are silent in Iran will be silent no more, and other countries will begin to weigh in on the brutality.

The change we desire in Iran will not happen with a press release or a comment by the president of the United States or even a congressional resolution. We must show support, but from a distance. The United States played a direct role in the mess we see in Iran today. We clearly have done enough. It's best that we shut up and allow Iran to determine Iran's fate.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN contributor and the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith." Please visit his Web site at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.