Iraq and Iran, Oil, Politics and Religion

In 1951 Iran had a democracy. Mohammed Mossadegh was the first democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran. Before his election, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., the predecessor of British Petroleum, had concessions for all of Iran’s oil industry. Only a small percent of the revenues were being retained by the Iranian government, the major profits were going directly to Britain. Prime Minister Mossadegh was strongly opposed to this exploitation of Iran’s natural resources by another nation. One of his first acts upon becoming Prime Minister, was to try to obtain an agreement with the British to share the oil revenues 50-50 with Iran. This was the standard percentage in most oil company contracts. When Britain refused, Mossadegh nationalized the entire Iranian oil industry. In 1953, in retaliation, the British and the U.S. blockaded Iran and cut off all foreign aid. This created a disaster for Iran because the couldn’t sell any oil. The U.S. then launched an anti-Mossadegh undercover propaganda campaign in Iran. They paid Iranian newspapers to publish anti-Mossadegh stories based on false documents, accusing him of being associated with the local Communist Party. The civil unrest and CIA instigated riots resulted in the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister. He was quickly replaced by Shah Reza Pahlazi. The U.S. backed Shaw ruled Iran as an absolute monarch, completely eliminating all previous democratic reforms. The Shah received billions of dollars from the British and American oil companies (five U.S. companies) in exchange for granting them new oil concessions. His undemocratic regime maintained absolute dictatorial control of the nation by the continued U.S. subsidizing of his Army and his hated secret police, the SAVAK. For 25 years the despised ruler lived in luxurious palaces while the Iranian people received almost nothing from the lucrative oil industry. The U.S. and Britain were perfectly happy with this arrangement. They would continue to support the dictator as long as the oil revenues continued. The U.S. and Britain had absolutely no concern or regrets that they had replaced a democratic government with a dictatorship. Their only concern was the oil.

Does this sound familiar?

The Shah’s ruthless oppression of his own people eventually led to his overthrow in 1979 by the Shiite clerics and the establishment of a Shiite Islamic theocracy, which now rules Iran. The British and the U.S. are totally responsible for the present Islamic government in Iran. If they had not conspired to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh for the sole purpose of privatizing the oil industry, Iran would have a democratic government today.

Saddam Hussein was of course not democratically elected. He was an oppressive military dictator. But he was removed for exactly the same reason that Mossadegh was removed. Both of these leaders had nationalized the oil industry and this was totally unacceptable to the British and American oil companies.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was intended to produce the same effect as the overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. Saddam Hussein was to be replaced with a puppet leader who would discontinue the nationalized or socialized oil industry program and create a privatized economic system (capitalism). This is what the U.S. is presently trying to accomplish with the al-Malaki government. Al-Malaki will be supported by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) only as long as he accepts the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry and opposes nationalization. It he opposed privatization, the U.S. will find a reason to replace him.

Most of the Iraqi people are very aware that this was the original intention of the U.S. invasion and unlike the coup in Iran, it’s not working in Iraq. The present rebellion by the different Islamic sects is analogous to the 1979 Islamic rebellion in Iran against the Shaw. The final outcome in Iraq will be identical to the outcome in Iran. Both nations will have a Shiite Islamic theocracy and a nationalized oil industry. Both nations will be ruled by an Ayatollah (Shiite Islamic leader).

The only way the U.S. can maintain control over the Iraqi oil industry is to remain in Iraq as a permanent occupying military dictatorship. The present Iraqi government of Nuri al-Malaki has no real power or control over the nation. Al-Malaki is taking orders from the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army.

The Bush administration has embarked on a nation building adventure in Iraq in which the Neocon master plan was to completely remodel the Iraqi nation into a duplicate of the American model. This required completely changing the economic, political and social characteristics of an entire society. Never before has an occupier had such arrogant ambitions.

Before the U.S. invasion, the economic system of Iraq was socialistic. The political system was a military dictatorship. The social-religious system was Islamic.

The Iraqi people were completely happy with the Islamic system of their society which had existed for over a thousand years. They had no desire to change this fundamental part of their society.

The socialistic system of the Iraqi nation was succeeding relatively well in financing the government, the military, the civil servants and the teachers. Under this system all of the revenues from the major industry, oil, was remaining within the country. There was essentially no reason to change this economic system. Today, the Iraqi Oil Worker Unions are strongly opposed to privatizing the oil industry.

It was only the political system that some Iraqi’s wanted to change. Under Hussein, the Shiites and Kurds had been discriminated against. Many Iraqi’s wanted to remove the military dictatorship and replace it with an Islamic Theocracy (Islamic democracy is discussed below). The Iraqi’s never wanted a secular government, but only a religious Islamic government. In a nation that has only one religion, it is impossible to separate religion and government.

The hegemony of the Bush administration wanted to change all three of these aspects of the Iraqi society. (It is totally illegal by international law, for an occupier to attempt to make fundamental changes such as these.)

Bush wanted to change the socialistic system of state ownership to a capitalistic system of private ownership. The American oil companies wanted to acquire private ownership of the Iraqi oil industry. This change would only benefit the Americans, it would not benefit the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government. Under the state ownership of the oil industry, the revenues remained within the nation and benefited the people. Under the private ownership of the American companies, the revenues would leave the country and be of no benefit to the Iraqi people. This would create the same conditions in Iraq that existed in Iran when the British controlled the oil industry in that country. This was identical to the situation in Iran in 1951 when Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry for the benefit of the Iranian people. The Bush administration had only self interest in mind with this economic change. The U.S. pre-emptive strike against Iraq was just another coup.

If the U.S. looses the oil company concessions in Iraq, this will be a major loss in revenues to the American companies, but after all, the oil belongs to the Iraqi’s. (As one observer remarked “How did our oil get under their sand?)

The Bush administration’s plan to change the political system of Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy was completely misconstrued and misunderstood by both Bush and those in Iraq who wanted a democracy. The Bush administration lacked any understanding of Iraqi Islamic politics. The concept of American democracy that the Bush administration was planning was totally different from the Iraqi concept of Islamic democracy. The Iraqi concept was simply the idea of ‘majority rule’. To the Shiite majority who were in favor of Islamic democracy, this meant that they would be able to win the democratic elections and take control of the whole country. The Sunnis and Kurds, who were minority groups were opposed to this Islamic democracy, because they knew that they would lose in the elections and probably, in the future, face discrimination by the Shiites.

Bush’s mistaken belief that he could establish an American style democracy in Iraq failed to understand Iraqi politics. Bush’s conception of democracy was primarily based on the American democratic characteristic requiring the separation of religion and state. This characteristic cannot exist in a Muslim nation like Iraq. The Iraqi political system is a unification of religion and state, not a separation. The Iraqi Constitution requires that all members of the government be Muslims. This means that even though they may have an Islamic democracy, or rule by the majority, they can never have a non-religious government.

Bush’s imaginary plan for a non-religious, secular government composed of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds was always impossible. First of all, all Iraqi’s want a government and constitution that is Islamic and based on the Koran (Qur’an) and Shari’a or Islamic Law. Secondly, the three Islamic groups are not political parties, they are religious sects. Thirdly, these three sects have been separated by a schism for hundreds of years and will never compromise. Because of this inability to compromise their religious beliefs, only one religious sect can control the government and this will be the one that is strongest militarily. Bush’s political plan for a multi-sect government was always impossible. The only possible outcome from democratic elections in Iraq is a Shiite Islamic theocracy.

The third ambitious goal of the Bush administration for Iraq, was to change the social-religious nature of the country. Of the three aspects the administration was attempting to change, this one was the one that was the most insanely impossible. This was the characteristic of the Iraqi culture that every single Iraqi citizen was completely happy with and would die to defend. While some Iraqi’s wanted to eliminate the dictatorship and some wanted to privatize the industries, absolutely no one wanted to change the social or religious nature of their nation. The Iraqi’s viewed this as an attack and an insult by the predominately Christian Bush administration aimed at their sacred religion. They saw no difference between this intolerant attack and the ancient Christian Crusades against the Muslim Turks. This is the aspect of American hegemony that has done the most to provoke the fundamentalist extremists and terrorists.

There are basically two types of terrorists. The political terrorists who want some specific goal or objective and the religious terrorists who do not want any specific goal. These religious extremists only want to fight a holy war and die as a martyr. This is the type of terrorists that the Bush administration is provoking. This is clearly the conception that Osama bin Laden has in mind when he calls Bush a Crusader. This is the type of terrorist that presents a potential threat to our national security. The Bush administration is not fighting terrorists, they are creating terrorists. Those Americans who believe that the U.S. is not attacking the Islamic religion, completely fail to understand the Iraqi concept of the unification of religion and state. In the mind of an Iraqi Muslim, an attack against their nation is also an attack against their religion, because they do not separate these two concepts.

The Bush administration’s hegemony in Iraq has focused on the three major aspects of society, the economic, political and the socio-religious. These proposed changes have been supported by three different groups of Americans who have different special interests.

The economic change from socialism to capitalism is supported in general by all corporations and capitalists who have economic ambitions in the Middle East. The goal of privatizing all of the Iraqi industries presents opportunities to make vast fortunes for American corporations in all types of industries, but primarily oil. This is part of the administration’s aggressive master plan of globalization. Globalization itself is primarily focused on acquiring cheap labor to maximize corporate profits. Privatization and Globalization have the same goals.

The attempted political change in Iraq from dictatorship to democracy, has been supported by most members of the U.S. Congress and most average Americans because of a misunderstanding of what was involved. This concerned the difference between American democracy and Islamic democracy. If most Americans had understood the consequences of establishing Islamic democracy, they would probably have been opposed to the U.S. military action in Iraq. Islamic democracy can only result in an Islamic theocracy. While some Americans are in favor of a Christian theocracy, most are opposed to an Islamic theocracy (every religion wants their own religion to have secular power, but not other religions). Establishing a Shiite Islamic theocracy in Iraq will have the unfortunate consequence of uniting Iraq with Iran, since Iran already has a Shiite Islamic theocracy.

The third goal of Bush’s hegemony, the socio-religious change, has been strongly supported by the American’s who are generally referred to as Christian fundamentalists, right wingers or theocons. Many average American Christians and other religious groups support this action because they see no harm in forcing their religious ideas on other nations, even if they don‘t want them. These people or groups are comparable to the fundamentalist Muslims who are also only concerned with the religious aspects of the American occupation of Iraq. Fundamentalist extremists in any religion are quite ready to force their beliefs on everyone else. Many Christian groups have always had an evangelical missionary zeal in which they think it is their holy duty to save the rest of the world from their errors even if they don‘t want to be saved or converted. These evangelicals hope that Bush will succeed in establishing freedom of religion for all religions in Iraq, so they can begin converting the Muslims to their own religious beliefs. Of course the Muslims simply see this as more Crusading by Christian intruders and don’t want the other religions to start constructing churches or synagogues in Baghdad.

Nation building is an arrogant endeavor undertaken for exactly the same misguided reasons that inspired previous generations of militaristic nations to invade, colonize and exploit weaker nations for selfish motives.

Since the end of WW II, the United States has instigated two major, disastrous wars, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. Altogether in these two wars, over two million people have been killed. Both of these unnecessary wars have destroyed nations and wasted lives and national treasure. It’s time to change direction.