How the election of 1976 changed the Middle East
The execution of former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, merits only
the briefest mention. His indefensible behavior can be defended only in
that his step-father was so brutal he went to be raised by Khayrallah
Tulfah, his pro-Nazi uncle. Whether Saddam became a brutal sociopath by
nature or by nurture we may never know; however, we do know Saddam
passed on to his, arguably, insane sons his own delight in the torture
and brutal murder of his subjects.
The irony of the last week of 2006 is that former President
Gerald Ford, one of the most decent men ever to serve humanity, was
honored at his death by the American people at about the same time the
people of Iraq broke the neck of Saddam Hussein with a hangman’s rope.
The death of President Ford and the problems we face with
militant Iran and the trouble Iran is causing inside Iraq raises some
interesting speculations about the presidential election of 1976 that
pitted the incumbent President Gerald Ford against presidential
wannabe, James Earl Carter.
Long before and while Gerald Ford was President of the United
States, the Shah of Iran was America’s best friend in the Middle East.
During those years, the Soviet Union was nearing the zenith of its
military might and was looking longingly at the oil riches of
neighboring Iran. Indeed, were it not for the Shah and his American
ally, some experts predicted the Soviet Union would not only seize
Iran’s oil but also achieve its long-sought goal of a year-round,
warm-water port on the Persian Gulf.
Fortunately, the Shah was a strong opponent of Soviet
expansionism. He purchased the latest U.S. military equipment to face
the Soviets to his north. Our military advisers and factory technical
representatives enjoyed warm personal relationships with members of the
Iranian military who were quick to embrace new technology and learning.
(The fact that Iranians are not Arabs may have something to do with the
Iranians’ willingness to study technical manuals rather than limit
their reading to the Koran.)
The Shah admired many of our institutions, to include our
social security system. So much so, that he hired Ross Perot’s IDS
company to come into Iran to set up a social security system as a way
of insuring that Iran’s oil wealth was distributed among the people of
his country.
But the pro-women’s equality, pro-education Shah was moving
too swiftly for the radical Islamic Mullahs who were loath to see any
changes in Iran that might diminish their influence among the Iranian
people. Urged on by the Mullahs, the devotees of radical Islam wanted
the Shah deposed.
Mind you, like all of the rulers of the Middle East, the Shah
was a dictator, complete with a secret police apparatus to keep him in
power. Ironically, if the Shah had not been “infected” with progressive
ideas such as a social security system and other western institutions
that were threatening to the Mullahs, he might well have remained in
power to the end of his days.
The U.S. was not the only nation that liked the Shah. He was
also popular with all of his neighbors in the Middle East. Why? Because
the Shah had no intention of attacking them. Having plenty of oil and
being under the protection and influence of the United States probably
had something to do with his pacifism.
Had Gerald Ford been elected in 1976, U.S. policy with regard
to the Shah would have remained unchanged. Iran would have continued to
be a pro-U.S. nation.
But when President Jimmy Carter was told the Shah was dying of
syphilis contracted years ago as a student in Paris and that a holy man
was waiting in the wings in France to replace the Shah, Carter pulled
the Persian Rug out from under the Shah, paving the way for the
Ayatollah Khomeini and radical Islam to rule Iran. As Paul Harvey says,
“Now, you know the rest of the story.”
Syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a Distinguished
Graduate of the U.S. Naval War College and a former research fellow at
the U.S. Military History Institute of the U.S. Army War College. He is
the co-author of The Grand Conspiracy and The Panama Conspiracy – two
thrillers about terrorism directed against the United States.
©2007. William Hamilton.
|