Replies

Again, from what's available in the political leadership of various countries, we by and large back the lesser of the several evils. So, we backed the Shah over Khomeini, and Iran was better off with the Shah, as any Iranian refugee here will tell you.

That is simply a silly assertion. Khomeini was not a factor until the late 70's after the Shah had been in power for 30 years.

We installed the Shah shortly after WWII. We had taken control of Iran in order to keep supply lines open to the Soviets. We kicked his father, who was the leader of Iran at the time out into exile.

Our help in ousting the Shah's potential poltical opponents included stirring up dissent and encouraging violence. Our CIA did that. And rather than promote the seeds of liberty, we were promoting a totalitarian regime which supplied us cheap oil.

But you keep saying that we've been displaying "American values."

The only way that you can continue that position is to put on blinders. George Washington warned of what can happen when we entangle ourselves politically. That's American values. There was no reason for us to stay involved in Iran after WWII. None. Yet we did and the backlash from the Iranian people came from that intervention.

Similarly, during Iran-Iraq war Iraq looked like a better one to support, given the Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah and the hostage crisis.

We supported Iraq as punishment for Iran's rejection of American intervention. American values?

All this is simply a foreign policy based on national interest as understood at the time, -- a valid function of government. When there are two S.O.B.'s to choose from, we choose the one we think will serve our interests at the moment. A clear, contrasting conflict of values is only present in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and we chose the right side. It might have been a smarter policy not to choose anyone in their S.O.B. struggles, but when we do choose sides, that is no aggression. 9/11, on the other hand, is a clear act of aggression.

You are right that everybody in the Middle East has a concrete grievance, such as our support of Israel, military presence in Saudi Arabia, support for the Shah, or the modernization inflicted on them by the global economy. The common denominator in all that is their propensity for being ruled by thugs. Their revolutuionaries, unlike the revolutionaries of the West, seek a greater tyranny, never freedom. To summarize: collectively, they hate freedom. Those who might choose freedom individually do not have a political mechanism to achieve it in their home land, they either emigrate or keep quiet.