It's The Currency's Fault

Is it just me or does anyone else who sees Democrat leaders and media persons get all self-righteous and angry asking the Republicans, "Why did you make the mistake of going into Iraq?" feel like smashing the television? Seriously, don't they know the answer to the question which would be obvious to even a 5 years old? In case they don't, let me help out. Republicans went into Iraq because you people in the Democratic party, CNN, NBC, ABC, everywhere supported the decision. An idiotic decision. 70% Americans were in favour of it. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for it.

And in case their answer is "Oh, but the President misled us/lied to us", sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. Especially when all the people who are in charge, in government as well as in the media, belong to the generation that suffered in Vietnam. And yet, you got suckered again. Let me point you to George Bush's cover version of the proverb you should keep in mind. So no point in acting as if it is all the Republicans' fault.

And what is with the whole consensus on getting the troops back home? Letting the Iraqis take care of themselves? Seriously, the Bush administration has been wrong on almost every count so far. And now for a change, they are saying the right thing, i.e. once you have gone in and created a mess there, leaving and creating a vacuum for all sorts of America-hater nutjobs to come in and take control? Have you forgotten the following chain of events - America goes into Afghanistan to counter the Russian invasion -> Russians go home -> Americans go home -> Chaos ensues -> America haters take control -> Bin Laden arrives -> Executes 9/11 from there.

All these repeated screw-ups and not learning from past mistakes are probably the result of the motto on their currency - "In God We Trust". They trust in god so much that they just keep their fingers crossed and hope everything will be alright. I propose the Americans put a new motto on their currency - "Fool me once..."

Why America is the Great Satan for Iran

As tensions build up between US and the Iran, it is amusing and even frustrating to see the coverage and opinion of this issue in the American media. As much as I despise Islamic fundamentalism, and am worried by its rise at so many places in the world, including Iran, I can't help but be surprised at how even the supposedly free, knowledgeable, unbiased and objective American media is telling just half the story.

If you were to ask the common man on the streets in America about Iran, he will probably say, "they took our embassy staff hostage and kept them hostage for over a year. They have always been anti-America, calling us the Great Satan, have been supporting terrorism against Israel, and are now creating trouble in Iraq."

All of which is the truth, but only half the truth. Iran did not magically appear on the scene in 1978. It has an older history, most of which was progressive and almost evolutionary in its movement towards a modern state. What halted and even subverted this movement was British and American meddling, for the sake of oil.

Iran, like all most countries in the world, was a feudalistic monarchy at the turn of the 19th century. But a few years later there was a Constitutional Revolution, completely internal, which cut the powers of the monarchy, and took them towards democracy. There were progresses, and even though there were some setbacks during WW2, Iran was well on track to become a moderate Muslim state. A democratic activist, Mohammad Mossadegh, became popular and was elected Prime Minister. He was a modern-minded man, extremely popular, and though he had support from the Ayatollah of that time (I forget his name), the movement was more nationalist in nature than religious.

The issue of contention was oil. What many people do not know is British Petroleum, was once the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Britishers held controlling stake in it. Mossadegh nationalised the company in 1951, refusing to let Britishers control such a vital resource. The Britishers were pissed off. They wanted to overthrow him, but a post-WW2 Britain hardly had the muscles. So they conned America!

This is where Americs enters the picture. They conned America into thinking that Mossadegh was a communist supporter. Though Truman didn't fall for the British trickery, Eisenhower did, and ordered the CIA to depose Mossadegh, a democratically elected modernist, with a "friendly" monarch.

This is what amuses me about American foreign policy so much. For all their claims of "spreading democracy", they have actually been more involved in nipping democracies in the bud.

How was Mossadegh overthrown? Obviously, the CIA does not have open offices in foreign countries. The whole coup was engineered from within the US Embassy in 1953 by a man who was FDR's cousin. This coup, carried out from within the US embassy, derailed Iranian democracy by overthrowing the popular Mossadegh and replacing him with Shah Pehlavi. Does this piece of information not put the 1978 embassy situation into perspective? But the 1953 plot is never talked about on American TV and the common man feels crazy Iranians barbarically attacked the US embassy.

Though Pehlavi's White Revolution had lofty objectives, remember, he was a dictator. His regime was corrupt and oppressive. And it was supported by America. This helped the Shia clergy, the only remaining opposition after Mossadegh and his supporters were neutralized, gain support. They became popular, and eventually 1978 happened.

Even after 1978, when Saddam attacked Iran, America kept supporting him. Saddam's attack on Iran was a megalomaniacal and opportunistic move, which he thought would help him wrest control of Kuzhestan, which was to the two countries what Kashmir is to India and Pakistan. It was a clear cut aggression by Saddam, and it was repelled even by the weakened Iranian army. But America and Britain blatantly supported Saddam, arming him, even as he carried out chemical attacks killing tens of thousands of Iranians.

Now after all this, is it surprising that Iranians call America the Great Satan? America meddled in their affairs first. Iran never went to finger America. America fingered Iran, by derailing democracy and foisting a dictator on them, just for the sake of British Petroleum. Then arming an enemy dictator who carried out chemical weapons.

Americans are nice people. But they are deluded, and rather bizarrely have a victim mentality in the most undeserving contexts. In the case of Iran, if the media is truly professional in putting things into context, they will realise that it was their government which "started the fight". Iran is merely finishing it.

This is not to say I support Ahmedinejad in this stand-off. I find it disgusting that religious zealots are running that country. And I think Ahmedinejad is a nutcase. But he is a nutcase whose seeds were planted by America.

The same man who created the Interstate Highways in America, Dwight Eisenhower, also created the Iranian Fundamentalism problem.

Sit Tight

Columnists have bled their pens dry comparing the current US-Iran impasse to the days preceding WW1 when a small spark, that of the Archduke's assassination, set off the fire.

Such sparks can work only when both sides are just itching to have a go at each other. In this case, it would certainly seem so. The Bush government, which seemed more hawkish in Rumsfeld's days, now seems more mawkish in Gates' days in all matters related to Iran. Ahmedinejad himself is rattling sabres like a modern day Zorro. He plans to boast about their nuclear capabilities later this week. And he is doing everything to provoke the US, emboldened after the Iraq mess about his country's chances. And now this has happened.

For all we know, this could be an Iranian ploy to fabricate an excuse for doing something retaliatory.

Ahmedinejad seems to have read his hand very shrewdly. There are risks, but the game is in his favour. He knows that the Iraq war has become very unpopular. He knows that the Democratic aspirants for '08 all want to get out of Iraq. And he knows that after the Congress results, it is unlikely that Republicans will win in '08. In fact if he keeps Iraq burning for the next couple of years and more soldiers die, the war will become even more unpopular, and Bush's ratings will plummet even further. He is betting on political considerations ensuring that America will not actually attack, at least not with full force.

But he needs to be careful he does not overplay this hand and not crank it up too high. Another 9/11 could change the political compulsions in the US overnight.

Two Birds, One Stone, You're Welcome America

Since I have come to America, I keep hearing people crib ad nauseum about several problems. I hear them crib, and protest, and debate on TV. And They have done it so much that I have come up with an ingenious solution that'll make two of those problems disappear. And it's as elegant a solution as a number theory proof.

People have been talking about the possibility of the draft being reintroduced. Not the beer variety, the military variety. You know, conscription? The possibility of a draft, something not thought about in this country since the Vietnam, really gets people hot under the collar.

Another issue that bothers people is that of illegal immigration. They are building a fence along the Mexico border to stop illegal immigrants, planning laws to crack down on firms hiring illegal immigrants.

So here's my solution. Introduce a draft for the illegal immigrants. Compulsory military service in Iraq for those who cross the border illegally. Doesn't it make perfect sense? Liberals say that illegal immigrants have a place in America because they do the jobs that Americans don't want to do. What job is more unwanted than policing the streets of Baghdad? I'm sure illegal immigrants will be queueing up enthusiastically for the draft. What they'll earn in Iraq will be much more than what they earn mowing lawns or cleaning toilets anyway.