“The tyrannies, transgressions and arrogance of Alexanders and Genghises which in the past they perpetrated by force, nowadays the powerful and civilized democracies of the world collectively impose on the weaker nations.”— Allamah Seyyed Mohammad Hosayn Tabataba’i

Iran has suffered egregiously from a pathologically-driven, violent and hegemonic U.S. foreign policy. From the 1953 CIA-engineered coup overthrowing the government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, up to the 1979 victory of the Islamic Revolution, Washington effectively ruled Iran through the autocrat, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. After the Islamic Revolution ousted its puppet ruler, the U.S. has sought revenge incessantly in the name of western secular democracy, yet for 44 years the Islamic Republic has thwarted all attempts to impose this capitalist contagion. What is this western secular democracy that the U.S. has wanted to force upon Iran, and how do we define “democracy?” Beyond the notion of governance that coexists with freedom, human rights and social justice, and legitimizes policies and laws by allowing public input, usually by free, public elections, “democracy” defies definition.  One scholar divides “democracy” into five categories based on citizen involvement, ranging from participation by all citizens at the one extreme, to a group of leaders acting on behalf of citizens at the other. Likewise, democracies can be classified as “secular” or “religious,” with the Islamic Republic included in the latter category, since Iranians do have a voice in public policy, which is based on interpretation of Islamic laws.

“Democracy does not come from a blueprint dreamed up in a foreign think tank, to be imposed from above by an occupying military regime,” writes Professor Ali Mirsepassi of New York University.  And yet the United States has repeatedly, albeit not always successfully, attempted to do precisely that in numerous countries around the world. Moreover, the U.S. blueprint for western secular democracy calls for instigating internal turmoil in a targeted country, or even resorting to military force, as was the case in Iraq, to topple the legitimate government and impose a U.S.-aligned, economically neoliberal client system. Rather than spreading democracy by any definition, the U.S. infects host countries with a capitalist contagion.

The U.S. is an antithetical choice for the standard bearer of democracy in the world, given its origins as a British colonial project, its lands usurped by wholesale slaughter of entire native populations, and its economic viability built upon the Atlantic slave trade.  Far from being a democracy, the U.S. was controlled by elites from the start, with fifty-five wealthy white men responsible for the writing of the U.S. constitution, which enshrined the repugnant institution of slavery in the country’s supreme law of the land. Most of the white settlers killed the Native peoples without hesitation, considering them to be a subhuman species. Few felt as did secretary of war Henry Knox that, due to such barbaric acts, a “black cloud of injustice and inhumanity will impend over our national character.”

Today, this “black cloud of injustice and inhumanity” can be seen as a pervasive consequence of western secular democracy, which in truth is merely a moniker for a morally vacuous ideological veneer hiding the unprincipled system of unbridled neoliberal capitalism lurking underneath.  In his seminal work, Iqtisaduna (Our Economy), Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr commenting on the historical reality of what results when capitalism is imposed, writes, “Humanity has indeed suffered terribly at the hands of capitalist societies as a result of its moral emptiness, spiritual vacuum and its peculiar way of life.” And yet this corrupt, capitalist contagion, under the rubric of freedom, human rights and democracy, is exactly what the U.S. desires to inflict upon other nations and societies, Iran in particular, using military force if need be.

The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 made clear to the European powers that the U.S. intended to exercise control over the former Spanish colonies of Latin and South America, which were then gaining their independence. By the 1890s, the U.S. had intervened three times in Nicaragua alone as well as in Argentina and Uruguay.  By the time American officials were mulling over invading Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro, the U.S. had intervened in 103 countries around the globe according to a U.S. State Department report titled “Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945.” U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1897, “I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.” It is likely that his view on war was shared by every subsequent U.S. president.

The binary mythology of a culturally white, manly and “Godly” U.S. in contrast to “backward,” or at best, “developing” non-western countries has provided the impetus to spread western secular democracy around the world by means of its unrivaled economic and military power. Although the U.S. tended to view itself as distinctively different from the European colonial powers, the country adopted a neocolonialist foreign policy, which was increasingly justified during the cold war in terms of “good” versus “evil,” with the latter term applied to those nations that dared to oppose Washington’s dictates.

Guatemala is case study in U.S. neocolonialism marketed to the gullible American people as fending off communism by supporting “democracy.”  After being elected president in 1951, Jacobo Arbenz instituted a series of social reforms, including land redistribution, minimum wage and health care, which gave the impoverished Guatemalans hope. Interpreting Arbenz’ progressive policies as “Soviet penetration in Latin America,” the U.S. intervened and drove him from power by means of a CIA covert operation.  The U.S.-backed military regime returned the redistributed land to the oligarchs and launched a reign of terror, which resulted in horrendous violence for two generations and the “disappearance” of some 200,000 Guatemalans.

Yet in spite of this tawdry history of genocide against Native Peoples, enslavement of Blacks, neocolonialist wars and an unceasing obsession with global domination, a disturbing percentage of Americans would vigorously defend the notion that their country was in fact a true democracy, whose form of government, economic system, customs and culture should be adopted by other nations, or imposed by force, if needed.  “Having internalized this Myth of America,” writes historian Walter Hixon, “a majority, or at least a critical mass of Americans have granted spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy over the sweep of U.S. history.”

With its abundant petroleum reserves, Iran has long been the target of U.S. neocolonial aspirations, having been one of the first countries to have its legitimate government overthrown by a CIA coup d’état. On August 19, 1953 CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, by hiring mobs to riot in the streets of Tehran and bribing corrupt newspaper editors, succeeded in toppling the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. The coup, which had been planned since May 1951, initiated a 25-year-long era of dictatorial rule by the pusillanimous Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who was staunchly backed by Washington with CIA training for his SAVAK security forces and given virtual carte blanche for acquisition of advanced weaponry. As the self-appointed policeman for U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region, he was openly supportive of the Zionist regime, while ignoring the needs of, and thus alienating, the Iranian people.

By 1976 some 40,000 Americans were employed in Iran maintaining the shah’s high-tech weapons at exorbitant salaries, which Iranians referred to as haqq-e tavahhosh or “barbarism allowances.” Bell Helicopter employees in Isfahan showed particular contempt toward Iranian traditions and social customs, defacing sacred mosques and shrines by writing “Jesus Saves” on them, or, as one American did, riding a motorcycle through one. Iranians saw their country as becoming a dumping ground for noxious western influences, such as alcohol, pornography and luxury goods, as the shah squandered the country’s resources building his “great civilization.”

The victory of the Islamic Revolution not only deposed the hated shah, but also caused seismic geopolitical shock waves that reached all the way to Washington.  Led by Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini, the revolution ousted the despised despot and removed a crucial component of the tripartite U.S. policy for regional dominance in the Persian Gulf, catching the arrogant power completely off guard.  Basing the Islamic government that replaced the 2500-year-old monarchy in Iran on a principle called velayat-e faqih, or guardianship by the Islamic jurist, Imam Khomeini had begun writing about this form of governance in the early 1960s, and solidified its format during his exile in Najaf, Iraq in a series of lectures in the early 1970s.

Even before the Islamic Revolution had achieved victory, U.S. president Jimmy Carter sent General Robert E. Huyser to Tehran to investigate the possibility of a military coup like the one in 1953 that returned the shah to power, or at least arrange some kind of a deal with Imam Khomeini so as to yield an outcome favorable to Washington.  The plan seemed to revolve around the bizarre concept of a coalition government combining clerics allied to Imam Khomeini and westernized Iranian generals who would be sensitive to U.S. interests.  However, the Imam saw through the scheme, hardened his position against what he perceived correctly to be an evil and destructive power, and committed to eradicating all traces of American influence from the fledgling Islamic Republic of Iran.

The ever-present prospect of another U.S. coup attempt compelled a group of Iranian students to occupy the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979.  While female and Black staff members were released within two weeks as a goodwill gesture, the occupation was almost universally condemned in the western media with abundant references to “the loss of Iran to an Islamic form of government,” “civilization is receding,” “anti-Americanism...is sweeping across the world of Islam,” etc. One article even suggested that the Palestinian Liberation Organization was behind the embassy takeover.  In the Washington Post of November 11, 1979, Joseph Kraft called for “an unmistakable, and preferably surprising, assertion of American power,” such as “supporting Iraq in its effort to stir up provincial resistance inside Iran.”

Within a year, Saddam put Kraft’s suggestion into action.  After receiving a green light from U.S. president Carter, Saddam’s forces attacked Iran on September 22, 1980 with an air assault along with six coordinated strikes by 11 divisions of Iraqi ground troops.  The CIA was well aware of the Iraqi dictator’s war plans in October 1979, more than a year beforehand, and had briefed Carter less than a week prior to the initial invasion. But in spite of the surprise attack, Saddam’s forces only occupied Khorramshahr after a prolonged siege following a failed initial armor assault, and were repelled by the Pasdaran before reaching the passes in the Zagros Mountains.  When Saddam’s military failed to achieve the anticipated quick victory, the demonic despot resorted to the use of chemical weapons against Iranians, while U.S. officials labored to deflect any consequent moral outrage that sporadically arose. “They imposed eight years of war on our country,” said the Leader of the Islamic Revolution referring to the U.S., “About 300,000 of our young people, our people were martyred in this eight-year war.”

Yet 44 years later, having thwarted all ruthless efforts expended by the United States and its co-conspirators to overthrow the legitimate Islamic government and replace it with a U.S.-aligned, client regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran still exists as a proud, sovereign nation. Those protesters who have been seduced by western secular democratic dogma should consider the sacrifices made by those martyrs for the Islamic Republic, as well as the words of Ferdowsi, “Cho Iran nabashad tan-e man mabad (Would that my body no longer be lest Iran not exist”).