Part 3 ---While the Iranian people were experiencing a terrible period of suppression, imprisonment and torture, the Shah, America's unconditionally, enjoyed unconditional American support in implementing his domestic policies of repression. Taken to its logical conclusion, the outcome of neglecting the people right of sovereignty is the expansion of corruption of corruption on the one hand and the resulting economic crises on the other.

The extensive domestic rebellions in 1977-8 were signs of this. The Shah suppressed these rebellions with full American corroboration. Once the Shah lost both his practical control and his spirit, as a result of the peoples' resistance, General Robert Huyser was sent to Iran in January 1979 to take control of the Iranian Army. Regardless of any right the people held of national sovereignty, Huyser's mission was to employ the army in breaking the nationwide strikes in customs, banking and the oil industry and bringing these sectors together with the water and power facilities, as well as press, under the control of Prime Minister Shahpour Bakhtiar. Huyser also was under orders to resort to a coup d'etat if all else failed.

But the wave of the revolution was now well out of control and was speeding towards victory, with the support of the majority of Iranian people. The U.S., faced with a new reality, submitted to recognize the Islamic Republic of Iran. But once again she violated the Iranian people's right of sovereignty, some of the most important instances being: the Tabas military invasion; implicit encouragement of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to invade Iran, while offering Iraq financial and military aid throughout the war, despite the U.S. declaration of neutrality; and exerting economic pressure to influence Iran's decision making in its national economy.

President Bill Clinton followed presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush's polices in destroying the national might of both Iran and Iraq under the new term of dual containment'. He put pressure on Japan and European countries to isolate Iran both politically and economically. The U.S. has done its utmost to prevent Iran from having a role in the trade of Central Asian countries and of the Caucasus, and to prevent the transit of their oil and gas through Iran which is the natural and most economically feasible route connecting those countries to the outside world.

The U.S. government has passed legislation punishing foreign companies investing more than $40 million a year in Iranian gas and oil projects. It has allocated $20 million a year for subverting the Islamic Republic of Iran, an obvious violation of the Iranian peoples' right of sovereignty, and President Clinton has also negotiated and dined with members of a terrorist group, the MKO, aiming to overthrow the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Documents seized from the American Embassy in Tehran after the revolution revealed that after the June 1953 coup d'etat the American government would determine then implement the political, economic, military, and cultural strategies of the country through the Shah. With the help of one of the most terrible intelligence services in the world-the SAVAK-the Shah would crush any protests to his hegemony.

The SAVAK did not tolerate any opposition. Critics of the Shah's regime were suppressed, isolated, tortured and executed. Sophisticated American arms poured into Iran from 1973 and were used under direct supervision by the American military forces to bring the region under America's political and military hegemony. The Islamic Revolution itself brought about no fundamental change in the American understanding towards Iran and by implicitly encouraging Iraq to invade Iran, the United States sought to destroy Iran's economic backbone.

The damage done to Iran's economic resources are considerably more than the total income created by Iranian oil during the long years it was exported right up to 1988, the end of the ran-Iraq War. To conclude I would now like to present some questions worthy of thought: 1.Considering the developments in information technology and dissemination of information which increasingly underline the vast inequality between the industrialized world and the underdeveloped countries, is it possible to implement a sustainable regional and international peace without a just study of the roots of such inequality? 2.Even if the politicians of a country are forced to accept certain conditions under political, economic and military pressure, can the people also be coerced to follow? 3.Is it possible to hold a dialogue or talk of international cooperation with a nation which is at the same time, being forced by different means and methods into submission? 4.Concerning the case of Iran, can Iran's economic, political and social crises be solved without taking into consideration past U.S. polices that have played a significant role in causing those crises to occur in the first place? 5.Is it possible to redeem normal relations with Iran without finding ways to cure the deep injuries she has suffered? I believe that it would be highly unlikely to establish and maintain stable relations between countries without observing some basic minimums of international relations.

The minimums that could be observed before establishing a dialogue on Iran-American relations should be as follows: A.Mutual respect for, and acceptance in practice of, the principle of equality. B.Outright acceptance of past faults. C.Practical measures for compensation of some damages. D.Showing good-will by preparing the grounds for a comprehensive dialogue under conditions of equality. E.Creating necessary conditions to prevent the exertion of pressure on the other side to give undue concessions.

(Concluded)