In 1953, Iran’s democratically-elected government led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh had been overthrown yet again to restore power to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. The final months of Mosaddegh’s government were nothing short of chaotic. Economic tensions flared as the British embargo tanked public approval and sparked political violence among dissenting government factions and the working class. As the Cold War began to dominate the global stage, fears of Communist ties within the Mosaddegh regime led to several assassination attempts on his cabinet – prompting the government to exercise emergency powers, dissolve parliament, and jail political opponents.
To some, such political turmoil may seem unsurprising – another stark example of the chaos that has become synonymous with the state of Middle Eastern politics. Another attempt at democratization that ends as swiftly as it began, Iran encapsulates an overarching need for foreign intervention from Western nations to stabilize the Middle East.
Yet a closer examination of the coup d’etat reveals more insidious motivations. All the aforementioned events took place, to be sure, but not without foreign interests. In 2013, 60 years after Mosaddesgh had been overthrown, the CIA publicly admitted to orchestrating two attempts to topple the democratic regime. In his swift ascension into power, Mosaddegh desired a nation removed from imperial influence – primarily Great Britain and Russia. Since the late 19th-century, Central Asia had become centerstage to an ongoing imperialist rivalry, with the two colonial empires exercising military force and negotiations to expand their spheres of influence. Mosaddegh, in layman’s terms, wanted none of that. So after a failure from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to comply with audits, Mosaddegh limited the company’s access to oil reserves, and the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize their lucrative oil industry.
The British government, facing dire economic repercussions as a result, appealed to the United States for help – which ultimately lit the fuse for Operation Ajax that led to Mossadegh’s eventual abdication of power. Threatened with a similar political fate, the United States reinstated power to Shah Mohammad Pahlavi, who in spite of his support of oil nationalization fell in line with American authorities.
This was not the first time, nor the last time, the United States got involved in a regime-changing scheme. The U.S. has been knowingly involved in toppling Syria in 1949, overthrowing Iraq in 2003, and toppling Libya’s Gaddafi in 2011. Within this series of militant campaigns emerges a common theme: Big Oil. Within these nations stood political leaders that sought to nationalize their respective oil reserves. In the aftermath of American intervention, these domestic industries become largely privatized with foreign firms retaining a majority market share.
This isn’t to say that Gaddafi, Saddam, or other authoritarian figures did not wield their governments to commit acts worthy of our collective condemnation. But the U.S.’ insistence on toppling sovereign political regimes – in some cases democratically elected governments – in service of economic interests reflects a fundamental ideological flaw that justifies Western foreign policy. It objectifies Middle Eastern nations with rich histories and established political regimes as pawns to control for global influence. Any attempts from these nations to rid themselves of Western control – to “socialize” their economies – is met with strong resistance and subsequent support for dictatorial regimes that align with American interests.
As British diplomat George Curzon aptly described in the late 19th-century, the Middle East is nothing more than “pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the dominion of the world.”
Over one hundred years later, that dynamic has not changed.
To make matters worse, the United States’ military-industrial complex fuels the political tensions and instability that “necessitate” American intervention in the first place. To further explain, the military-industrial complex is a systemic collaboration between armed forces and defense contractors – from research and development to deployment and maintenance of military equipment and technologies. Though not unique to the United States, the country invests more in military spending than the next ten developed nations combined – an influence that dwarfs other competing imperial interests. The development of the military-industrial complex has been ongoing since the end of World War II – much to the fears of President Eisenhower in a famous speech.
The most alarming aspect of the complex is the clear lack of restraint in who receives rapidly advancing military technology and how much. For the first time ever, the Pentagon recently released a defense industrial strategy, within which it emphasizes “the need to move aggressively towards innovative, next-generation capabilities while continuing to upgrade and produce, in significant volumes, conventional weapons systems already in force.”
By insisting on buying the latest tank or fighter jet, the U.S.’ foreign policy strategy can be summarized as follows: splurging American tax dollars on supplanting a fleet that grows continually obsolete by the day.
And by effectively propping companies such as Raytheon and Boeing with hefty DoD contracts, these companies have the capacity to sell weapons to other countries vying for greater military strength. Between 1960 to 1980, the number of countries buying US arms doubled to over 110 – with a growing concentration of these sales headed for the Middle East according to foreign policy expert and University of Texas Professor Michael Klare. Furthermore, Klare goes on to reject the conventional thinking that underlies these arms exchanges, declaring that arming Third World countries undermines global security by equipping adversaries with weapons that pose direct threats to all neighboring countries. It is no wonder that a rapid expansion of the military-industrial complex coincided with a bloody, tumultuous series of revolutions, civil conflict, and wars staged throughout the Middle East. Syria. Iran-Iraq. The Persian Gulf. Libya. The list truly goes on.
But then again, what use would mass manufacturing weapons be without manufacturing war?
But until we recognize America’s direct contribution to international political turmoil, the Middle East will continue to remain a bloody chessboard with no end in sight
*The photo used in this article refers to a scene of military figures standing guard in a rehearsal for Joe Biden’s inauguration. The photo is being displayed under fair use to symbolize the federal government’s strong ties with military interests and the companies that supply them. Credit: Getty Images.