💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › iranna.hum captured on 2023-06-16 at 20:00:50.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The New American
Review of the News Inc.
395 Concord Ave.
Belmont, MA 02178
(617) 489-0605
$39 year, bi-weekly
AS THE CAULDRON BOILS
(The New American, October 12, 1987, p.25)
By John F. McManus
Things are heating up in the Persian Gulf.
The cauldron that is the Persian Gulf continues to boil; it increases to boil;
it increasingly threatens to erupt into a major conflagration. Trying to
figure out what is happening requires some historical background.
Religion the Key.
Iran and Iraq share a border that begins at the western edge of the Gulf. Once
known as Persia, Iran has a history as an independent nation streaching back
into biblical times. On the other hand, Iraq's independence was recognized
only as recently as 1930.
During the past 30 years, Iraq has become strongly allied to the Soviet Union.
But Iran, until 1979, was a firm U.S. ally. When the Carter Administration
paved the way for the American-hating Ayatollah Khomeini to take power in Iran
by betraying the Shah, a Soviet-backed alliance between Iran and Iraq seemed
likely. Intense religious differences not only prevented it, but led to war
between the two nations.
Iran under Khomeini is a Shite Moslem theocratic dictatorship. As much as
Moslems despise the "infidels" who practice other religions, they have even
more contempt for dissident Moslems. And Iraq, with a population that is
almost 60 percent Shiite Moslem, is led by men who are Sunni Moslem. When
Khomeini began to encourage the spread of his Shiite revolution into Iraq in
1980, the Iraqi leaders took up arms against a very real threat. Thus began
this bloody conflict that continues today.
U.S. Enters the Fray
If there is anything a Westerner ought to avoid, it is a holy war between
competing Moslem factions. Yet, we have stuck our nose into this one in a
really big way.
One of the casualties of the war has been the Iraq oil-exporting port of Basra.
As a consequence, Iraq now ships its black gold through neighboring Kuwait.
Not surprisingly, Kuwait's political stance mirrors its Iraqi Big Brother's-
pro-Soviet Union.
Only four months ago, an Iraqi attack on the USS Stark left 37 American sailors
dead. Amazingly, the U.S. response has included placing American flags on
Kuwaiti tankers, thereby greatly aiding Iraq in its struggle with Iran. And we
have beefed up our own naval presence to guard Kuwait's vessels from possible
Iranian attack. In many ways, the United States is now a participant - on the
side of the pro-Soviet Iraq - in the is holy war between Shiites and Sunnis.
In a peculiar gesture of gratitude, Kuwait has refused landing rights to the
U.S. helicopters working to protect Kuwait's ships. And a high percentage of
those ships that our forces are protecting are leased from the USSR!
Many Questions
President Reagan has inserted our forces into this battle zone in order to
protect "the free flow of oil." But why must the United States do the
protecting? Our nation imports close to half of its oil, but only five percent
of it comes from this area. Western Europe and Japan are the large users of
Persian Gulf oil.
Because the United States has chosen to side with Iraq, Khomeini's virulent
anti-Americanism has risen to white-heat proportions. What will he and the
fanatical hordes he controls now do? What American is comfortable having a
husband or a son aboard one of our ships in these dangerous waters?
Present U.S. policy is unsupportable and should be reversed. It seems as
though we are determined to provoke Khomeini into attacking U.S. vessels. If
he does, American pressure to topple the independent, fanatical, Iranian
religious zealot will grow. Then, a successor will be named who is more
acceptable to the Washinton-led builders of the "new world order," who
installed Khomeini in the first place and turned Iran away from the West. This
is hardly a proper use of U.S. military forces.
Electronic reprint courtesy of Genesis 1.28 (206) 361-0751