Iran and US Hold Historic Talks on Iraq- Why So Much Hostility?

May 28, 2007
After several months of pressure from the other side of the aisle, the Bush administration is about to hold talks with Iran about security in the Gulf region. Ever since Nancy Pelosi visited Syria and walked under the statue of Saladin in Damascus center, President Bush has been increasingly reluctant to yield to pressure and seek out assistance from Iraq's neighbors- two of which account for 2/3 of the President's "axis of evil"- but now it seems that the old rhetoric has been jettisoned without much official explanation from the White House.

So the first question one might ask is if Mr Bush would like any ketchup to go with his crow dinner this evening.
American-Iranian hostility goes way back, and the mistrust is registered high on both sides. Starting with the Iranians, it is clear to see why they see the United States as an undesirable partner.

In 1953, once the British had duly convinced President Eisenhower that the then-elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, was a Communist, the CIA was charged with orchestrating a coup in Teheran to replace him with someone friendly to US interests. Operation Ajax, as it was known, was spearheaded by none other than Kermit Roosevelt- a nephew of Franklin Delanoe Roosevelt- and he was armed with a big budget designed to satisfy a lot of greedy army officers eager to comply with the plan and place into office one of their own- General Zahedi.
Flush with bribe money, Roosevelt paid off journalists to smear Mossadegh, hired thugs to vandalize mosques in the Prime Minister's name and organized demonstrations in the capital city that called for Mossadegh's resignation.

As the country fell into chaos, Roosevelt spent several precious hours trying to convince the Shah of Iran- Mohammed Reza Pahlavi- that the US would buttress his regime at all times in return for an America-friendly policy. Things were going well, until the coup was discovered and suddenly Roosevelt's life was in danger; the Shah had escaped in his royal plane and skedaddled to Baghdad where things were safe, and it seemed that Operation Ajax would be a failure.
But Roosevelt was not a quitter; he stuck it through and saw the coup to a successful end, and eventually even coaxed the Shah back to his own country.

And so the regime was established, until revolts in the late 70's finally saw the gathering of forces to oust the Shah and right a wrong that was done to the country in 1953.
The Americans, too, have been fooled once by the Iranians as well. There is a lot of speculation about a visit by Ronald Reagan and George H.

W. Bush to Teheran in 1978- on the eve of the former's run for president in 1980. The visit is only recorded once in a speech, but conspiracy theorists suggest that Reagan and Bush- who was then head of the CIA- were there to give a tacit nod at the overthrow of the Shah by Islamic forces.

But why? We mustn't forget that Reagan was firstly an anti-communist, and Iran was sinking into anarchy while the Soviet Union watched the developments to the south with an interested eye. Also, Islamic militancy hadn't yet taken off in the Middle East, so such a regime would at least be popular as well as stable.

And so the theory goes, that by having the future President of the United States agree now to an overthrow, the US would again have a friendly neighbor in the Gulf.
But the revolution eats its children- so they say- and those moderate students were replaced by more virulent activists, and Ayatollah Khomeini was in no mood to make friends with any friend of the Shah's. As a result of the revolution turning more radical, the Iranians broke their pledge to respect the United States and occupied its embassy in Teheran, holding 66 hostages there for 444 excruciating says, until they released them- 20 minutes after Reagan had made his inaugural speech.

The mistrust is high on both sides, but it is the Iranians who are under the added pressure of being a target for bombing anytime that Bush thinks he can get away with it. Even if the talks focus only on security, they will still likely go nowhere, since the Islamic Republic of Iran does not have the same 5 year vision for Iraq as the United States has. Just like Soviet ideology that Reagan fought in the past, Iran seeks to export its version of Islamic government, especially to Iraq, where Shiites have suffered for years under the Sunni-secular rule of Saddam Hussein.

Thus due to incompatible objectives in Iraq, there is little hope that even a small breakthrough can be achieved.
Tracy Dove, editor of is a Professor of History and the Department Chair of International Relations at the University of New York in Prague. Should the Taliban be invited to take part in talks about Afghanistan's future, as Pakistan President Musharraf suggested?

(May.