[EggbertEinstein]

Here is a translation of an article, which was originally published in a French journal, I think in the early 1990s.

https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15 ... ujahideen/

In it Brzezinski states the following:

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

This is quite an extraordinary claim. In todays context, it seems like an apalling confession. But at the time, long before 9/11 etc. I think it could be interpreted as boasting: "I brought down the Soviet Union, for the meagre price of creating a few Islamic terrorist groups." My question is, is this an idle boast/exaggeration, or is there some substance to it?

[The Immortal Goon]

It's exactly right.

The US was also there promoting and building the Muslim Brotherhood (1, 2, among others).

And it goes back before then.

A hundred years ago, Lenin set out the Soviet vision for the Middle East:

We know that in the East the masses will rise as independent participants, as builders of a new life, because hundreds of millions of the people belong to dependent, underprivileged nations, which until now have been objects of international imperialist policy, and have only existed as material to fertilise capitalist culture and civilisation. And when they talk of handing out mandates for colonies, we know very well that it means handing out mandates for spoliation and plunder-handing out to an insignificant section of the world’s population the right to exploit the majority of the population of the globe. That majority, which up till then had been completely outside the orbit of historical progress, because it could not constitute an independent revolutionary force, ceased, as we know, to play such a passive role at the beginning of the twentieth century. We know that 1905 was followed by revolutions in Turkey, Persia and China, and that a revolutionary movement developed in India.

Imagine you're watching this in 1919. The Bolsheviks just took over a backward country; the Young Turks were always a little too commie for Western liking already; India was on the verge of revolution and the communists were increasingly popular there, and we know what was going on with China.

Now there's Lenin encouraging the Middle East to jump on board.

Part of the reason that the Middle East was cut up and divided the way that it was after WWI was to find the most religious jerks as possible and put them in change so that they could smash any of the communists that might pop up. Hence the beginning of the Saudi monarchy, which the West is still tied to today.

The communists wanted the Middle East to modernize and secularize:

Most of the Eastern peoples are in a worse position than the most backward country in Europe-Russia. But in our struggle against feudal survivals and capitalism, we succeeded in uniting the peasants and workers of Russia; and it was because the peasants and workers united against capitalism and feudalism that our victory was so easy. Here contact with the peoples of the East is particularly important, because the majority of the Eastern peoples are typical representatives of the working people-not workers who have passed through the school of capitalist factories, but typical representatives of the working and exploited peasant masses who are victims of medieval oppression. The Russian revolution showed how the proletarians, after defeating capitalism and uniting with the vast diffuse mass of working peasants, rose up victoriously against medieval oppression. Our Soviet Republic must now muster all the awakening peoples of the East and, together with them, wage a struggle against international imperialism.

That is why the US and UK put the Shah in charge, the Saudis; when the Soviets went into Afghanistan they secularized and modernized.

I do not blame the West for making an alliance (and often building from scratch) an ultra-religious movement to fight the communists. That's just basic logic.

What I find weird is that after doing this, Westerners go running around wondering where these religious nutters came from. It's pretty obvious.

[Rugoz]

The US cannot simply "create" or "destroy" political movements at will.

Whenever the US won or lost during the cold war it was largely due to factors beyond its direct control.

Radical left-/right wingers always fall for simplistic nonsense.

[EggbertEinstein]

Radical left-/right wingers always fall for simplistic nonsense.

This itself sounds like a simplistic statement to me. I think it is clear if you read what was discussed that no-one is claiming that the US was the sole cause of the Mujahideen. Have you anything non-simplistic to add, or just insults?

If it is the title of the thread you are triggered by, maybe I can change it to remove the word create.

The Immortal Goon: thanks for providing that information. It was interesting.

[SolarCross]

That is why the US and UK put the Shah in charge, the Saudis; when the Soviets went into Afghanistan they secularized and modernized.

That's a purposely dishonest distortion. The Pahlavis were liberal modernisers not religious nutjobs, they were overthrown and replaced by Islamists like khomeni against the interests of the West.

Saudi Arabia is saturated with Islamists and has been so consistently since Mohammed, any native regime is going to be oozing Islam.

[One Degree]

@EggbertEinstein
It is also simplistic to reject one posters comments as simplistic while accepting a Marxist posters comments as unbiased.

[EggbertEinstein]

One poster posted some detailed thoughts and quotations relevant to the topic. The other posted insults. This distinction should be clear to anyone with any degree of impartiality.

When did I say that i accepted the comments as unbiased? More strawman arguments.

Regarding the Shah: As I understand it, Allan Dulles was an instrumental figure in deposing Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalise the oil industry. The Dulles brothers had previously been legal representatives of British Iranian Oil and had a personal as well as political hostility as a result.

[SolarCross]

Regarding the Shah: As I understand it, Allan Dulles was an instrumental figure in deposing Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalise the oil industry. The Dulles brothers had previously been legal representatives of British Iranian Oil and had a personal as well as political hostility as a result.

He was linked to Operation Ajax but it was approved by Eisenhower and was master minded and lead by Kermit Roosevelt (the grandson of the Teddy Roosevelt). The americans were mostly motivated by the suspicion that Mosaddegh was a communist agent. Prior to the success of Operation Ajax, the British had run an operation with the same goal of removing Mosaddegh but Mosaddegh defeated it and shut down all the British agents and informants preventing any further attempts. Mossedegh wasn't watching the American embassy though, so Kermit was able to blind side him.

[Political Interest]

Of course there is substance to this claim. The US has had contact with Islamic fundamentalists since the 1950s and they inherited networks that the Nazis had with Arab fundamentalists in the Middle East and anti-Soviet Muslims in the USSR after WWII. I do not understand why this is controversial or why so many people are still unable to accept this.

[EggbertEinstein]

He was linked to Operation Ajax but it was approved by Eisenhower and was master minded and lead by Kermit Roosevelt (the grandson of the Teddy Roosevelt).

Thanks for this. I will have a look into that at some point. I have been reading a lot about Dulles at the moment, so tend to see his hand in everything.

[SolarCross]

Thanks for this. I will have a look into that at some point. I have been reading a lot about Dulles at the moment, so tend to see his hand in everything.

My wife is Iranian herself, and I lived in post revolution Iran for around a year, with a few briefer visits after that, because of this I took a particular interest in Iranian history, especially where it intersects with the history of my own country the UK.

[Rugoz]

This itself sounds like a simplistic statement to me. I think it is clear if you read what was discussed that no-one is claiming that the US was the sole cause of the Mujahideen.

Then why is the title of the thread "did Carter create the Mujahideen"?

But I'm not interested in another one of those debates. It's just that every time someone claims that the US "created" the Shah or Pinochet or whoever I roll my eyes because the situation was a lot more complex than that.

[SolarCross]

Then why is the title of the thread "did Carter create the Mujahideen"?

But I'm not interested in another one of those debates. It's just that every time someone claims that the US "created" the Shah or Pinochet or whoever I roll my eyes because the situation was a lot more complex than that.

Agreed the thread title is terrible, basically fake news.

[EggbertEinstein]

Well I apologise for the misleading title.

However, it was a question in a forum, so I do not see how I can be accused of fake news.

I am genuinely quite hurt by all the accusations made at me so I will leave the conversation at this point.

[ThirdTerm]

Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

This is historically accurate. I remember reading a footnote of Robert Gates' "From the Shadows" (1996:144-146), explaining the Carter administration's authorization in 1979 to arm freedom fighters in Afghanistan.

Further revelations by Gates offer insight into the President’s decision in the coming months on how the U.S. might respond to the rising tide of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. The first evidence recalls a March 30 mini-SCC meeting in which Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, David Newsom, stated, “It was U.S. policy to reverse the current Soviet trend and presence in Afghanistan, to demonstrate to the Pakistanis our interest and concern about Soviet involvement, and to demonstrate to the Pakistanis, Saudis, and others our resolve to stop the extension of Soviet influence in the Third World.”23

Additional proof shows how the SCC considered potential responses to carrying out the policy laid out by Newsom in a meeting just one week later. According to Gates, the April 6 meeting consisted of six wide-ranging options that were provided by the CIA and included a small-scale propaganda campaign publicizing Soviet activities in Afghanistan, as well as the potential for indirect financial assistance to the insurgents. The proposal additionally reveals how the intelligence agency contemplated direct financial assistance to the various Mujahidin groups instead of indirect support of their anti-Soviet and anti-regime activities; and that assistance of non-lethal material, weapons support, and a range of training and other support options were also considered.24

According to Gates, President Carter’s July 3 ‘Presidential Finding,’ “Authorized CIA support for insurgent propaganda and other psychological operations to entail the provision of radio access to the Afghan population through third-country facilities and America’s supplying of non-military aid to include a half a million dollars in cash.”27 Brzezinski admits to as much in an interview he gave to a French newspaper, Le Nouvel Observateur, in January 1998.

The Central Intelligence Agency’s Afghan Program was given the code name ‘Operation Cyclone’ and is thoroughly examined throughout Steve Coll’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, Ghost Wars. Over several chapters, he provides the outline of this fourteen-year covert operation that began in 1979 and ended sometime in 1993. With chapter titles such as “Lenin Taught Us,” “Go Raise Hell,” “We Loved Osama,” and “Don’t Make it Our War,” Coll’s work exposes the significant individuals, institutions, and countries involved in the operation between 1979 and 1984 while revealing exactly what kind of material support the CIA provided to the Afghan Resistance Movement over this period of study. Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2004), 42-46, 50-70, 81-82, 91-92, 101-105.

http://www.wiu.edu/cas/history/wihr/pdf ... onVol5.pdf

[SolarCross]

Well I apologise for the misleading title.

However, it was a question in a forum, so I do not see how I can be accused of fake news.

I am genuinely quite hurt by all the accusations made at me so I will leave the conversation at this point.

It's okay, there is no need to go, I was being a little harsh I guess. It just reminded me of those articles in the newspaper the with inflamatory headline that rubbernecks one's interest only to find the content doesn't live up to the controversy by a million miles.

Rugoz's is point is correct though, we all get a little carried away with conspiracy theories of how the west is secretly running everything. In Iran there are lot of Iranians who are more or less totally paranoid about the British as the secret masters of the universe who are the secret manipulators behind every event. Basically the British are to Iranians what the jews are to 911 truthers. Lately there are even conspiracy theories that Ayotallah Khomieni's rise to power was orchestrated by the British.. It's so bizarre it's hilarious.

The facts are more prosaic. Political interests meddle and tinker but can't do anything without domestic players willingness. The americans could only help overthrow Mossaddegh because substantial players in Iran were quite ready to get rid of him. In all probability he'd have been ousted or assassinated without US or British involvement.

[One Degree]

@EggbertEinstein
I am sorry also and no one wants to run you off. I remember my reception being very unpleasant. I learned a lot from it. This is a tough group and you can not be offended too easily and survive.

[The Immortal Goon]

That's a purposely dishonest distortion. The Pahlavis were liberal modernisers not religious nutjobs, they were overthrown and replaced by Islamists like khomeni against the interests of the West.

This is true. And probably not well stated on my part; but the oppression at the Pahlavis' hands did aid in the rise of the religious Iranians, ultimately.

Which is a shame as the commies had a shot at getting in charge during the revolution.

[EggbertEinstein]

@EggbertEinstein
I am sorry also and no one wants to run you off. I remember my reception being very unpleasant. I learned a lot from it. This is a tough group and you can not be offended too easily and survive.

Fair point. Thanks.

[SolarCross]

This is true. And probably not well stated on my part; but the oppression at the Pahlavis' hands did aid in the rise of the religious Iranians, ultimately.

Which is a shame as the commies had a shot at getting in charge during the revolution.

The Pahlavi's themselves came to power by overthrowing the Qajar dynasty. At the time Reza Pahlavi overthrew the Qajars Iran was a chaotic mess of warlords, brigands and bandits. Where the Qajar's allowed anarchy through inaction, the Reza brought relative peace and stability through strong measures. For a while he was a hero for it.

Reza was exiled during WW2 when the British and Soviets jointly invaded the country.

So then it fell to his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi but he was a bit soft actually, it was this that encouraged the rebellion amongst the various factions, including the Islamists, they fancied their chances.

I don't think the odds were on for the Tudeh, the communists, during the revolution as they did not have the numbers and they were split on whether to support the Shah or to oppose him.

Islam saturates Iran almost to the same extent it does Saudi Arabia, this is not true at all for communism. If the monarchy fell it was pretty much fated for an Islamic regime of some kind.

In my visits I have had a fair number of people express to me their wish the Shah hadn't been deposed but no one ever suggested they wished the commies had dominated the revolution.

The commies are also somewhat tainted now in their association with the terrorist group the Mojahedin-e Khalq which to this day still carries out bombings and assassinations in Iran in reprisal for no one voting for them.



I suspect the reputation of communism is now irretrievably ruined there and without an external communist power like the USSR with an interest in expansion there is no money for a PR campaign to turn it around.