|
|
Vestiges of Imperialism, Rise of Soviet Containment
1950-1969
According to Time, Iran's role in the world
in 1950 was principally due to its geographic position as a central
pillar against Soviet expansion. Not until later on in the 1960s
did Time begin to explore Iran's behavior and importance as a regional
power player in the Middle East. The major theme at play throughout
this period, as presented in Time, was the ever-present threat of
Soviet expansion and influence.
Ultimately, throughout this period, Time's
dogged devotion to describing Iran in terms of the global struggle
against Communism missed the key dynamics growing in the Middle
East and Iran. Without properly understanding the rise of political
Islam as a distinct political movement, and instead relying upon
its strict geopolitical role for Iran, Time failed to prepare its
readers to deal with the Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Republic
instituted in 1979. This misunderstanding seems to pervade even
contemporary impressions of Iranian foreign and domestic policy.
Images:
Depiction of Iran as part of the "Northern Tier" against
the USSR. V66 10/24 p22
 Geopolitical
map of Middle East with major players Egypt and Iran magnified,
threat of Red Russia ominously looming over corner. V60 9/8 p33
Full text below.
According to Time, Iran's role in the world
in 1950 was principally due to its geographic position as a central
pillar against Soviet expansion. Not until later on in the 1960s
did Time begin to explore Iran's behavior and importance as a regional
power player in the Middle East. The major theme at play throughout
this period, as presented in Time, was the ever-present threat of
Soviet expansion and influence.
Time's reporting in the 1950s was dominated by issues involved with
the Iranian Premier Mohammed Mossadegh. In this period, Iran was
largely considered under Britain's sphere of influence, so some
of Time's reporting discusses the dynamic between the U.S.'s Iran
policy and Britain's Iran policy. It was critical of the U.S.'s
reluctance to form a clear Iran policy and criticizes the fact that
the U.S. policy "throughout was to tag along behind the British."
Meanwhile, Time agreed with Britain's warnings of Soviet influence
and concluded that "Iran is becoming a riper and more inviting
plum for the Reds every week the deadlock [between the UK and Mossadegh's
government] continues." Time's relationship with Mossadegh
included a spiteful tone which half-praised Mossadegh for his ability
to stand up to regional pressures. In a 1953 issue near the end
of Mossadegh's reign, Time quipped that he had "twisted the
tail of the British lion, stood steadfast against the pleadings
of the mighty U.S., snatched Iran's caviar out of the mouths of
the big Russians and made all of Persia his flying carpet."
In a final hurrah emphasizing the necessary focus on the dangerous
threat of Soviet influence under Mossadegh, Time announced that
with the restoration of the Shah, it was absolutely necessary that
his political and economic reforms be enacted widely and quickly
to "save Iran from fresh rebellion and capture by Russia."
With the Shah's restoration in late 1953 and his subsequent passionately
pro-West stance, Time began to emphasize the positive role Iran
was able to play in the global strategy of containment of the USSR.
Time envisioned Iran's global role as part of a "Northern Tier"
of free nations against the Soviet Union. A series of bilateral
mutual defense treaties uniting Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan
supposedly united these far-flung nations against the Soviet Union.
According to Time, "the Northern Tier completes a collective-security
system which, with the U.S. at its center, now stretches around
the earth." Time concluded that this network "locked the
peoples from the Bosphorus to the Himalayas into an alliance against
any invader," a clear reference to aggressive Soviet expansion.
The focus on Iran's anti-Soviet global role continued through the
end of the decade. Time praised the Shah's apparent diplomatic rebuff
of the Soviets in his much-publicized adoption of a bilateral agreement
with the U.S. which effectively extended the Eisenhower doctrine
to Iran. The report's language and focus echoed the rhetoric of
the "Northern Tier" unity, proclaiming that this agreement
brought Iran into the fold "with Baghdad [Pact] Partners Turkey
and Pakistan." The tone of containment even colored a report
from 1965 which sought to explain the rise of violent fundamentalist
"Moslem extremists" in Iran as parallel to the efforts
of the "destructive Reds". Time reported that the real
threat of the widespread political assassinations and street demonstrations
organized by the fundamentalists was to destabilize Iran and thus
to open it to internal Communist influence.
For the remained of the 1960s, Time tempered its limited view of
Iran's global role with an exploration of its role as an influential
regional player. The ostensibly non-aligned Pan-Arab nationalism
led by President Nasser of Egypt created a threat to the status
quo power relationships of the Middle East. Also, the further withdrawal
of British imperial influences, particularly from the Gulf emirates,
further destabilized the regional security structure. Iran's maneuvers
to respond to this situation were reported in Time as aggressive,
unjust, and were cited as the principal factor contributing to the
souring of relations between Tehran and Washington and thus the
Shah's gradual warming to deeper ties with the Soviet Union. In
1968 Time reported that "after years of nearly total dependence
on the West, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi is turning his country increasingly
toward Russia." These ties were heavily influenced by geographic
realities: Iran's close proximity to the Soviet Union and its possession
of valuable natural resources which were much-desired by Warsaw
Pact nations made these deals very appealing. The talks yielded
a quintupling of Iran's trade with the Soviet Union and the construction
of Soviet financed railroads and a natural gas pipeline to the Caspian
Sea, developments which overcame geographic difficulties and pulled
Iran closer to the Soviets than it had ever been before. Time, however,
glossed over these geographic factors and focused instead on the
U.S.-Soviet conflict and the cooling of Iran-U.S. relations.
Time further explored Iran's role in regional security through reports
about Iran's relationship with Iraq and Saudi Arabia through the
late 1960s. Time reported that Nasser's aggression in the western
end of the Middle East forced Iran and Saudi Arabia into greater
cooperation than would otherwise be expected. This relationship
soon soured as Iran made increasingly bellicose claims over the
sovereignty of the Gulf emirates. But Time concluded that the eventual
reconciliation of the two nations in 1968 was possible because their
leaders had succeeded in playing up the "Moslem tie that binds
the Aryans of Iran, most of whom are members of the Shi'a sect,
to the Arabs of the Sunni sect, who inhabit Saudi Arabia."
Ironically, this was the same reasoning Time used in 1966 to explain
the enmities which ignited into violent border skirmishes between
Iraq and Iran. Time blamed this conflict on the machinations of
the Kurds, but also emphasized that the real underlying problem
was that Arabs and Persians do not get along with each other. Of
course, Time did not ignore the influence of global security policy
on this regional issue. It pointed out that the two nations were
killing each other with U.S.-built F-5 jet fighters. Not surprisingly,
Time neglected to remind its readers that it had earlier enthusiastically
touted these two warring nations as part of the "Northern Tier"
alliance which would stop Soviet expansion cold.
Ultimately, throughout this period, Time's dogged devotion to describing
Iran in terms of the global struggle against Communism missed the
key dynamics growing in the Middle East and Iran. Without properly
understanding the rise of political Islam as a distinct political
movement, and instead relying upon its strict geopolitical role
for Iran, Time failed to prepare its readers to deal with the Iranian
Revolution and the Islamic Republic instituted in 1979. This misunderstanding
seems to pervade even contemporary impressions of Iranian foreign
and domestic policy.
All references from "Time Magazine",
volume indicated.
1. V60 9/29/52
2. ibid
3. V61 3/9/53
4. V62 9/28/53
5. V66 10/24/55
6. Ibid
7. V73 3/9/59
8. V91 4/12/68
9. V92 11/29/68
10. V87 1/7/66
|
