Democrats and Republicans Against the Shah and Khomeini

In the relations between Iran and the Democratic and Republican administrations of the White House, August 19, 1953, became a historical turning point that aligned the Shah with one American party and his opponents with another. Just as the Shah grew closer to the Republicans following the coup of August 19, the group of his opponents became interested in the Democratic Party. This was especially true after eight years of Republican President Eisenhower, when John F. Kennedy, a modern Democrat who had no interest in warm relations with a tyrant in Iran, came to power. Mark Gasiorowski, a political science professor at Tulane University and author of several books on U.S. foreign policy and relations with the Shah, discusses this period: "When Kennedy came to power in 1961, Iran was facing crises, and the National Front had once again challenged the Shah. As a Democrat, Kennedy put significant pressure on the Shah to accept political reforms and hold free elections. The Shah had no interest in free elections and wanted puppet prime ministers. He was really frustrated by this issue. Thus, it was not only that Eisenhower and the Republicans restored him to power and made him a powerful dictator, but also that the next president, who was a Democrat, pressured him to accept reforms that weakened his position. I believe this series of events turned the Shah into a supporter of the Republicans and a critic of the Democrats." Eventually, the Shah accepted a series of important reforms implemented under the promotional title "White Revolution." These reforms could have been very appealing to the Democratic critics of the Shah. However, John F. Kennedy was tragically assassinated in front of television cameras two years after entering the White House and was succeeded by his vice president, Lyndon Johnson. A very different Democrat from Kennedy, who took a path contrary to him in many respects, including in Iran. Andrew Scott Cooper, author of the book "Oil Kings" and an assistant professor at Columbia University, believes that during Johnson's presidency, U.S.-Iran relations were at their best: "In my opinion, U.S.-Iran relations during Johnson's presidency were at their best. There was balance in the relationship. The Shah was satisfied with Johnson. Johnson respected the Shah and publicly showed this respect. Importantly, Johnson was heavily involved in Vietnam. On the other hand, Iran's economic situation was significantly improving at that time. Iran was stable. The welfare of the Iranian middle class was improving rapidly. The situation was so good that Iran was cited as a successful model for all developing countries, and Iran's economic growth was higher than that of many countries worldwide. Therefore, from the perspective of Washington officials, everything was going well in Iran, and the Shah appeared to be a capable leader." After the 1968 elections, Democrat Lyndon Johnson was succeeded by Republican Richard Nixon. The same president who, years later, upon hearing of the Shah's death during his retirement, traveled to Egypt to attend his funeral. Many believe that Nixon and the Shah had a special relationship. Stephen Kinzer, author of the book "All the Shah's Men," is among these analysts: "U.S.-Iran relations during Nixon's presidency peaked. Nixon, along with his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, turned the Shah into America's main ally in the Middle East. A famous quote attributed to Nixon states that all U.S. weapons except nuclear bombs were provided to the Shah. During this period, the Shah built a large and powerful Iranian army. It was also during this time that the oil shock occurred, and the U.S. bought billions of dollars worth of oil from Iran. The Shah used this money to purchase billions of dollars worth of weapons and aircraft from the U.S. During this period, the Shah thought that by building a strong army and air force, he could turn Iran into a global power." After five years of presidency, Nixon was forced to resign due to the Watergate scandal, and his place was taken by his vice president, Gerald Ford. Ford lost the next election in 1976 to a fresh and critical Democrat named Jimmy Carter. Mark Gasiorowski, a well-known American scholar, discusses this period: "At this point, even in Jimmy Carter's campaign for the 1976 election, human rights became a central issue. It was the post-Vietnam War era, and U.S. foreign policy was being sharply criticized. On the other hand, the Shah's behavior had changed, and he was brutally suppressing his opponents. Organizations like the People's Mojahedin and the Fadaian guerrillas had formed and resorted to armed struggle against the Shah. In response, torture became prevalent in Iranian prisons, and the notorious SAVAK gained power. For this reason, in the 1976 elections, Carter and the Democratic campaign sharply criticized the Shah for human rights violations. When Carter came to power, he continued this policy to some extent." Andrew Scott Cooper from Columbia University goes even further, believing that Jimmy Carter's presidency was an opportunity for the Democrats in the State Department to pursue their democratic ideals for Iran: "Based on my research, a group of State Department experts who had entered the department during Kennedy's era and were critics of the Shah had significant influence at this time and had the opportunity to pursue their ideas. They felt more aligned with figures like Mr. Bazargan or groups like the National Front and wanted to liberate Iran. They were even more comfortable with the leftist intellectuals of Iran than with the Shah's affiliates. Consequently, when protests began in Iran, they made disastrous calculations. In fact, at the time of the protests, the U.S. withheld its support for the Shah, and the Shah desperately needed this support. When the Shah saw that even the U.S. was not supporting him, he concluded that he had no future in Iran. If August 19 was the first moment in Iranian history when differences between Democrats and Republicans in Washington became apparent to Iranians, the Iranian Revolution and the behavior of the Democratic government of Jimmy Carter towards the Shah represent the second and perhaps most significant moment in history that shaped a general belief about these two parties in the minds of Iranians. Stephen Kinzer states that this issue stems from the different perspectives and deep ideological disagreements of the two American parties regarding international politics: "At this time, the Republicans believed that all global issues fit within the framework of the Cold War confrontation between East and West. When you hold such a belief, you seek strategic and military allies, and the Shah was such an ally. Therefore, in their view, he was a positive figure. In contrast, Democrats always showed empathy towards ordinary people in various countries. The SAVAK's brutal behavior towards Iranians did not go unnoticed by the Democrats. They also saw Iran's social problems. Thus, for them, Iran was not just a geopolitical pawn, but it also mattered domestically. Of course, I do not believe that Jimmy Carter disliked the Shah. Quite the opposite. He wanted to help. In my opinion, he miscalculated the consequences of his policies. However, if he hated the Shah, he would have certainly pursued different policies." After the revolution, Iran and the U.S. set aside their tumultuous past and, at the behest of the Islamic-Revolutionary government of Ayatollah Khomeini, became fierce enemies. Mr. Kinzer believes that in the enmity with the Islamic Republic in Iran and the efforts to contain the power of Iranian Islamists, Democrats and Republicans have not differed over the years, even during the Democratic government of Barack Obama: "After the revolution, Iran became the Great Satan for America. The depth of anti-Islamic Republic sentiment in Washington over these 37 years has been such that it has always overshadowed the disagreements between the two parties. No other country in the world has been in such a position during these years. However, Barack Obama distanced himself from this perpetual agreement between Republicans and Democrats. I do not think a Republican president could have reached a nuclear agreement with Iran. But at the same time, I believe that it is likely that another Democrat, other than Obama, could not have achieved this agreement either. In fact, the previous Democratic president, Bill Clinton, had anti-Islamic Republic policies as much as the Republicans did. The two parties agreed on this issue. Obama had a different perspective because he fundamentally had a different understanding of the world and Iran's role in it. In his view, it was strategically beneficial for the U.S. to negotiate with Iran and change the relations between the two countries. We have never had such a president, and I do not think anyone with similar views will reach the White House anytime soon." Nevertheless, observers still see serious disagreements between American Democrats and Republicans regarding Iran, and perhaps that is why every four years, when U.S. elections are held, a group of Iranians, like many others, closely follow these elections; because whether the White House is held by Democrats or Republicans, the conditions for the Iranian people and their government will be different.