“Two things are infinite: the universe, and the human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein
A few decades ago, seven or eight, when I was still a youngster, I read a story that its core, has remain with me for all my life. It was the adventure of a couple of neighboring tribes in the south of the country. Tribe A, composed of thin people who were smart, agile and prudent. Tribe B was the opposite, they were built solid and husky, could move mountains. Unfortunately, and for some unknown reasons, they were involved in a longstanding feud. Almost, in all conflicts, tribe B was the loser—It was a dilemma for them.
After their last clash, the leader of the clan B instructed his head delegate to the peace treaty, to ask his counterpart if he had any clue why they almost always lost the war while they were the strongest of the two. The head delegate complied with the leader’s order and asked the opposing representative the question posed by his leader. The little man replied: “Our continuous victory is the result of our intelligence.” The big man enquired what is “Intelligence”?
The little man tried, unsuccessfully, to explain the meaning of the word to his colleague and was ready to give up when he noticed a big tree in the yard across. An idea came to him, and he asked his guest to follow him. At the site of the tree, the little man placed his hand on the large trunk and told his friend to hit his hand as hard as he could. The big man hesitated; he was sure that the trauma will break his colleague’s hand. However, with the little man persistency, he obliged him. When he was ready to hit, the little man pulled out his hand, and the husky fellow hit the trunk of the tree with all his might. Feeling the most miserable with excruciating pain of his hand. The little man, triumphantly, said: “That was an act of intelligence.”
Once at home, his attempts making the chief understand the meaning of the word “Intelligence” failed. There were no tree in the vicinity. Finally, he was struck by an idea. Placing his hand over his face, he asked the chief to hit his hand as hard as he could. His demands overshadowed the refusal of the chief and he agreed to hit his deputy’s hand. Before the blow hit his face, the man pulled away his hand and the fist landed on his jaw bones with incomparable force. In the agony of pain, he murmured, “I think I mis-understood the meaning of intelligence.”
It is an incredible story of human behavior. Does it remind you of anything? It should, if you think a little harder. After WWII, the Allies, benefiting of the might’s of the United States, came out victorious. Americans were considered, by all nations, as the leader of the free world. However, shortly after the war, their inadequacy in leadership, became evident. Their failure to fulfill such position, caused irreparable damage for the entire world. The major difficulty in pursuing the leadership position was that they chose to follow the outmoded and unacceptable methods used by the Europeans, mainly the British for centuries; something that was not appropriate and accepted for the time.
Adroitly, United States made a mess in every country where their help was requested. To enumerate a few, it will suffice to name countries like China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the list goes on. The American administrations were unable to realize that following the British footsteps was not a choice of the time, and furthermore Americans were deprived of the experience and the expertise needed to follow or continue the English colonialism. Therefore, the outcome of their efforts was usually a disaster for both parties.
I have seen the devastating effects brought to mycountry of birth by the Anglo-Russians colonialism. To get out of their bondage, the Iranian governments tried hard to obtain the help of a third and hopefully impartial government in the hope of curtailing the disastrous actions of those two. They chose the Unites States. However, in early twentieth century, the United States foreign policy was completely overshadowed by the British, as though the Department of State was a subsidiary of the British Foreign Services. In late 1990’s and early 2000, when I was studying the relation between Iran and the United States, I promised myself, that at some point in the future, I shall evaluate the Americans’ ideology, and to study their foreign policies, contingent to the fact that they ever had one. I kept my promise. Sometime in my post-retirement I began my research, limiting the scope of my evaluation only to Middle East. What I came up with, at the end of my search, was nothing short of a disaster, a colossal failure irrespective of how one looks at it.
I will explain a few of those problems that I evaluated, and I feel that they will give us enough information to illuminate what I have in mind. In 1989, a medical group, under the auspices of “Orthopedic Overseas,” was dispatched to Pakistan, with the goal of helping the Afghanis medical requirements while they were fighting against the occupying Soviet army. We were to help them as much as possible, to meet parts of their medical needs. The group was under the directorship of Dr. Kermit Veggeberg, an orthopedic surgeon who had multiple previous trips to the area and was well familiar with the situation. Dr. Veggeberg asked me to accompany the group on this upcoming trip, stating that I would make a valuable addition because of my knowledge of their language and my medical training. All the participants had to pay their own expenses. Peshawar, Pakistan, was to be our headquarter, and we should travel to Jalalabad, Afghanistan, to complete our mission, by installing a mobile surgical unit in the hospital. The unit was a gift from one of the states to the people of Afghanistan. In addition, we would assist the local physicians and the medical corps in treating and caring for their patients, mainly the Afghan refugees of the area.
I accepted the challenge and began preparing for the upcoming trip. We were each asked to carry the largest possible footlocker, in order to be able to transport as many small medical equipment as we could, and the medications donated for the Afghans and the refugees.
Our group, besides Dr. Veggeberg and myself, consisted of a general surgeon, two obstetric gynecologists, an anesthesiologist, a midwife, one surgical RN, one ICU nurse, one floor nurse, two physical therapists, a pharmacist, and several medical personnel for general help to the group. The expenses of non-physician participants was covered by the Spring Branch Medical Center, where all the participating physicians were on staff. Dr. Veggaberg was the liaison between the group, with the Orthopedic Overseas, the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and the State Department in Washington.
U.S. Airforce accepted the responsibility to transport the the donated parts to Islam Abad (the capital of Pakistan), and we were to pick them up upon our arrival. In the latter part of March 1989, we left Houston, Texas, by British Airways to London and on to Islamabad. Our first inquiry, on arrival, was about the where about of our surgical unit. To our amazement, we did not receive a direct answer. However, we were detained several hours for having trunks full of minor medical equipment and medication samples. The letter from the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, detailing our function, and requesting granting us complete freedom in our work did not make any difference. It took a few hours for the customs officers to accept what we were carrying were not a part of a business enterprise, but for the use in charity clinics. After receiving the clearance, we moved by vans from the airport to Peshawar, about 180 kilometers to the west and slightly to the north of Islamabad.
At the time of our presence in Peshawar, there were several medical clinics operating in the city, for the benefit of Afghan refugees. Almost all These facilities were managed by Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and the Saudis were the major player. We visited those locations. I was disturbed with what I witnessed mainly in those run by the Saudis. In their setting the medical help to refugees occupied the back seat. Saudis were engaged in indoctrination of refugees into Wahabism, an ultra-orthodox version of the Saudis’ Islam . I was much alarmed of the purpose and mainly the consequences of such teaching. I explained my concerns to Dr. Veggeberg and pointed out the possible problems and the danger that U.S. may encounter in the future. I urged him to discuss my views with the American ambassador in Islamabad. Sometime later, he told me that he had come to the same conclusion, and that he agreed with my assessment. He informed me that he spoke with the Ambassador on several occasions.
The map indicating the locations discussed in the text
Taliban took over Afghanistan, and they became America’s number one enemy. My fear came through. Why the Americans could not see what was happening, if someone like me with nominal experience or none, could foresee it. The al-Qaeda terrorist group, under the direction of a Saudi, Osama Ben Laden, attacked our country on September 11, 2001. The United States invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, to capture Osama, and began its longest war. A war that cost Americans over three trillion dollars.[1] Over 7000 of our young were killed, and 20,000 plus were injured. Over 70,000 Afghans were killed in that war. Out of the nineteen al Qaeda members attacking our country on 9/11, fifteen were Saudi nationals. Did we have real justification to attack Afghanistan? Were, our military aware of the history and geography and the terrain of that country? Had they ever studied the result of Anglo-Afghan wars? Did they study and were they confident in fighting in those circumstances? Did they ever study the behavior of the Afghan worriers?
Our military dropped, no doubt but out of despair, the largest nonnuclear bomb in its arsenal on Afghans, a 21,600 pounds, 9,800 kg or 9.8 tons, with no appreciable result. If that was not an indication of our military’s unawareness and lack of understanding, what could it be attributed to?
United States created a new norm in the world history for its treatment of war prisoners. Torture became accepted as a routine procedure of interrogation during the second Bush’s reign. A man totally unaware of the magnitude of the crime. That despicable action was supported by Fox News Agency, and many of our compatriots. They fostered a shame for our nation that every Americans should carry its fallout for the rest of their lives, as the shame of internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. We competed with Hitler, Taliban and Khomeini and surpassed them by a good margin.
Next unbelievable action by George W. Bush’s administration, was U.S.’s attack on Iraq, for the alleged crime of making weapon of mass destruction. Mr. Bush achieved its goal by presenting a falsified and fabricated document in favor of his claim. The President added another disgrace for the Americans. What the U.S. government committed in that country was shameless and disgraceful. Videos, which were immediately removed from the public view, showed U.S. Soldiers looting Iraq’s archeological museums. United State committed a war crime, and crime against humanity, and the leading players in those criminal acts were George W. Bush, Dick Chaney, and Ronald Rumsfeld. The members of Congress were busy in their useless action, ignoring what the administration was doing. This war cost the Americans over a trillion dollars, aside from the loss of human lives.
The Triumvirates: George W. Bush, Dick Chaney
and Donald Rumsfeld
To illustrate the lack of intelligence and the mentality of some of our heads of state, it suffices to listen to the remark made by President George H. Bush about the downing of Iran Air Flight 665 by an American frigate. Close to three hundred people, including women and children were killed in that incident. Mr. H. Bush’s response indicates the degree of his intellect. When a reporter asked him after it was proven that the plane was purposely shot down: “Now that you have all the facts, will you apologize to the Iranian people for our military’s action?” He responded, “I don’t care what the facts are; I apologize to no one.” Was this a president of the United States that uttered those words? What does it tell the world of our intelligence to place these types of people in the highest position of the land.
In another situation and again in Iran, to curb the influence of the USSR, American administrations insisted on a drastic land reform. They saw it as a preventive measure for blocking the spread of communism in the country. This program reached its climax during John F. Kennedy’s administration. Like most American plans, it was carried out without proper evaluation. There were no study of the feasibility of the plan in an environment like Iran. A feudalistic country, functioning under different rules and circumstances. The outcome was a colossal failure, increased the hatred toward the Americans. The unwanted outcome gave Anti-Shah’s group a stronger platform against the monarch and played into the hands of criminals and traitors like Khomeini.
Again, going back a little farther, one can clearly notice Eisenhower administration’s lack of foresight in foreign affairs. During his leadership, U.S. standing worldwide plummeted to its lowest level. His Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, was the least qualified for the job. He was a member of a law firm in charge of the AIOC[2] Affairs in the United States, creating a conflict of interest for him. During the General’s administration, the U.S. sponsored devastating coup d’etat around the world, especially in South America. His administration disseminated Anti U.S. feelings around the world and damaged American prestige more than any other presidents. In Iran, under the British instigation, he sponsored the coup that removed the democratically elected Prime Minister who was trying to nationalize Iranian Oil to benefit the nation.
The American administrations, with their pathological fear of communism, were a God-given gift for the European opportunistic governments to use the officials in Washington as their bellboy to achieve their goals, and the British were the masters.[3]
It was, because of Eisenhower’s dismal intelligence in world politics that Churchill labeled him as, “Stupid and weak.[4]”
In late 1970s, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, Europeans, specifically the British, French, and Germans, capitalized on his enormous lack of understanding of the world’s affairs to sell him a bill of good about Iran and the Shah. The chief executives of those nations, each had an axe to grind against the monarch. The British never liked him, to begin with; Giscard d’Estaing of France, probably did not get what they wanted from him, and I cannot understand why the Germans turned against him. Carter was sold the idea that saving the Middle East from Communism could be achieved better and easier with an added religious component. The formation of a green belt from the Muslim countries in the southern U.S.S.R. was deemed an important fact. Khomeini, a pseudo-Ayat-ul-Lah, was sold to Carter as the best candidate for the job in Iran. The removal of Shah was mandatory to achieve this goal. Naïve Carter, with his lack of intelligence in foreign affairs, fell for the trap. It was too late when he realized his mistakes.
The incompetency in the U.S. Department of State’s, was not limited to the high echelons, it trickled down onto all its branches, including the embassies and consulates. I have pointed out the embassy’s function or lack of it, in Pakistan. Let me now, present you with another fact at the consular level. In 1988, our older son was getting married. We decided to invite my brother-in-law, Mr. C., at the time a legal resident of Germany, to attend the wedding. I asked my attorney to petition the U.S. Consulate in Munich for his visa.
Our request was denied because Mr.C. could not show “his ties to his country of birth or the country of residence.” Our attorney suggested that a call from me to the Vice Council may be beneficial.
In my conversation with the Vice Consul, Ms. Patricia N. Moller, I explained the reason for our request. I mentioned that Mr. C’s wife and his younger son were living in Tehran, that he possesses his home and other properties in his birth country that qualify him for his ties to his country of birth, and that he is a legal resident of Germany and holds documents allowing him to travel abroad.
She asked again, “Why do you want him in the U.S.?” I answered, “Our son is getting married, and we thought it would be nice if he could join us for the ceremony.” The conversation that followed was unbelievable and heartbreaking. She asked, “Why don’t you arrange for the wedding to be performed in Munich?”
I was perplexed of Ms. Moller’s intellectual capacity. How did she get to be a U.S. Vice Consul in Germany? Mad as I was, I tried to keep my calm and said: “Because it is much easier to move one person than two hundred and fifty, and definitely, more economical!”
A moment later, she said, “I am sorry. We made the decision, and we cannot issue an entrance visa to your brother-in-law. He can go to Mexico, cross the Rio Grande River, and enter the U.S.”
I felt like I was hit with a ton of bricks. Is it a representative of the United States advising me to undertake this horrendous illegal action? Is she a member of our diplomatic corps? Am I dreaming? The only thing I managed to say before I hung up was: “Thank you. Now I can see why we are in such a disastrous mess worldwide.”
The following is a transcription of her letter to my attorney:
“Mr. C. was found to be ineligible under section 214 (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on each application. This law section states that every applicant is an intending immigrant until he can prove otherwise to the consular officer. Mr. C. could not prove his ties to his country or a third country. As the responsible Consular Officer at present, I have carefully reviewed the application once again but must remain true to the original decision. I am sorry that I cannot give you a more positive response.”
Sincerely
Patricia N. Moller
Vice Consul
I don’t know what the future brought Ms. Moller, probably with her intelligence and the existing trends, she was promoted to US ambassadorship somewhere in the world and continued her service or dis-service to our country.
It was easy to get rid of the Shah. Decades of his dictatorial ruling and being a yes-man for the United States, turned most of the country’s youth against him. He acted as a prominent figure in the international arena with arrogance. He was not appealing to other big SHOTS in Europe. The real winners in his removal were British Prime Minister James Callaghan and French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing; neither of whom cared for the Monarch. Shah was an intelligent man; however, he did not realize that there was a limit to everything and preferred to act as a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch.
If the Americans people want to be a part of the world and live with them, they must come down to earth and accept some of the norms that togetherness requires. One cannot adhere to their own ways and on the same token be a part of others. If the preference is to go back to the old days, then the nation should go into hibernation and live like their ancestors did.
I love my adopted country, most people are devoted, helpful, and concerned about the welfare of others. However, with the level of our general intelligence of the world affairs, together, we make a nation of sheep. Most of our compatriots exhibit the character of living in a fantasy, unable to meet the very basic needs of life. In the twenty-first century, we no longer can live the ways of two hundred years ago. We should change, if we want to compete with the world’s populace.
Unfortunately, I can see nothing but a bleak future for our country. Our congressional representatives seem more interested in preserving the interests of other governments than protecting their constituents’ rights.
Nothing pleases more than I find myself being wrong in my assumption.
[1] – Linda J. Blims: Washington Post, September 5, 2010, Harvard Kennedy School.
[2] – Abrahamian; Iran between two revolutions, 1982, 197.
[3] – John Colville: The fringe of Power, 1953, p. 672.
[4] – Martin Gilbert; Churchill and America, 2005, p. 442.
Guils of Guilan 