Am I the only one who stayed awake in history class?

I know many people want to believe the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East is simply a matter of “good and righteous America” vs. “evil and corrupt Islamo-fascists.” Unfortunately, the chaos in that region cannot be simply described in the same “Us vs. Them” style reminiscent of a “Lord of the Rings” movie. Does religious zealotry play a part in the Middle East situation? Certainly, but as that 2004 Pentagon report notes, religion is NOT the root cause of why many Middle Easterners are angry at the West. Instead, these current conflicts and tensions are the direct consequence of geo-political maneuverings by the United States and other Western countries in the Middle East for the past 50 years.

I am sure many conservatives will write me off as a “blame-America-first” liberal, but rest assured I get no pleasure from airing America’s dirty historical laundry (besides, I don’t think conservatives would call the Pentagon “unpatriotic” for their 2004 remarks). However, if we are to improve our understanding of the current Middle East, we must take an honest historical look back at America’s policies in that region. As renowned historian David McCullogh famously concluded, “History is a guide in perilous times. History is who we are, and why we are the way we are.”

So why is the Middle East the way it is? Many historians note that the rise in tensions between the United States and Middle Eastern countries began in 1953 when the CIA (along with the British) helped overthrow the then-democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq.

Prime Minister Mosaddeq, who was educated in Western Europe and who advocated a secular government (as opposed to the current regime in Tehran), was also a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. Consequently, upon winning election (with 79 percent of the votes) he began the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control through the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, today known as British Petroleum (BP).

Obviously, Mossadeq’s actions were unacceptable to both British and U.S. governments who had millions invested in Iran and on Aug. 19, 1953 Mossadeq was removed from power by military intervention. The American operation behind Mossadeq’s removal was run by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt Jr., grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax.

The immediate fallout of Mossadeq’s ousting was the emergence of the brutal U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, whose secret police (S.A.V.A.K.) viciously repressed and tortured the Iranian populace for more than 20 years. The national outrage toward the Shah’s ruthless monarchy eventually boiled over, resulting in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the transformation of Iran into an Islamic Republic led by Ayatollah Khomeini that was “shockingly” anti-Western.

Sadly, as revealing as this historical narrative is for understanding a part of current Middle East/U.S. relations, the 1953 Iranian coup d’etat is not the only instance in which an American administration supported a ruthless political dictator; we also helped Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War.

As a result of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the influence of Shi’ite Islam grew rapidly in the Middle East. Saddam, a Sunni, feared that these different Islamic ideas were rapidly spreading inside his own country and would topple him from power. Ultimately, Saddam’s fear of Shi’ism combined with existing territory disputes between Iraq and Iran resulted in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, which claimed more than a million total lives.

The Iran-Iraq War is necessary to understand current Middle East tensions because the United States used this war as an opportunity to counterbalance a post-revolutionary Iran by supplying Saddam with weapons and financing. You don’t need to look far to prove that America used Saddam as a bulwark against Iran during the ’80s as videos have emerged of Donald Rumsfeld (then an adviser to Ronald Regan) meeting and chatting with Saddam in Baghdad. The importance of the United States’ involvement in the Iran-Iraq War is that it enraged both Sunnis and Shi’ites toward America. Shi’ites were angry because America once again opposed their interests and Sunnis were left feeling betrayed when America eventually chose to oppose Saddam during the first Gulf War.

Sadly, there are many other historical examples of American intervention in the Middle East. I could have just as easily written about Reagan’s support of the Mujahedin against the Soviets in Afghanistan or our relations with tyrannical governments in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whom we ignorantly label as our “moderate” allies.

Nevertheless, I hope the historical examples I described have shown you that current Middle East tensions have more to do with anger at selfish American interference and less to do with religion.

Patrick Molnar is a business junior and a Mustang Daily liberal columnist.