Rep. Ron Paul on Iran, Mossadegh, War, Blowback and Neocons

Congressman Ron Paul on Mossadegh and Iran

Rep. Ron Paul: "Stop the War on Iran!"

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas There may be no other elected U.S. official who is as unambiguously opposed to a war with Iran than Congressman Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, physician and author. Mr. Paul is a veteran, serving 5 years in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam war. [Click here for an exclusive video of Ron Paul's June 2008 speech on Iran].

Ron Paul's anti-war track record has been consistent. He strongly opposed the war in Iraq prior to invasion, and insists that like Iraq, Iran is not a threat to the United States. He defends Iran's legal right to nuclear technology. And Mr. Paul has mentioned Mohammad Mossadegh and the disastrous consequences of the 1953 coup on the floor of the House of Representatives at least 8 times in the past 4 years -- surely more than any other U.S. official in history. Presented here is a chronology of his statements on the subject made in interviews and speeches from 2002 to present.

September 10, 2007- Ron Paul vs. Bill O' Reilly:

There was no time for history lessons during Ron Paul's live interview with FOX News channel's Bill O' Reilly show in September 2007:

O'REILLY: But when they're [Iran] seeking a nuclear weapon, when a country's seeking a nuclear weapon that's a danger to the USA, a stated danger, and you want to withdraw from the theater, that gives them carte blanche to do what they want, does it not?

RON PAUL: Well - well first off, you know, you have Pakistan, and they're not exactly the most pro-Western country...

O'REILLY: Yeah, but I'm talking about Iran, Congressman, I'm not talking about Pakistan at this point.

RON PAUL: Well, why don't you ever let me, you know, answer the question?

O'REILLY: -Because you're not directly answering the question, sir.

RON PAUL: Because — no, I do not fear them as you do, as many do, because they want another war. They want to spread this war. This has been the plan by the neoconservatives to have this major overall — this revamping of the whole Middle East, precisely the reason the Al Qaeda is growing. The Al Qaeda is growing because of our policy. Our national security is threatened because of our policy. And it makes it much worse.

So I see the Iranians as acting logically and defensively. We've been fighting the Iranians since 1953. We overthrew their government through the CIA in 1953. We were allies with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And we encouraged him to invade Iran...

O'REILLY: All right, so I just want to — we don't need the history lesson. But I do want to get this on the record.

RON PAUL: But you have to understand...

O'REILLY: I do understand the region...

RON PAUL: You have to understand the history.. If you don't understand the history, you can't....

O'REILLY: But we don't have time to do the history lesson tonight.

August 2, 2007- Human Events Interview:

Ron Paul on the 1953-9/11 connection in his interview with the far-right newspaper Human Events:

Ron Paul: To me, if you overthrow a regime it’s an act of war, and it backfires on us. It has never served us well over the last 100 years. It’s sort of like what we did with 1953 by installing the Shah. We worked with the regime, we worked the British then, and we’re still suffering the consequences…

You’re saying overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953 and putting in the Shah led to the hostage-taking and 9/11?

Ron Paul: Absolutely.

In other words, the militant fundamentalist regime took revenge on us for overthrowing the secular left-of-center regime in ’53?

Ron Paul: There is always some militant-violent-jihadist looking to rally that faction, but they have to have incentives. The incentive is when we impose our will on them and we get involved in their internal politics. Besides, it contradicts everything the Founders theorized, and there’s no constitutional authority for us to march around the world undermining different governments.

June 5, 2007- NHPR Radio Interview:

In this New Hampshire Public Radio interview with Laura Knoy from June 5, 2007, Ron Paul is asked to defend his criticism of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East:

It isn't my thoughts that came out of the blue, it's reading and studying what our CIA has reported and looking at history. And it shows that most often, our messing around and meddling in the affairs of other countries have unintended consequences. Sometimes just over in those countries that we mess with, we might support one faction, and it doesn't work, and it's used against us. But there's the blowback effect, that the CIA talks about, that it comes back to haunt us later on.

For instance, a good example of this is what happened in 1953 when our government overthrew the Mossadegh government and we installed the Shah, in Iran. And for 25 years we had an authoritarian friend over there, and the people hated him, they finally overthrew him, and they've resented it ever since. And that had a lot to do with the taking of the hostages in 1979, and for us to ignore that is to ignore history and ignore causes. . . It wasn't just because they "hated Americans" that they captured the hostages, it was because they were angry at us. Also, we have antagonized the Iranians by supporting Saddam Hussein, encouraging him to invade Iran. Why wouldn't they be angry at us?

". . .the founders were absolutely right: stay out of the internal affairs of foreign nations, mind our own business, bring our troops home, and have a strong defense. I think our defense is weaker now than ever."

June 5, 2007- Republican Presidential Debates 2:

Following his dust-up with Giuliani in May, Ron Paul brought up Mossadegh and the 1953 coup for the second time during the 2008 GOP Debates in response to a question about oil from moderator Wolf Blitzer:

Wolf Blitzer [CNN]: Let me bring Congressman Paul back into this conversation. In 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that provided billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies to the oil companies with the goal of boosting domestic production at a time of these record profits.

Do you believe these companies need a helping hand from the federal government?

Ron Paul: I don’t think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they’re legitimately earned in a free market.

What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don’t think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn.

But I’m also — you can’t discuss energy without discussing our foreign policy. Why — why do we go to the Middle East? You know that oil is very important about the Middle East and why we’re there. Why did we, our government, help overthrow Mossadegh in 1953? It had to do with oil. So our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. The profits — that’s not the problem. It’s the problem that we succumb to the temptation to protect oil interests by literally going out and fighting wars over oil.

May 15, 2007: Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani:

Ron Paul first ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988. Now a candidate for President in the 2008 election, Ron Paul made his most public reference to the 1953 coup during the 2007 Republican debates in South Carolina. The remark occurred during a question about 9/11 which was jumped on by fellow candidate Rudy Giuliani. Although his initial comment and Giuliani's indignant verbal ambush responding to Paul were widely broadcast on TV news highlights, Paul's response to Guiliani mentioning the 1953 coup was suspiciously absent.

Below a transcript as well as video of the entire exchange. Co-moderator Wendell Goler had asked Mr. Paul if non-interventionist tendencies in American foreign policy changed after September 11th.

Ron Paul: Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there- we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East - I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

Goler: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

Ron Paul: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

Rudy Giuliani: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

Goler: Congressman?

Ron Paul: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah- yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists, and if we ignore that, we ignore it at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we’re rich and we're free, they come here to attack us because we’re over there.

Ron Paul interviewed by Bill Moyers on PBS TV show "NOW"- May 28, 2004:

MOYERS: Most people I've talked to say that without an American military presence in Iraq, the country will almost certainly fall into civil war with bloody conflict that could bring the rest of the region in. What if they're right?

RON PAUL: Well, you know, I guess it's always possible. There's no way to say there will be none. But I think that's exactly what my concern has always been is that if we go over there and disrupt that area and pick sides and be involved, which we've been for years literally since we got rid of Mossadegh in Iran. You know, that has led to many problems.

And that, still, is festering. The fact that we were an ally of Iraq and in the war against Iran is another festering sore there. So yes, I think our interference does exactly what we say we're there to prevent. There is that possibility. But I think it would be a lot less. And besides, I don't… I never find… I'm never comfortable with assuming we have this moral authority to do what we're trying to do.

Here are excerpts from Ron Paul's speeches delivered before Congress between 2002 and 2006:

Mr. Ron Paul before the House of Representatives on September 7, 2006:

Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as disconcerting. It makes no sense unless one concedes that our government is manipulated by those who seek physical control over the vast oil riches of the Middle East and egged on by Israel’s desires.

We have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions, and are in the process of threatening her for the third time. In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the Shah. His brutal regime lasted over 25 years, and ended with the Ayatollah taking power in 1979. Our support for the Shah incited the radicalization of the Shiite Clerics in Iran, resulting in the hostage takeover.

In the 1980s we provided weapons-- including poisonous gas-- to Saddam Hussein as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not forgotten by the Iranians, who see us once again looking for another confrontation with them. We insist that the UN ignore the guarantees under the NPT that grant countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on the UN and the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than prevent it.

Our own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted instead in radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to alienate and unify the entire country against us.

Mr. Ron Paul before the House of Representatives on April 6, 2006:

In 1953, our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. We placed the shah in power. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected him – that is, until 1979. We even provided him with Iran's first nuclear reactor. Evidently, we didn't buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979, his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the shah by the ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the internal affairs of Iran in 1953.

AND:

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.

Mr. Ron Paul before the House of Representatives on March 28, 2006:

The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk about spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government. This hypocrisy is rarely recognized by the American people. It’s much more comfortable to believe in slogans, to believe that we’re defending our goodness and spreading true liberty. We accept this and believe strongly in the cause, strongly enough to sacrifice many of our sons and daughters, and stupendous amounts of money, to spread our ideals through force.

Mr. Ron Paul before the House of Representatives on February 15, 2006:

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammad Mossadegh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980's did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

Addressing the House of Representatives on September 8th, 2005:

After World War II the U.S. emerged as the #1 world power, and moved to assume what some believed was our responsibility to control Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets. This role prompted us to use our CIA, along with the help of the British, to oust democratically elected Mohammad Mosadegh from power in Iran and install the Shah as a U.S. puppet.

We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, we also supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s – aggravating the situation in the Middle East and causing unintended consequences. With CIA assistance we helped develop the educational program to radicalize Islamic youth in many Arab nations, especially in Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets. We even provided a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967 – which today leads us to threaten another war. All of this has come back to haunt us. Meddling in the affairs of others has consequences.

May 6, 2004:

It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government's ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country's internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?

October 9th, 2004:

Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA's overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s, and the CIA's training of the Mujahedin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.

December 3, 2002:

The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan – just to name two examples. If honest popular elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, the people in most countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.

Ron Paul speeches:

TALK TO IRAN! - Video of Ron Paul's Speech on Capitol Hill (6/10/08)

The Law of Opposites - Speech by Ron Paul (9/7/06)

Iran: The Next Neocon Target - Speech by Ron Paul (4/6/06)