IRAN: Secret dealings between U.S., Iran and Saudi Arabia

Iran and the U.S. are bitter rivals now. But a report in the Los Angeles Times Friday delved into a time just before the 1979 Islamic Revolution when the two countries were the best of buddies, at least on the surface.

The report, based on a scholarly research paper just published in the Middle East Journal, prompted a flood of e-mails and commentary, both positive and negative. It suggested that the Nixon and Ford administrations sought to undermine Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi in an effort to roll back oil prices.

The plan worked. Oil prices went down. But the U.S. may have gotten more than it bargained for. A drop in oil prices in early 1977 led to dramatic instability in Iran that turned into the revolution.

Saudi Arabia worked behind the scenes with the U.S. to lower oil prices, according to scholar Andrew Scott Cooper's paper, entitled, "Showdown at Doha: The Secret Oil Deal That Helped Sink the Shah of Iran."

But it almost went the other way. As late as May 1975, the Ford administration and the Shah were conspiring against Saudi Arabia, according to declassified transcripts of conversations that Cooper uncovered. Here's a startling excerpt from the report, which describes a meeting between the Shah, Ford and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger:

President Ford joined in the conversation by telling the Shah that Kissinger had broached the idea of seizing Saudi Arabia’s oil assets if a crisis arose: “Henry told me what he told you we would do if there were a Qaddafi-like development in Saudi Arabia. I reaffirm it.” The Shah seemed pleased to have Ford’s personal assurance — “That is good” — and said he thought Egypt should be invited to join an invasion force.

Readers weighted in extensively on the report, which somewhat counters the popular view that President Carter was the man who lost Iran.

"Wow!" wrote one reader. "Ask Mohammed-Reza Pahlavi's wife, son and the rest of his family which president caused the Islamic revolution. CARTER CARTER CARTER. I can't wait until Kissinger sees this study and this article. Talk about revisionist history."

One reader from Oceanside, Calif., said the whole episode should have caused the U.S. to reexamine the fundamental assumptions of its foreign policy:

The term "our allies" is as corrupt and stupid as a mafia family praising each other. Someone eventually pays the price...The US practices very short-term myopic politics usually limited to the term of the administration in power...If you look at birth of all radical freedom movements in Latin America you find cruel dictators supported by erroneous US policies.

Some snickered that it was obvious that U.S. policies were responsible for the revolution. It's what every cabbie in Tehran absolutely "knows" in his heart.

"The only thing to say [is]…DUH!!!" one reader wrote.

"Of course US policies contributed to the revolution," the reader continued. "That should be obvious to anyone who’s ever researched the era or even done as little as read the Wikipedia entries for the Iranian revolution or the Iran hostage srisis. Hope you didn’t work too hard on the article."

One reader in Canada wondered, "How come it took so long for the story to come out?"

But others wondered about the timing of both the Times article and the Middle East Journal report, which laid blame on Republican administrations for the Iran revolution just weeks before a presidential election in which Iran policy figures as an issue.

One reader from San Francisco called the study "another ridiculous example of how the United States is blamed for everything bad that happens in the world."

He continued:

Does it bother you that this report is released now, when we are three weeks away from the election? What a coincidence, huh? And why should the Times give this report any credibility? Could it be because the Times is in the tank for Obama and the Democrats? What the hell happened to responsible, objective journalism?

One Canadian said he doubted that anything the U.S. did could have stopped the revolution:

I remember watching the Iranian revolution on T.V. in the late 70's. There was not a force on earth that could have stopped the toppling of the Shah. The streets and boulevards were jammed with people who had had enough of the Shah and the daft U.S. government. The depth and breadth of the revolt was such that only the foolish believe the Iranian Army or even U.S. intervention could have prevented the Shah's fall.

— Borzou Daragahi in Beirut

Photo: Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, left, with President Nixon and former First Lady Pat Nixon. Credit: NARA, via Wikimedia Commons

P.S. Get news from the Middle East in your mailbox every day. The Los Angeles Times distributes a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East, as well as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can subscribe by logging in at the website here, clicking on the box for "L.A. Times updates" and then clicking on the "World: Mideast" box.

Comments

[Jaff Sassani]

Most of the observer knows the reality of the US policy since become a power in the Middle East
and their Europeans allies policy in the region too before them.

The policy are based on the greedy and wrong business practice without the consideration of
The welfare and well being of the local people in the region. It is known by people in
the Middle east that the Europeans and American are here to take whatever they can without
any regard to the need of the People in the region.

Both power equally supported corrupt politician in the Middle East and kept the region in dark
Ages so they can take natural resources and do their dirty business as usual.

If both power did have some humanity and right policy like the one practiced by the US
Government after the WWII in Europe and Japan but not in Middle East then the Middle East
did not have people like Shah of Iran, Saudi royal family, Egyptian Mobark and all other corrupt
political leaders in the region.

Look at Afghanistan and Iraq today and judge for what is wrong with the US Government policy.

The wrong policy produced country like Islamic Republic of Iran.

The US Government should safe the region with right policy. They should support the
Aryan (Iranian) Economic Union, Arab Economic Union to safe the region just likes what
they did in Europe in the past. Otherwise the radical Islamic will take over the region and
make life miserable for the Europeans and the Middle Eastern people.

The US people are the most honorable people on the face of the Earth but there are few greedy
People within them who become blind for making money they are about to destroy the good
Work of 200 years before them.

It is not too late for the American people to force the Government of the USA to take right path
Of helping other nations of building their own countries so they can live in peace and prosperity
Then they will be friend of the USA people and will be partner in business and fare price instead
Of animosity and distractions of each other.

[Ayatoilet]

Iranians are docile subjects by nature and historically. The massively sensational revolt and its masterful actors were certainly guided by a grand plan, by far surpassing operation AJAX. Now the Iranian people realize they were fools to join in to replace a progressive government with a true dictatorship, which has a duty to enrich anyone who wants to exploit the riches of Iran.

[Cyrus the Great]

There is a good possibility that this article is all a hoax, manufactured to show by subtle hints and innuendos to plant it effectively that shah was removed from power by USA and these "mullahs" were the erroneous result to NOW DESTABILIZE IRAN AGAIN. THE YANK POLICY IS CONTINUAL DESTABILIZATION, never to give rest for development.

[Mel]

It is very naive to say that the US policies contributed to the revolution in Iran. It is better said that "The US policies were to replace the Shah with the most plausible and formidable ideological force although not desired i.e. Khomeine and then to topple (replace it)it it by the next more favourable force i.e. Bani Sadr (escaped and live in France now)and Ghotb Zadeh (Executed)". It is better said that also the US policies back fired because of the lack of understanding Islam and the Iranian culture and for understimating the intelligence of Mullahs. What idiots? Ford, Carter and Kissinger were just silly little boy palying Chess with the masters.

[kourosh]

Iranian sense of a long history and massive culture will guide Iran. After a couple of centuries or so Iran is again waking up. Literacy is highest ever been and people are becoming more aware. Iran is making advances in science, arts, self-reliance and goverment. At the same time the standard of living is low, bribary and dishonesty is the rule and freedom is feared by the governing body. As imperfect as it is, this is an Iranian show. Outside forces and interests amount to a hicup or short-lived indigestion - or so we hope. And if they dont, we will adopt and adapt and absorb and live on with a profound sense of humor - That my fellows in the human race is the reality of Iran or so it seems to me.

[ali irani]

The shah had no democratic validity in iran, his father promissed a republic and imposed a bruital dictatorship which had forgoten about average iranians and iran.
iranians are a proud civillisation who have contributed to world and islamic identity, such a nation wont accept to be a puppet state of american intreasts.
after the revoloution iran has had many achievments despite sanctions and western hostilities,iran has enjoyed over 35 elections in 30 years and although there is much room for reforme i believe iran has never enjoyed the status it has today in its modern history.
the revoloution was a result of decades of oppression under the shah not a result of carters decisions.

[Kevin]

The people who brought down the Shah were the people in the Carter administration. I hope people do not think it was an accident that the Khomeini was waiting at Neauphle-le-Château. If the US had wanted Khomeini dead it would have only taken one word from the CIA to the DGSE and he would have been dead. The reason Khomeini was angry with the Shah was the Shah had brought an end to the feudal system that had benefited the religous leaders of Iran with the White Revolution. Zbigniew Brzezinski and others thought it would be a good idea to set up a muslim fundamentalist block to check Soviet expansion toward the Indian Ocean. Reagan carried on with this theme. I guess the chickens have come home to roost.

[Sam Irani]

I just want the Shah back!

[zhubin]

I hope to see the day when a rep from Iran is standing side by side with the President, just like the picture. America should not wait to see the downfall of Iran's current government, and i am no fan of the crooks who run Iran, but i think we would all benefit from a normal relation between the 2 countries.

[HF]

It nothing new, this type of interference has been part of US policy since 50’s. US spends around 50 billion a year trying to effect other countries governments.

[Alex]

To assume "the shah was a goner from day one" doesn't seem too realistic for anyone that knows that anything can change in either direction for anyone, at anytime.

I wonder why raising the standard of living of people in iran by 20 times, providing for over 100,000 college tuition's in the US and Europe, supporting equal rights for men and women, increasing literacy from 10% to 80%, and bringing about freedom, by the shah were all such terrible accomplishments that his move towards a more democratic society was a forgone lost cause.

Considering all these achievements and that since the national income of Iran has gone from 5 times that of turkey under the shah, to only one half of turkeys income today, after 30 years of the Islamic regime having access to all 3 trillion dollars in oil revenue as well as all these new "human resources" in terms of qualified people the shah helped create, I wonder what really happened?

Just a hallucination of mine, however I'm hallucinating that oil and corruption in the usa may have had something significant to do with the shahs manufactured unpopularity and eventual removal.

[frey]

Wishful think that USA had un limited power to replace the shah or anyone. 1 trillion dollars later we still do not have a gripe on Saddam's country.

The wave against the shah's regime began in 1948 .. It was only held back for 25 years. It was a forgone conclusion - the shah was a goner from day one..