LyrArc Article Gist
Ishaan Tharoor provides a brief history of Russia's intervention in Syria and its role in the Middle East since 1950. This does not mention the Dulles period under Eisenhower in U.S. politics when the U.S. engaged in the Cold War withdrew support for building the Aswan High Dam, thinking that the Soviet Union would not come up with support. The Soviet Union under Krushchev provided $1.2 billion at 2% interest in 1958 for building the Aswan High Dam- constructed from 1960-1970- which helped increase irrigation and crops in the Nile river region and reduced the damage from droughts and floods. Soon after the dam was built it provided about 50% of Egypt's electricity. This was the high point of Soviet Union's economic engagement, latter support was defined by military arms supplies and led to the Six Day War, and the economic stagnation of the economy under Nasser's successors from the military. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in Iran with a Russian and British zone in the country in 1907, soon after the flowering of an effort to write a democratic constitution 1900-1907 for Iran with the help of British intellectuals, similar to the failed effort of the Arab Spring today. In neighboring Afghanistan the Soviet Union fought a long war under Brezhnev, contributing to the unravelling of the economic structure of the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The British were primarily focussed on protecting oil interests in Iran in the period 1900-1950, yet contacts with British civil society led to the first grasp of democratic constitution and processes in Iran during this period. The American intervention funnelling arms support to the Saddam regime in Iraq in a war Iraq initiated against Iran 1980-1988, marks a low point in American intervention similiar to the Russian intervention in Iran-Iraq-Syria today. It may also define some of the problems of today because of the length of that war, the entrenching of military in the government in Iran, suspicions of the U.S., and the possible sense of a need for nuclear weapons to prevent attacks on Iran, as Pakistan has done in its conflict with India, though this is rarely brought up in discussions. The American arms support intervention, led to a series of cascading conflicts since 1980 with the invasion of Kuwait by the Saddam regime in 1990, the destruction of Shia in the marshlands of Iraq after a flawed peace agreement, and the follow up to that conflict with George Bush's invasion of Iraq on grounds of WMD development in 2003 for the 2003-2011 Second Gulf War including the Surge. The arms support of the Saddam regime in the war it initiated against Iran, was policy designed under President Reagan 1980-1988 following the hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The cascading crises with Iran and Iraq may not have led to this level of conflict and disruption, refugees and deaths in the Middle East, if American policymakers had heeded George Washington's advice during his presidency, that your enemy's enemy is not your friend when it comes to framing policy- for this reason Washington as president did not see it in the national interest to get involved in conflicts between Britain and France beginning in 1793, France having aided the American side against the British in the War of Independence. In the Proclamation of Neutrality, Philadelphia, April 22, 1993, he says: "Whereas it appears a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers.." And in a letter to Patrick Henry offering him the position of Secretary of State from Mount Vernon, October 9, 1795, Washington says: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connexions with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others, this in my opinion is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home and not by becoming the partizans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the public tranquillity, and destroy perhaps for ever the cement which binds the Union." At a time of passionate political debate, it is time to step back and reflect on lessons that can be learned from the founding fathers about the way they tackled the important issues of their time.