Decoding U.S.-Iran Tensions: Scott Horton's Historical Perspective

[NOLA Dude]

(41:32) Bill Clinton’s Fatal Mistake That Drove America Into the Middle East
(47:44) The Truth About Osama bin Laden’s Motives
(50:08) What You Don’t Know About the 1990s Terror Attacks
(1:02:15) The History of the Israel/Iran Relationship
(1:09:50) Why Osama bin Laden Was Happy When George Bush Was Elected
(1:14:53) Why Is There So Much Persecution of Christians in the World?
(1:16:22) Scott Horton’s Partnership With Darryl Cooper
(1:24:13) Foreknowledge of 9-11
(1:31:02) The Real Meaning of the Word “Neocon”
(1:38:47) Israel’s Clean Break Strategy
(1:46:46) The Oil Pipeline Between Iraq and Israel and Why Israel Cut It Off
(2:01:50) Barack Obama’s Role in Stoking Foreign Wars
(2:10:36) Corporate Media’s Sudden Pivot on Assad
(2:14:43) How Obama Paved the Way for Islamic Rule of Syria
(2:23:11) The Truth About Iran’s Nuclear Program
(2:33:32) How Effective Was Trump’s Bombing Campaign on Iran?
(2:43:46) What Happens if There Is Regime Change in Iran?
(2:50:18) Is Horton Hopeful for America’s Future?

Summary of interview:


- Historical Context of U.S.-Iran Relations:

Scott Horton delves into the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, which was orchestrated to protect Western oil interests and installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah, as a pro-Western leader. Horton argues that this intervention not only violated Iranian sovereignty but also sowed seeds of deep resentment towards the U.S., setting the stage for decades of hostility. This event is well-documented in historical records, including declassified CIA documents and scholarly works, which confirm the U.S. role in the coup and its long-term impact on Iranian politics and public opinion.

- Jimmy Carter Doctrine:

Horton critiques President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy, particularly his administration's support for the Shah during a time of growing domestic unrest in Iran. He argues that Carter's decision to allow the Shah into the U.S. for medical treatment in 1979 was a catalyst for the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis, which severely damaged U.S.-Iran relations. Horton's analysis is supported by historical accounts, such as those found in "The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter" by Kai Bird, which details Carter's misgivings and the pressure from his advisers to maintain the alliance with Iran despite the rising tide of revolution.

- Iraq/Iran War:

Horton discusses the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War, emphasizing its brutality and the U.S. role in supporting Iraq, including providing intelligence and military aid. He argues that this conflict not only devastated both nations but also intensified regional rivalries and entrenched U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Historical analyses, such as those in "The Iran-Iraq War" by Williamson Murray and Kevin Woods, corroborate Horton's view that U.S. actions during this war had significant and lasting consequences for regional stability. Additionally, Horton highlights a controversial aspect of U.S. involvement: the provision of chemical weapons precursors to Iraq, which Saddam Hussein used against Iran. This is supported by declassified documents and reports, such as those from the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which confirm that U.S. companies, with government approval, exported materials that could be used to produce chemical weapons, indirectly contributing to the deaths of thousands of Iranians.

- First Iraq War:

Horton labels the 1991 Gulf War as a "massive mistake," arguing that it was predicated on flawed intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and led to a prolonged U.S. military presence in the region. He suggests that this war set the stage for further interventions, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This perspective is echoed in critiques from scholars like Noam Chomsky, who argue that the Gulf War was part of a broader strategy of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, despite its immediate military success.

- Clinton's Middle East Policy:

Horton criticizes President Bill Clinton's policies, particularly the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which officially declared regime change in Iraq as a goal of U.S. policy. He argues that this act, along with economic sanctions and military actions, deepened U.S. involvement in the Middle East and contributed to the rise of anti-American sentiment. Horton's analysis aligns with views expressed in media outlets like The Guardian, which have questioned the efficacy and morality of Clinton's approach to Iraq and the broader region.


The underlined part is significant especially considering chemical weapons was a reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Summary continued:

- Osama bin Laden's Motives:

Horton challenges the dominant narrative around Osama bin Laden, suggesting that U.S. policies in the Middle East, including support for authoritarian regimes and military interventions, were primary drivers of al-Qaeda's actions. He argues that bin Laden's grievances were rooted in perceived U.S. imperialism, a view supported by bin Laden's own statements and analyses from counter-terrorism experts like Peter Bergen, who have linked al-Qaeda's ideology to U.S. foreign policy decisions.

-1990s Terror Attacks:

Horton provides an alternative perspective on terror attacks during the 1990s, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. He argues that these events were partly a response to U.S. policies, including sanctions on Iraq and military presence in the Middle East, which radicalized individuals and groups. This view is supported by historical investigations and reports, such as those from the 9/11 Commission, which noted the impact of U.S. actions on the rise of militant groups.

- Israel/Iran Relationship:

Horton discusses the historical dynamics between Israel and Iran, noting a period of cooperation before the 1979 revolution and subsequent deterioration. He argues that U.S. support for Israel has complicated its relations with Iran, contributing to regional tensions. This analysis is backed by historical studies, such as those in "The Iran Primer" by the United States Institute of Peace, which detail the shifting alliances and conflicts in the region.

- Neoconservatism and 9/11:

Horton critiques the influence of neoconservative ideology in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the lead-up to and aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks. He argues that neoconservative thinkers advocated for regime change and military intervention, which justified the U.S. response to 9/11 and led to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. This perspective is supported by works like "The Neoconservative Revolution" by Murray Friedman, which traces the intellectual roots and policy impacts of neoconservatism.

- Obama's Foreign Policy:

Horton argues that President Barack Obama's policies, such as supporting Syrian rebels and maintaining economic sanctions on Iran, inadvertently strengthened extremist groups and prolonged conflicts. He suggests that Obama's approach, while rhetorically different from his predecessors, continued a pattern of intervention that destabilized the region. This view is echoed in critiques from policy analysts, such as those in Foreign Affairs, who have questioned the outcomes of Obama's Middle East policies.

- Trump's Iran Policy:

Horton assesses President Donald Trump's military actions against Iran, including the 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, questioning their effectiveness and long-term implications. He argues that such actions escalate tensions without addressing underlying issues, a view supported by international reactions and analyses from sources like Al Jazeera, which highlight the risks of further conflict.

- Future of U.S. Policy:

Horton expresses skepticism about the benefits of regime change in Iran and advocates for a reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy towards non-interventionism. He suggests that continued military engagement will likely lead to more instability, a perspective shared by non-interventionist thinkers and supported by historical examples of failed regime change efforts, as discussed in articles from The Guardian and other outlets.

 

[j brown's body]

Mostly, we're at war with Iran now because Trump got bored with negotiating, and bombing them would give everyone some excitment.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Mostly, we're at war with Iran now because Trump got bored with negotiating, and bombing them would give everyone some excitment.

It was because Isreal has too much power and influence over our government.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Horton shatters many of the common narratives about our involvement in the Middle East and the wars there.

I had never heard that we literally gave the precursors for chemical weapons to Iraq for them to use on Iran. Those chemical weapons were a significant reason for invading Iraq in 2003.

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[NOLA Dude]