How do you mark the beginning of Islamic extremism? There are any number of denominational schisms, publications, and incidents that might be pointed out. However, if you read the works of Iranian Nobel Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, she frequently points to Operation Ajax as the event that boosted the fundamentalists from a laughable sideshow, into a viable and rapidly growing faction.
Though it's oddly missing from US history books, Operation Ajax was the successful CIA-supported overthrow of the popular, Prime Minister of Iran and his replacement by the Shah.
Iranians were hired to protest Mossadegh and fight pro-Mossadegh demonstrators. Anti- and pro-monarchy protesters violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost three hundred dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence.
The US wanted the Shah in power because they feared Iran might "go communist," and the saw the Shaw as more reliablely "pro-western." The UK wanted the prime minister replaced because they wanted back into the Iranian oil fields. The code word to start the operation was broadcast on the BBC. The Shah was Our Good Friend.
Enraged by what they (with good reason) saw as a puppet government, many Iranians -- most of whom had until that point considered themselves part of "the west" -- found solace in the language of the radicals. The ripples from Ajax are still spreading.
The list of Our Good Friends is a long one. Not all of them were put into power through an US-engineered coup, but many depended on the US for the weapons, money, or information they needed to hold onto power. They might have been friends only in a moment of convenience, they might have been friends only because they swore to oppose some greater enemy. Again and again, we've been willing to ignore democracy, human rights, and plain old decency to see that our "friend" has control. General Agusto Pinochet, Ngo Dinh Diem, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden were all Our Good Friends.
Why bring this up today? Because of this.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is fighting to maintain control of Pakistan in the face of rising Islamic militancy and a secular pro-democracy movement.
A key U.S. ally, Musharraf himself remains under threat, most recently on Friday, when unknown suspects opened fire from a rooftop after his plane took off from a military base.
It might be argued that Musharraf doesn't belong in a list with the rogue's gallery above. Sure, he came to power in a coup. Yes, he took the title of president through self-acclimation. Okay, he forced the judiciary to swear an oath of allegiance promising they would never rule against his government and just a few months ago dismissed the Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court. Still, he'e allowed a relatively free and independent press, and most observers gave a thumbs up to the last round of elections.
Until 2001, Musharraf was a supporter of the Taliban. If you believe him, it wasn't until he got a call from Plame-leaker Richard Armitage threatening to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age," that he agreed to host US bases and join in the hunt for our previous Good Friend, Osama. No matter how we got here, Musharraf is our boy now. We know it. He knows it. And the Pakistani people know it.
The AP article is comforting, assuring that "pro-western moderates" have far more power than the extremists in Pakistan. I'm sure that similar assurances went given about the Shah.
Is there a difference with Musharref? Sure there is.
The US Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimates that Pakistan possesses between a low of 35 and a high of 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.
Here's hoping we stay friendly.