Kennedy's Foreign Policy: Version 2

[James DiEugenio]

I prepared this version after I read the Rakove book.

As you can see, its more focused on the Middle East since Rakove wrote more about that area than Africa.

I gave this for the first time at the AARC Conference. Then again at the Lancer Conference, last year, 2014.

In this one I actually name names about those so-called historians who I feel have been the equivalent of Posner except on who JFK was.

But I also criticize some of the early JFK critics, who I think, did not go far enough.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1gmtA1SLIp11bl1_2F2NfrFajNyvP2S1yekoctGkDxe4/edit#slide=id.p4

[John Dolva]

Very, very good. Thank you for posting that, James.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jim,

Thanks for the Powerpoint slides.

FWIW, I've believed for awhile, as I've written here, that JFK was killed because of his Middle Eastern policy. Not because of Viet Nam; not because of Africa.

[James DiEugenio]

Very, very good. Thank you for posting that, James.

You are welcome John.

I should give Albert Rossi a lot of credit for helping me put together the PP visuals.

I really hope this gets some exposure since I think much of JFK's reformist foreign policy has been submerged from view. Although Talbot deal with some of it in his book e.g. Lumumba.

[John Dolva]

You're welcome, James.

I think, in time, this approach will help enormously.
_____________________

I did spend some time afewyears ago hammering away at the Congo from various angles. I think it's very important. (I've seen photos of mercenaries in the Congo wearing Nazi uniforms. Good to have a name (Scorzeny, Paladin) to go with that.)

I think his Angola speech is important as well, including various French, African and other responses. I think for many that was a moment at which many ordinary men and women noticed Kennedy for the first time.

I do have some concerns about the Iran matter.

As I understand it, the Iranian Revolution was very much driven by progressive left wing students. Before the Ayatollah returned and was given control, there was a push to have another exile come in. He ended up assassinated. The US backed attack on Iran by Iraq led to progressive defenders of the revolution going to the front and not return.

IOW the 'outburst of islamic radicalism' was, in a sense, engineered as a result of a counter revolution by forces that preferred that to the direction that radical left wing students were pushing the revolution. (IMO).

[James DiEugenio]

John:

This is a very complex subject. I mean, really complicated.

It is definitely true that there was a real power struggle during the revolution. It was between the reformists and those who advocated Sharia Law.

I once talked to a guy who was from Iran, and somehow he had access to the copies of the files of the American Embassy which had been torn up but which students had spent months trying to then paste back together.

I cannot vouch for the truth of what he said since I never had a corroborating source in either text or a person. But he told me that the two guys who manipulated events so that the religious radicals would win were Helms and Carlucci.

Edited November 28, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

I was living in Iran both during the planning and the execution of the Iranian Revolution. I left Iran just weeks before the Shah left and Khomeini came to power.

Here's a photo of me and an American companion in an English class we were teaching. This was in Esfahan. I'm the white guy with dark hair.

I'll tell you what I know about the revolution. The photo has relevance to my story.

We were accustomed to seeing assortments of green and purple florescent lights being displayed by mullahs to attract the attention of the Muslim faithful when a speech or other important event was underway. But in the fall of 1977 the occurrence of these events increased tenfold.

Our English class was divided into two sections, one for beginners and the other for advanced students. I taught the advanced class and it had only one student -- the fellow sitting to my companion's right.

For our class, he and I sat in the adjacent room and spoke only English. One day I asked him why there were so many "mullah meetings" going on. (We American's called them that.) I'll never forget his response. He got up, closed the door, looked out the window, and closed the blinds.

He said, "We are planning to take over the country." (Paraphrasing.) My jaw dropped. He went on to tell me about the "greatest leader in the world," who had been banned from the country. His name was "Homeini," which I would later learn was Khomeini. (Remember, he was speaking in English, and he was unfamiliar with the "kh" transliteration for the Farsi letter.)

The people were planning to rise up, overthrow the Shah, and replace him with Ayatollah Khomeini. This was not a leftist uprising. It was a fundamentalist Muslim uprising.

Their plans went beyond that. After overthrowing the Shah, their plans were to overthrow secular Islamic governments beginning with Iraq, and then Sunni governments, ending with the overthrow of Saudi Arabia. Ambitious goals indeed.

As I was writing the name Homeini down, my student demanded I stop. He said I would be tortured if I was found with that in my possession. I later went back to my apartment and wrote on a sheet of paper some of what my student had told me. Of course I hid it, but nearly tore it up later out of fear of it being found. Determined to keep it, I emptied out a yellow magic market, tightly rolled the document up and inserted it, then glued the marker back together.

After my time in Iran I went back to college, where I met up with Iranian friends I had made while there. One of them gave me one of those booklets containing U.S. Embassy documents which had been shredded and then glued back together by Iranian students. I was very naive at the time regarding world affairs. But if I recall correctly, the purpose of the booklet was to provide evidence that the CIA had installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah.

BTW, the fellow on the front row of the photo, to the far left, ended up being my best pal in Iran. His first and middle names are "Mohammad Reza," same as the Shah's. I never asked, but always assumed he was named after him. The Shah wasn't universally hated, as some Iranians might have people believe. One Iranian told me that the Shah was loved till the Muslim leaders turned the people against him.

When I arrived in Iran, before the revolution, everybody loved Americans. When I left, people were afraid to show any friendship whatsoever toward Americans. But I think only the fanatics hated Americans.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[John Dolva]

At the time I was a member of the fourth international in australia. We put on talks and meetings for visiting Iranian comrades. They told us the stories from their perspective. There was a fluidity to the revolution. They were confident that they had strong backing. Many of the revolutionary guard were socialists. The attack by Iraq consolidated the control of the Ayatollahs. Most of our comrades died at the front.

At the same time the now very relevant PKK was being founded in Syria. This week is the 37'th anniversary of that foundation. (other events of interest from this time : the victory of the FSLN in Nicaragua and the start of the terror campaingn of raygonzos contras, the assassination of ArchBishop Romero, the assassination of Lennon.)

[James DiEugenio]

The attack by Iraq consolidated the control of the Ayatollahs.

I could never figure that one out.

Maybe that was the reason for it.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW Sandy, that was a really fascinating story.

Always nice to get an on the scene witness to a huge event, besides Ben Affleck.

[John Dolva]

I see it as an event that focused Iranian society on a common priority at a time when it was still in turmoil. At the same time a group of socialist youth led by Abdullah Ocalan in were shaping the PKK in Kurdish Turkey. After the Turkish coup d'etat in 1980, many were either killed or moved on to Syrian Kurdistan. During the Iran Iraq war Kurds were attacked by both sides in both Iraq Kurdistan and Iran Kurdistan. All of that has obviously gone on to shape current events. Current events will go on to shape the future. It's important to not rely on hegemonic narratives to see what that future will look like.

[Martin Blank]

very good. as important as all this is, however, i still think it is a part of the matrix of forces and events that got jfk killed. another brick in the wall so to speak

[James DiEugenio]

I agree Martin.

That was the entire aim of my two presentations.

I believe, after digesting this new material, that the reason Kennedy was killed was not over just Cuba, not over just Vietnam, and not because of them in combination.

I now think that it was all of this that made it necessary for his demise.

I mean, take a look at what was on the table in Congo and Indonesia in sheer money value. You are talking hundreds of billions over time. Maybe a trillion.

This is why I think Talbot's book is important. Which I will be reviewing soon.

[Cliff Varnell]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22457&p=319410

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, I am usually not one for (John Hankey type) self-congratulation.

But Talbot was at the Wecht Conference in 2013, where I first gave that presentation.

He was so impressed that he called me up a month or so later and congratulated me and invited me to do the same talk in San Francisco.

Since it was around the holidays, I decided not to go.