Review of `William Lloyd Garrison and The Humanitarian Reformers'--Part 2

(Following book review first appeared in the November 9, 1994 issue of the Lower East Side alternative weekly, Downtown. See below for part 1.)

The son of a sailing master, Garrison was born in 1805. In 1808, however, his father, Abijah Garrison, deserted Garrison’s family and his mother, Frances Lloyd Garrison, was compelled to work as a domestic while Garrison was sometimes sent out to beg on the streets. The local Baptist Church deacon, however, later arranged for the Newburyport Herald semi-weekly newspaper publisher to take the 10-year-old Garrison on as a printer’s apprentice for seven years; and it was there that Garrison learned the technical skills required to later put out the Liberator and became acquainted with the world of books and ideas. During his long apprenticeship, however, Garrison continued to spend his spare time in the church, not in the saloon, and Nye notes that “perhaps the only trait that set young Garrison apart from his fellow apprentices was his piety.”

At the age of 17, Garrison started writing essays, under a pen name, for the Newburyport Herald, where he continued to work after his apprenticeship. During the five years between the time Garrison stopped working for the Newburyport Herald and the time he started editing and publishing the Liberator, Garrison borrowed money from the Newburyport Herald and attempted to publish his own newspaper, moved to Boston in 1827 to work as a printer when this first publishing venture failed, and also edited a number of reform publications.

But Nye notes that the turning point in Garrison’s life came in March 1828, when the then-23-year-old printer-editor met Benjamin Lundy, the antislavery reformer, who took rooms for a few nights at the same Collier’s boarding house in Boston in which Garrison lived. As a result of his acquaintance with Lundy, Garrison became more deeply involved in the abolitionist cause and made the initial contacts which enabled him to fund the first issue of the Liberator, which began publication on Jan. 1, 1831. (end of part 2)

(Downtown 11/9/94)

Review of `William Lloyd Garrison and The Humanitarian Reformers'--Part 1

(Following book review first appeared in the November 9, 1994 issue of the Lower East Side alternative weekly, Downtown.)

In pre-Civil War journalism history, William Lloyd Garrison’s weekly abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, played a significant role. Penny press newspapers like James Gordon Bennett’s New York Herald, had much larger circulations than Garrison’s Liberator, yet because Garrison utilized his newspaper and his journalistic skills to confront the nation’s greatest pre-Civil War moral issue—the continued enslavement of African-American people—his ultimate positive historical impact probably proved to be greater than Bennett’s.

William Lloyd Garrison and the Humanitarian Reformers by Russel B. Nye (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1955) describes the life of the militant abolitionist, from his economically humble beginnings in Newburyport, Massachusetts, through his early life in poverty, his work as a printer’s apprentice as a teenager and his pre-Liberator journalistic activity, on to the post-1831 years, when his editorship of the Liberator made him a prominent national figure.

Nye sees Garrison’s life and his Liberator newspaper as one more reflection of the spirit of humanitarian reform which attempted to perfect U.S. society, which Nye feels was a major characteristic of many of the people who lived in the United States during the 19th Century. In Nye’s view, the humanitarian reform impulse, which led Garrison to devote most of his life to the cause of abolitionism, as well as other human rights issues, flowed out of his strong religious faith:

“The central fact of Garrison’s life was his religious faith. The Bible was the only book he ever really read and his abolitionism itself spread directly from his belief that slavery violated God’s law.” (end of part 1)

(Downtown 11/9/94)

Time For A Federal Rent Regulation Law?

Nearly six months after the inauguration of Democratic President Obama, many working-class tenants in the United States still can’t afford to enter many U.S. retail stores and buy many consumer goods anymore because they’re paying over 30 percent of their monthly family incomes to parasitic U.S. landlords. But the Democratic Obama Administration still hasn’t enacted any kind of federal rent regulation law to provide more affordable rents for tenants in all localities within the United States.

Yet by the late 1970s at least 169 other localities in the United States had joined New York City in reintroducing rent regulation laws to protect local tenants from excessive rent increases. And as recently as July 2003, 166 communities in the United States still had rent regulation of some form, despite the continued failure of the Democratic Party to push the U.S. Congress to enact a federal rent regulation law.

In the early part of the 20th century, working-class tenants generally paid landlords between 15 percent and 25 percent of the wages they earned each month. But in the early part of the 21st century, most working-class tenants in the United Sates now pay their landlords over 25 percent of the wages they earn each month; and, in many cities, far more.

Yet even in those communities that have some form of rent regulation, the local real estate industry, landlords, and other special real estate interests are working to limit and weaken tenant protections.

Local real estate boards in coordination with national professional and lobbying associations including the National Association of Realtors, the National Council of the Multi-Housing Industry, and the National Apartment Association, lobby politicians—whose campaigns they bankroll—to bore loopholes into existing regulations. For example, many New York landlords obtained permanent “major capital improvement” rent increases in their rent-stabilized apartments in the 1980s and 1990s just for replacing old windows, thanks to a legal loophole that resulted from lobbyist pressure on the state legislature.

According to a 1997 report, “Rent Deregulation in California and Massachusetts,” by political scientist and urban policy scholar Peter Dreier, California apartment owners and other real estate interests “invested millions in campaign contributions to support anti-rent control legislation,” spending “an estimated $50 million to fight rent control” between 1985 and 1997.

On the national level, the National Association of Realtors contributed over $4 million to fund the electoral campaigns of Democratic and Republican Party candidates for federal office in 2002.

As Dreier puts it:

“It is difficult to exaggerate the political influence of the real estate industry. For years, the various components of the industry—apartment owners, developers, realtors, managers and lenders—worked together to oppose rent control and other tenant protections. This persistence and unity eventually paid off…Industry organizations and their staffs developed close ties to legislators at the state and local levels over the course of several decades.”

(Dollars & Sense magazine 7/03)

Citigroup's Lobbyists Revisited

One reason Citigroup executives seem to have so much special influence over the political and economic decisions made by the Democratic Obama Administration is that former Citigroup executives like Louis “The Vacuum Cleaner” Susman will now be occupying official U.S. government positions like the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom post.

Another reason Citigroup executives may have so much special influence over the U.S. government these days is that former staff members of some politically powerful U.S. Senators and Congressional Representatives, U.S. federal agencies or the White House are employed as Washington, D.C. lobbyists for Citigroup’s special interests.

1. Shanti Ochs Stanton http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=26402

A former aide to Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi named Shanti Ochs Stanton, for example, was employed as a lobbyist in 2008 for Citigroup’s Citigroup Management Corporation lobbying firm. Before working as Speaker of the House Pelosi’s aide and then being hired to lobby for Citigroup, Ochs-Stanton was also a Floor Assistant to the former Democratic House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. During the first half of 2008 alone, the Citigroup Management Corporation for which Pelosi’s former aide worked spent $2.8 million on lobbying the U.S. government for special favors and privileges.

2. Robert E. Barnett/Barnett, Sivon & Natter http://bsnlawfirm.com/bio_bob.htm

Citigroup’s special interests in 2008 were also represented by the lobbying firm of former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] Chairman Robert E. Barnett, who was the FDIC chairman between 1976 and 1978, during the Democratic Carter Administration. Former FDIC Chairman Barnett’s lobbying firm—Barnett, Sivon & Natter P.C.— has received a lobbying income of $640,000 since 2007 from its Citigroup client.

3. Charles “Chuck” Brain/ Capitol Hill Strategies http://www.caphillstrat.com/charlesmbrain.html

The Capitol Hill Strategies lobbying firm of Charles “Chuck” Brain, the former Director of Legislative Affairs in the Executive Office of the President (when U.S. Secretary of State Clinton’s husband was President in the 1990s), also represented the special interests of Citigroup in 2008. Since 2007, former Democratic Clinton White House Director of Legislative Affairs Brain’s firm has received a lobbying income of $540,000 from its Citigroup client.

Before working in the Clinton White House and, subsequently, becoming the president of the Capitol Hill Strategies lobbying firm, Brain was a legislative aide to Democratic Rep. James Shannon of Massachusetts between 1979 and 1981 and an Assistant Staff Director of the House Ways & Means Committee between 1987 and 1994.

4. Alex Sternhell/Cypress Advocacy LLC
http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=70545
http://www.cypressgroupdc.com/advocacy/clients.html

A former Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee and former aide to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut named Alex Sternhell, of the Cypress Advocacy LLC lobbying firm, also was a lobbyist for Citigroup in 2008. Besides lobbying for Citigroup’s special interests, Sternhell also was a lobbyist for the American Insurance Association corporate pressure group in 2008. Citigroup lobbyist Sternhell also was a former aide of Democratic Rep. Jim Bacchus of Florida and Democratic Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas before he joined the Cypress Advocacy LLC lobbying firm.

5. Patrick Cave/Cypress Advocacy LLC
http://www.cypressgroupdc.com/advocacy/about_cave.html

6. Ben Dupuy/Cypress Advocacy LLC
http://www.cypressgroupdc.com/advocacy/about_dupuy.html

Other members of the Cypress Advocacy LLC firm who lobbied on behalf of its Citigroup client in 2008 were a former Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department and former senior advisor to Republican Rep. Richard Baker of Louisiana named Patrick Cave and a former Deputy Press Secretary of Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama named Ben Dupuy. Since 2007, the Cypress Advocacy LLC firm has received a lobbying income of $370,000 from its Citigroup client.

7. G.Stewart Hall/ Ogilvy Government Relations
http://www.ogilvygr.com/who/hall.cfm

8. Dean Aguillen/Ogilvy Government Relations
http://www.ogilvygr.com/who/aguillen.cfm

9. Jimmy Williams
http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=70476

Citigroup’s special interests were also represented in 2008 by the lobbying firm of Ogilvy Government Relations, whose managing director, G. Stewart Hall, was the legislative director for Republican Senator Richard Shelby between 1994 and 1996. In addition, a former advisor to Speaker of the House Pelosi named Dean Aguillen was a senior vice-president of the Ogilvy Government Relations firm in 2008, as was a former advisor to Vice President Joe Biden and a former staff director of the U.S. Senate’s Bank Subcommittee on Economic Policy named Jimmy Williams.

Besides Citigroup, other clients for which the Ogilvy Government Relations firm (that employed former advisors to Speaker of the House Pelosi and Vice President Biden) lobbied for in 2008 included Chevron, Credit Suisse Securities, Visa, Carlyle Group and Motorola; and since 2007, Ogilvy Government Relations has has received a lobbying income of $640,000 million for representing the special interests of its Citigroup client in Washington, D.C..

10. Steven Elmendorf/ Elmendorf Strategies

11. Rob Cogorno/Elmendorf Strategies

12. Kristi Kennedy/Elmendorf Strategies

http://www.elmendorfstrategies.com/professionals.php

The Elmendorf Strategies lobbying firm of Steven Elmendorf, the former Chief of Staff to the former Democratic House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, also represented the special interests of Citigroup in 2008. Since 2007, Elmendorf Strategies has received a lobbying income of $180,000 from representing its Citigroup/Citigroup Management Corporation client.

Former Democratic House Minority Leader Gephardt’s former Chief of Staff’s lobbying firm also employed a former aide to Gephart and a former aide to Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland named Rob Cogorno. In addition, the former Counsel and Legislative Director for Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland between 1999 and 2006, Kristi Kennedy, was employed by Elmendorf Strategies in 2008 to lobby on behalf of the special corporate interests of its Citigroup Management Corporation client.

Speaking of Elmendorf Strategies lobbyist for Citigroup Management Corporation Kennedy, a former Counsel to Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts named Anthony Podesta was a lobbyist for the undemocratic Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak in 2008. Podesta’s PLM Group LLC lobbying firm

http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/PLM.html

—whose chairman is a former Democratic Congressional representative named Toby Moffett Jr.—received a lobbying income from clients like the undemocratic Egyptian government of $220,000 in 2007. The other lobbying firm that Senator Ted Kennedy’s former Counsel operated (and chaired himself), The Podesta Group,

http://www.podesta.com/biopages/TonyPodesta.htm

received a lobbying income of $10.9 million in 2007 from representing the special corporate interests of clients such as Wal-Mart, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, the Corrections Corporation of America, Boeing, NPR and the Washington Post Company.

At least two lobbyists for the undemocratic Israeli government in 2008—Paul S. Berger

http://www.arnoldandporter.com/professionals.cfm?u=BergerPaulS&action=view&id=559
and Lawrence A. Schneider

http://www.arnoldandporter.com/professionals.cfm?u=SchneiderLawrenceA&action=view&id=102


—were employed, incidentally, by the lobbying firm of Arnold & Porter LLP, whose lobbying income from representing the special interest of clients like the undemocratic Israeli government in 2007 was $4.98 million.

Given the number of former U.S. government officials who now operate or work for operate lobbying firms that have received a lot of money from Citigroup executives in recent years (or from undemocratic governments like the Egyptian and Israeli governments), it’s not surprising that—despite the Obama campaign’s lofty rhetoric of “change” in 2008—in 2009 Citigroup seems to still have so much special influence over the U.S. government’s political and economic agenda. But under the current undemocratic U.S. political system of “Plutocratic Minority Rule” and “Corporate Lobbyocracy,” it’s logical that people in the United State still remain under the Iron Heel of Wall Street bankers nearly 6 months after Obama’s inauguration.

(source: Washington Representatives 2008 Fall issue)

Obama's Ambassador to UK & Citigroup's Israeli Business Connections

As the Center for Responsive Politics’ web site recently noted, the Democratic Obama Administration’s Ambassador to the UK-Designate Louis Susman--a recently retired Vice Chairman of Citigroup Corporate and Investment Banking and Citigroup International Advisory Board member—“has reportedly earned the nickname the `vacuum cleaner’ and `big bundler’ for his prowess as a bundler of campaign cash.”

According to Public Citizen, for example, Susman bundled at least $100,000 for Obama’s presidential campaign and at least $300,000 for Obama’s inauguration—with $50,000 of this money coming from the recently bailed-out Citigroup executive’s personal funds. In addition, the former Citigroup executive and his wife “contributed at least $581,400 to federal candidates, committees and parties, with 99 percent of the sum going to Democrats, including at least $12,800 to Obama,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ web site.

While the Obama White House press release of May 27, 2009, which announced Susman’s nomination to be its Ambassador to the UK, indicated that he used to be the Citigroup Corporate and Investment Banking Vice Chairman, was a member of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team’s board of directors from 1975 to 1989, worked for Salomon Brothers and “was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy,” it failed to mention some other interesting recent business affiliations of Louis “The Vacuum Cleaner” Susman.

According to a November 15, 2000 Business Wire article, Susman has also been a member of the corporate boards of D & K Healthcare Resources, Inc., the U.S. Can Corporation, Drury Inns and Knightsbridge Solutions LLC in recent years. The same article also revealed that at Salomon Brothers, Susman “provided leadership for major merger transactions, representing Dayton Hudson in the purchase of Marshall Field’s, General Dynamics in the sale of Cessna Corporation, and LG Electronics in the purchase of Zenith Electronics Corporation.”

U.S. Ambassador to the UK-Designate Susman apparently has a lot more experience working as a Citigroup investment banking and collecting campaign contributions for some of the U.S. politicians who recently authorized the use of public funds to bail out Citigroup’s executives than diplomatic experience. But the Citigroup firm he worked for apparently has had a lot of experience doing business in Israel in recent years, despite international calls for an economic boycott of Israel until it finally ends its violation of Palestinian national self-determination rights.

As a November 1, 1999 article in the Jerusalem Post observed:

“Citibank, a subsidiary of Citigroup, has been operating in Israel since February 1996, when it became the first major international bank to open a representative office. Citibank now is expected to be the first major international bank to open a full-service branch in Israel. Another Citigroup subsidiary, the Salomon Smith Barney investment bank, has been active in Israel for many years, serving Israeli clients out of New York, London and a representative office in Tel Aviv.

“Today's announcement was made by Citigroup's chairman and co-chief executive officer, Sanford I. Weill, at a meeting with the Governor of the Bank of Israel, Jacob Frenkel. Also attending were William R. Rhodes, Vice Chairman of Citigroup and Citibank; Ron Braverman, Country Corporate Officer for Citigroup in Israel; and Dr. Itzhak Tal, Supervisor of Banks - Bank of Israel.

“Mr. Weill said: `Citibank's decision to open a full-service banking business in Israel reflects Israel's continuing macroeconomic progress and our confidence in the future growth of trade and commercial flows to and from Israel and other parts of the Middle East.’

“Mr. Rhodes said: `Our Israel branch is part of our strategy to serve our customers globally and represents our vote of confidence in the Israeli economy. We see major opportunities here and look forward to introducing advanced technology and international banking skills while building new relationships with the Israeli corporate community.’…”

And according to the Citibank website:

“Citi has been actively serving Israeli clients since the late 1980's through its Markets & Banking business…

“With more than 140 employees in Israel, we proudly provide clients with a wide range of corporate, investment and private banking products and services.

“Our Markets & Banking business provides services to leading Israeli companies, financial institutions and public sector organizations, as well as global companies active in the Israeli market….

“Our investment bank is a leading underwriter for Israeli companies seeking to issue equity and debt securities in the global markets…

“Our Global Wealth Management business includes our private banking services, which operate in Israel through a team of private banking professionals working to service the personal needs of our high net worth client base….

“We are also a member of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and one of the primary dealers in the government bond market….Citibank is one of the leading and largest Primary Dealers in the Israeli government bond market….

“Among the significant transactions arranged by Citibank in Israel were the privatization of Oil Refineries, the Cellcom international syndicated loan transaction and the Israel Electric marine natural gas pipeline system project financing transaction….

“The Investment Bank is a leading underwriter for Israeli companies seeking to issue equity and debt securities in the global markets, and a leader in mergers and acquisitions advisory. Israeli entities have greatly benefited from Citi’s ability to channel its significant global expertise across a broad range of products and services in key industry segments including technology, healthcare, energy, real estate, financial services, telecom and other segments. The development of the Israeli client relationships across Citi enables Israeli entities to benefit from the valuable introduction to leading global opportunities and world class execution and advice.

“Among innovative and significant deals completed by Citi Investment Bank was successfully advising on the sale of M-Systems, PowerDsine and Actimize; advising Spansion on the acquisition of Saifun; public equity offerings for Cellcom and Delek US; and acquisition financing for Alony-Hetz’s purchase of shares in PSP Switzerland…

“Citibank International Personal Bank in EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) provides Israeli clients with a personalized banking and investment service to help them manage and grow their wealth. Each client is assigned an experienced Hebrew Relationship Manager and has access to financial solutions to suit the client’s needs…. Clients typically have a minimum of US$100,000 or currency equivalent to invest in London, or US$50,000 to domicile in Jersey.”

A September 27, 2006 article that was posted on the Dun & Bradstreet web site at www.duns100.com provided some more detail about the business links between the investment bank that U.S. Ambassador to the UK-Designate Susman recently vice-chaired and the Israeli banking system and Tel Aviv Stock Exchange:

“Global Transaction Services, a business of Citigroup Corporate and Investment Banking, and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) today announced that Citigroup Israel would provide direct custody and clearing (DCC) services to clients through the TASE Clearing House, making Citigroup the first foreign bank in Israel to offer DCC services to a large international client base. Citibank N.A. was recently approved as a member of TASE and the TASE Clearing House, enabling the bank to offer securities clearing and settlement services in Israel…

“Andrew Gelb, Global Head of Direct Custody and Clearing for Citigroup’s Global Transaction Services business said, `We are extremely excited to provide clients with a wide range of DCC services on-the-ground in Israel. We are in a unique position to leverage our global network and experience in growth markets worldwide to the benefit of our clients and the market.'

“Ralph Shaaya, Citigroup’s Country Officer for Israel, added, `This once again affirms our commitment to the Israeli marketplace through the introduction of a new value-added service to the international institutions investing in Israel.'

“Ester Levanon, CEO of TASE, said, `The joining of Citigroup as a member of TASE’s Clearing House is a continuation of the trend of extending the activity of international entities in the Israeli capital market. This is an important expression of trust of a leading financial group, that will strengthen the Stock Exchange and the Israeli market.'

“TASE and Citigroup have been working together for several years. In 2001 the TASE Clearing House developed the Galaxy System in collaboration with Citigroup. Galaxy allows members to effectively manage, reconcile and standardize clearing and settlement processes and minimize risk. The system integrates between the high professional standard of the Clearing House in Israel and the high standard financial credibility of Citigroup in the world. Galaxy services currently cater to the US market and will soon be launched in Europe and other global markets. The system provides services to four of the leading banks in Israel.”

And, according a March 11, 2009 Globes-McClatcy-Tribune Information Service article, the Citi Israel Ltd. division of the investment banking firm in which Susman was an executive has also “led deals for Tower Semiconductor Ltd., Gazit Inc. and the most recent overseas bond offering by Israel Electric Corporation.”

So don’t expect the Obama Administration’s new Ambassador to the United Kingdom to be eager to invite many Palestinian solidarity activists in the UK who have been involved in the recent “Boycott Israel” street protests in London to party with him much at the U.S. Embassy there.

Some Post-1979 Iranian History Revisited--Conclusion

(Revisiting some of the following post-1979 Iranian people’s history might help U.S. anti-war activists understand better some of the historical background of what is currently happening within Iran in 2009. See parts 1 and 2 below).

In addition to providing the Iranian government with a pretext to repress secular anti-imperialist proponents of more democratization of Iranian society during the 1980s, the 1980 to 1988 Iraq-Iran War that Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath regime in Iraq started in September 1980 also produced great suffering for the people of both Iran and Iraq. Almost one million Iranians were maimed or killed, for example, as a result of the Iraq-Iran War of the 1980s; and many Iranian cities were extensively damaged during this war.

But on July 18, 1988, the Iranian government agreed to accept UN Security Council Resolution 598 which called for a cease-fire with Iraq; and the 1980 and 1988 Iraq-Iran War finally ended. Six days later, however, the People’s Mojahadeen guerrilla group launched a military incursion into Iran.

Iranian government authorities apparently then used this military attack as a pretext to carry out another round of mass executions of both imprisoned secular anti-imperialist left Iranian activists and imprisoned People’s Mojahadeen activists. According to the Human Rights Watch web site:

“In 1988, the Iranian government summarily and extra-judicially executed thousands of political prisoners held in Iranian jails…The majority of those executed were serving prison sentences for their political activities…Those who had been sentenced, however, had not been sentenced to death….”

Dissident Iranian activists and Amnesty International estimated that between 2,800 and 4,481 Iranian political prisoners were then executed in 1988 by Islamic Republic authorities. Although most of the executed Iranian political prisoners in 1988 were members and supporters of the People’s Mojahadeen group, hundreds of imprisoned members and supporters of the Tudeh Party, the Peoples’ Fedayeen group and the Kurdish Democratic Party were also apparently executed by the Iranian government authorities in 1988.

The economic destruction caused by the eight year Iraq-Iran War and the generally unfriendly policy of the U.S. government towards Iran during the years since the U.S. embassy was seized by Iranian students (except during the “Iran-Contragate Scandal” period of the Republican Reagan Administration when the U.S. government arranged for weapons to be shipped to the Islamic Republic of Iran) hurt the post-revolutionary Iranian economy, prior to the death of Ayatollah Khomeini on June 3, 1989. But Iran’s oil wealth has enabled the Islamic Republic to apparently satisfy the economic needs of some people within Iranian society--although many other people in Iran still seem to be having economic difficulties.

By 1989, 80 percent of the Iranian economy was controlled by the Iranian government and banks, insurance companies and all major industries in Iran were now nationalized. Although one-third of Iranian workers were provided jobs by Iran’s public sector in 1988, during that same year about 30 percent of all Iranian workers were still apparently unemployed.

In 1989, the average inflation rate in Iran’s economy also apparently exceeded 23 percent; and by 1993 the annual inflation rate in Iran had increased to 40 percent. As a result, when the Iranian government announced cuts in price controls and government subsidies of basic necessities during the 1990s, street protests broke out in Tehran and other Iranian cities.

By 1997, young people in Iran composed 25 percent of Iran’s population of 67 million; and the number of university students in Iran had grown from only 160,000 in 1977 to 1.25 million in 1997, as a result of the Iranian government’s increased investment in Iranian higher education.

During the 1990s, however, the Iranian government began to privatize Iran’s economy more by transferring control of state-run enterprises to Islamic clergy-controlled private foundations, thus turning these foundations into powerful business corporations, according to the 2006 Democracy In Iran book.

The size of Iran’s college-educated middle-class also began to increase in the 1990s; and this seemed to lead to increased political support for Iranian electoral candidates who favored more liberalization and more democratization of Iranian society.

The conservative clerical political leadership in Iran, however, responded to the 1990s electoral success of candidates favoring more democratization and liberalization by shutting down 19 pro-reformist newspapers in Iran in May 1999; and by disqualifying 3,600 candidates who favored more democratization, including 80 incumbent candidates, from participating in the 2004 Iranian parliamentary elections.

Although U.S. Secretary of State Clinton’s husband-—former Democratic President Bill Clinton--signed an executive order banning all U.S. trade and investment in Iran in May 1995, European governments have adopted less hostile economic policies in relation to Iran than has the U.S. government, in recent years.

In Iran, “European multinational companies” have “formed business partnerships in various sectors of the economy—including oil and gas, telecommunications, consumer electronics and automotive—especially after a bill in 2002,” passed by Iran’s parliament, “eased some of the restrictions on foreign investments,” according to the Democracy In Iran book.

After the former Mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was elected president of Iran in June 2005 with 62 percent of the Iranian popular vote, on a platform of pledging to redistribute more of the wealth of Iran to the most impoverished people in Iran, both the Republican Bush Administration and the Israeli government seemed more eager to launch a military attack on Iran.

But, as this revisiting of Iran’s post-1979 history has shown, people in Iran have suffered, historically, as a result of U.S. intervention in Iran’s internal political affairs since World War II. And a U.S. government-supported Israeli military attack against Iran in 2009--regardless of which pretext is used by the Obama-Clinton Administration or the Netanyanu Israeli government--will likely create additional suffering for people in Iran.

So it’s not surprising that a February 2007 statement issued by the political committee of The Union of Iranian Socialists in North America declared that “The people of Iran vehemently oppose the intervention of any foreign power in their country” and “any kind of aggressive actions by the U.S. and its allies, either military or economic, should be condemned by progressive anti-war activists.” (end of article)

Some Post-1979 Iranian History Revisited--Part 2

(Revisiting some of the following post-1979 Iranian people’s history might help U.S. anti-war activists understand better some of the historical background of what is currently happening within Iran in 2009).

After opposing the Khomeini regime’s decision to release the U.S. Embassy hostages to the new Reagan Administration (following a failed attempt by the Democratic Carter Administration to “rescue” the U.S. Embassy hostages by sending some U.S. military commandos into Iran) and the Islamic Republic’s press censorship law in January 1981, the People’s Mojahadeen declared its opposition to the Khomeini regime in a June 20, 1981 street march. Twenty young Iranian women People’s Mojahadeen protesters were then arrested by Khomeini’s regime and quickly executed.

In response, the People’s Mojahadeen group bombed the headquarters of the pro-Khomeini Islamic Republican Party [IRP] headquarters on June 28, 1981 and eliminated almost the entire leadership of the Islamic Republican Party, whose members held the majority of seats in the Iranian parliament. By means of an armed uprising the People’s Mojahadeen guerrillas apparently hoped to then overthrow Khomeini’s Islamic Republic in the same way they had helped to previously overthrow the Shah’s regime during the late 1970s.

The Islamic Republic authorities responded to the People’s Mojahadeen armed revolt during Iran’s war with Iraq by quickly executing 100 more of its domestic Iranian political opponents in retaliation for the June 28, 1981 bombing of the Islamic Republican Party’s headquarters. But on August 30, 1981, the People’s Mojahadeen insurgents next bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic’s Prime Minister, killing 130 top leaders of the Islamic Republican Party, including Iran’s President and Premier.

In retaliation, 7,746 Iranians were then either executed by the Khomeini regime or killed in clashes with the security forces of the Khomeini regime by 1984. Of these 7,746 Iranians, 6,221 were members of the People’s Mojahadeen, including 933 women members of the People’s Mojahadeen.

Unlike the People’s Mojahadeen group, the Tudeh Party and the People’s Fedayeen group continued to express support for Khomeini’s Islamic Republic regime after June 1981 and both the Tudeh Party and the People’s Fedayeen group continued to be allowed to operate openly by Iranian government authorities.

But after the Tudeh Party criticized the Islamic Republic’s conduct of its war with Iraq and the Khomeini regime’s intention--after the Iranian military forces recaptured the Iranian land that Iraq had occupied early in the Iraq-Iran War--to now invade Iraq, some top Tudeh Party leaders were arrested by Iranian government authorities in February 1983.

Subsequently, the Tudeh Party was outlawed on May 4, 1983 by the Iranian government; and 670 civilian members of the Tudeh Party and 100 Iranian military officers who supported the Tudeh Party were also arrested.

Then, in December 1983, the 100 Iranian military officers who were Tudeh Party supporters were put on trial. And on February 25, 1984, ten of these Tudeh Party supporters within the Iranian military's officer corps were executed by Islamic Republic authorities.

Thirty members of the People’s Fedayeen group were also arrested in the Fall of 1983. And, after the Iranian government declared that the People’s Fedayeen group was subversive and anti-Islamic in December 1983, the People’s Fedayeen group was also outlawed in February 1984.

In their 2006 book Democracy In Iran: History and the Quest for Liberty, University of San Diego Professor of History and Political Science Ali Gheissari and Vali Nasr described how the religious, anti-communist supporters of Khomeini’s Islamic Republic regime apparently also started to violate the democratic rights of leftist Iranian supporters of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, after the Democratic Carter Administration refused to extradite the deposed Shah of Iran and the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was seized:

“Fundamentalists began to constrict the Left’s room to maneuver, purging their members from positions of power, attacking their offices, gatherings, and demonstrations, and intimidating or arresting their members and supporters. For instance, they attacked university campuses, intimidated and arrested students and faculty, and in June 1980 set in motion a `cultural revolution’ to cleanse the universities of the Left. Fundamentalists permanently occupied Tehran University by making its grounds the site for the official Friday Prayers…”

In an article that appeared in the June 21, 2003 issue of the Asia Times, B Raman also asserted that in Iran “after seizing power with the help of the communist students, the clerics ruthlessly suppressed the communists, arresting and executing many of them;” and “those who escaped arrest and death at the hands of the clerics managed to flee to West Europe and started organizing their activities from there.” According to the 2006 Democracy In Iran book, the secular Iranian leftist activists “were portrayed by fundamentalists as American stooges, and resistance to religion’s prominence in society was depicted as a Western ploy to destabilize the revolution.” (end of part 2)