The New American Review of the News Inc. 395 Concord Ave. Belmont, MA 02178 (617) 489-0605 $39 year, bi-weekly AS THE CAULDRON BOILS (The New American, October 12, 1987, p.25) By John F. McManus Things are heating up in the Persian Gulf. The cauldron that is the Persian Gulf continues to boil; it increases to boil; it increasingly threatens to erupt into a major conflagration. Trying to figure out what is happening requires some historical background. Religion the Key. Iran and Iraq share a border that begins at the western edge of the Gulf. Once known as Persia, Iran has a history as an independent nation streaching back into biblical times. On the other hand, Iraq's independence was recognized only as recently as 1930. During the past 30 years, Iraq has become strongly allied to the Soviet Union. But Iran, until 1979, was a firm U.S. ally. When the Carter Administration paved the way for the American-hating Ayatollah Khomeini to take power in Iran by betraying the Shah, a Soviet-backed alliance between Iran and Iraq seemed likely. Intense religious differences not only prevented it, but led to war between the two nations. Iran under Khomeini is a Shite Moslem theocratic dictatorship. As much as Moslems despise the "infidels" who practice other religions, they have even more contempt for dissident Moslems. And Iraq, with a population that is almost 60 percent Shiite Moslem, is led by men who are Sunni Moslem. When Khomeini began to encourage the spread of his Shiite revolution into Iraq in 1980, the Iraqi leaders took up arms against a very real threat. Thus began this bloody conflict that continues today. U.S. Enters the Fray If there is anything a Westerner ought to avoid, it is a holy war between competing Moslem factions. Yet, we have stuck our nose into this one in a really big way. One of the casualties of the war has been the Iraq oil-exporting port of Basra. As a consequence, Iraq now ships its black gold through neighboring Kuwait. Not surprisingly, Kuwait's political stance mirrors its Iraqi Big Brother's- pro-Soviet Union. Only four months ago, an Iraqi attack on the USS Stark left 37 American sailors dead. Amazingly, the U.S. response has included placing American flags on Kuwaiti tankers, thereby greatly aiding Iraq in its struggle with Iran. And we have beefed up our own naval presence to guard Kuwait's vessels from possible Iranian attack. In many ways, the United States is now a participant - on the side of the pro-Soviet Iraq - in the is holy war between Shiites and Sunnis. In a peculiar gesture of gratitude, Kuwait has refused landing rights to the U.S. helicopters working to protect Kuwait's ships. And a high percentage of those ships that our forces are protecting are leased from the USSR! Many Questions President Reagan has inserted our forces into this battle zone in order to protect "the free flow of oil." But why must the United States do the protecting? Our nation imports close to half of its oil, but only five percent of it comes from this area. Western Europe and Japan are the large users of Persian Gulf oil. Because the United States has chosen to side with Iraq, Khomeini's virulent anti-Americanism has risen to white-heat proportions. What will he and the fanatical hordes he controls now do? What American is comfortable having a husband or a son aboard one of our ships in these dangerous waters? Present U.S. policy is unsupportable and should be reversed. It seems as though we are determined to provoke Khomeini into attacking U.S. vessels. If he does, American pressure to topple the independent, fanatical, Iranian religious zealot will grow. Then, a successor will be named who is more acceptable to the Washinton-led builders of the "new world order," who installed Khomeini in the first place and turned Iran away from the West. This is hardly a proper use of U.S. military forces. Electronic reprint courtesy of Genesis 1.28 (206) 361-0751