The Interests of Empire: Global Domination

When analyzing the pervasive nature of terrorism upon American society, history begs

the question of where distinction comes from. America is definitively the most militarized nation

on the face of the Earth; the state actors of today’s government are capable of identifying a target

and directing mass amounts of carnage in support of their motives. According to the Watson

Institute of Brown University, upwards of 350,000 civilians have been violently killed as a direct

result of American military action since 9/11, which is shallow in comparison to the number of

people wounded/infected. With nearly 40 million displaced as a result of the American “War of

Terror” it must be asked who the victims are. With such disproportionate casualties being

suffered, how is “terrorism” meant to be understood by the American public? The impacts of

terrorism upon modern society have drastically changed social norms, as well as what tools

domestic organizations have the power to employ. To understand terrorism, I define it in two

parts: the acts of violence perpetrated to condemn American/globalist agendas; the portrayal of

these actions to be against the common people. The employment of asymmetric warfare by

terrorist organizations is what I believe to be the response to a military who showed similar, if

not greater disregard for the lives of those in the Middle East, as well as a government whose

interests were not the upholding of human rights but the exploitation of natural resources at any

cost, including the upheaval of democratic societies. To condemn the terrorists for their actions,

it must be followed with a condemnation of the American establishment; without that second

condemnation, the weight of the former is hollowed and meaningless. To support the American

government and simultaneously condemn terrorist networks is simply a matter of ignorance and

denial. What may appear to be a brash statement will become evident through the analyzing of:
the American political economy and it’s worldwide role; the historical use of media in America

as it relates to violent domestic organizations; the historical use of media as it relates to violent

international organizations; and to summarize, I will analyze the effect of globalist tools upon the

American population.

The Seven Sisters and Operation Ajax

Across the globe, corporations and international organizations have become the de facto

rulers of nations, controlling their national resources, labor force, and in many events, their

leaders. To understand the transition that allowed for this, we need not look further back than the

petroleum business of the mid 20th century. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) was a

British company nationalized by the Iranian government in 1951; this was done when the AIOC

refused to provide the documents necessary for an audit. The response was rapid; Britain

simultaneously mobilized her military, and imposed a worldwide boycott on Iranian oil1. To the

behest of Prime Minister Clement Attlee, economic controls would be tightened while using

intelligence assets within Iran to undermine governmental authority2. The CIA, supported by

British Intelligence, orchestrated Operation Ajax to overthrow the democratically elected Prime

Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh in favor of Western-sympathizer Fazlollah Zahedi, lieutenant

general of the Iranian army. The Truman administration was opposed to the coup, but the

Eisenhower administration, approached by Winston Churchill, authorized the coup in early

19533. Zahedi served as Prime Minister for a government which allowed for the firm

monarchical rule of the Shah, who required extensive US support to remain in power for the next

two and a half decades4. As oil production began again, the US pressured British Petroleum (BP,

previously the AIOC) to accept membership to what would come to be known as the Consortium
for Iran, made up of 5 American oil companies which held 40%, BP which held another 40%,

and a Dutch and French company holding 14% and 6% respectively5. The consortium promised a

50/50 split on profits with the National Iran Oil Company, on the condition that there would be

no Iranian audits nor board members6; this gave control over Iran’s share of the profits to the oil

companies, which was regarded as a skillful act of diplomacy. This consortium would control

85% of the world’s oil supply up until the oil embargo of 19737. Operation Ajax ensured that the

Iranian oil supply would remain under the behest of western oil companies, and set a precedent

for government involvement that would plague the agency's record. In response to the

exploitative oligopoly, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was

formed in 1960, made up of 13 petroleum-producing nations.

OPEC and the 1973 Oil Embargo

“In December 1970, following a series of increases in the price of oil imposed on various

companies by the new Qaddafi regime in Libya, OPEC announced that, for the first time, it

would seek a worldwide price increase”8. By establishing a united front for setting oil prices,

OPEC established themselves to be in a position to undermine the corporate goals of the SS;

resultantly, the SS would lose their ability to negotiate prices one country at a time, giving OPEC

members significant power and control over the global market. The formation and strategies

employed by OPEC shifted the locus of power in the global petroleum markets to the governance

structures of the member nations. The early 70s saw a wave of nationalizations in member states,

which resulted in 1973 price increase9. In October of the same year, the Arab majority of OPEC,

plus Egypt and Syria, declared oil cuts, and placed an embargo on countries that supported Israel

in the Yom Kippur War. This took the price of oil from $3/barrel to nearly $12 and threatened an
economic shock nearing the Great Depression10. The instability that came from the embargos

resulted in drastic policy and attitude changes, supported by the power of international banks,

multinational corporations, and governments. Maintaining control of the oil supply became of

the highest importance, and this was reflected not only by the installation of the Shah, but also

the extremely deregulated relations between American corporations and the Saudis.

The strategic importance of the Saudi empire became evident, as they proved to be

America’s strongest foothold in maintaining control over the oil supply. To establish security in

the international oil supply, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Crown Prince Fahd signed an

agreement which would create the United States-Saudi Arabian Joint Economic Commission, or

JECOR11, an economic initiative that would prove an “innovative concept that was the opposite

of traditional foreign aid programs: it relied on Saudi money to hire American firms to build up

Saudi Arabia” 12. Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves, similar to Iran, enabled them to finance their own

projects rather than incurring debt like the rest of the world’s developing countries. Despite the

overall management and fiscal responsibility being delegated to the U.S. Treasury, this

precedent-setting deal required no Congressional oversight, allowing for extreme liberty in how

the funds appropriated to the Treasury were used. The parallel leadership of both the Saudi

Minister of Finance and US Secretary of the Treasury allowed for projects to be done ad hoc, as

according to Saudi plans for expansion13. This precarious geo-political position is a noteworthy

point of assessment: the American government had established a global hold over the oil industry

that was upheld by despotic leaders, anti-democratic usurpations, and exploitative corporate

practices. American Imperialism was on full display for the world, highlighted by the practices

of the Western-sympathizing leaders, such as the Shah of Iran, who had been building opposition

from the Iranian people and Muslims worldwide14. The effects of this imposition of ideology
would be felt for decades to come, but not before the Iranian Revolution of 1978 would change

the global order

Warring Cultures

The fall of the Shah of Iran sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East as Muslims

worldwide reacted to the fall of the Western helm in their area. The conflicting ideals, oppressive

tactics, and disregard for sovereignty that was shown by American corporations and government

alike towards the Iranian people served to be inflammatory in the worst ways possible. The

Tehran hostage crisis of 1979 cemented the dangers of Middle-Eastern relations: the American

embassy was used to subvert Iran’s constitution in Operation Ajax, which brought the Shah to

power; embassy personnel established and trained SAVAK, the inhumane secret police force of

Iran15; despite all this, it remained a clear matter of international law that diplomatic immunity be

upheld. The nature of international law, specifically relating to that diplomatic immunity,

demonstrates the juxtapositions placed not only on the Iranian people, but all people on the other

side of the interventions and installations of global powers (corporations and governments alike).

This is investigated in Richard Falk’s The Iran Hostage Crisis: Easy Answers and Hard

Questions16. An excerpt from the article -

“Why should the rules protecting diplomatic immunity be so much clearer than the rules
protecting a weak country against intervention? … What kind of international law is it that
protects foreign police and torture specialists by conferring upon them the status of "diplomat"?”

This highlights the state of global politics and economics, which is overwhelmingly one

of legally justified imperial expansion at the cost of the affected people’s sovereignty and human

rights. This same international order is what has given rise to the War on Terror and subsequent
media reporting, which indubitably serves to maintain public opinion to be that which supports

the expansion of the American state, by means of information warfare 17; it should be noted that

the international law has been a tool of supremacist governments across the global north to

dictate international relations/law in a way that benefits the given powers, with a disregard for

the civilizations that are affected, whether in the Middle East, Africa, Asia or the Americas. The

role of international diplomacy, and the juxtaposition of efforts made by the powerful and the

weak, is also brought to attention-

“In fact, however, the history of interventionary diplomacy is overwhelmingly the story
of how the strong have used their power in various ways against the weak, and the struggle for
norms and regimes based on nonintervention is the contrary story of how weaker states have
tried to inhibit intrusions on their territorial integrity and political independence.”

The role of the media in upholding this regime is of the utmost importance. America is

rooted in democracy; when the means of upholding foreign policy require acts against

democracy, the media gives State actors the means to construct the narrative as needed. The

concentration of ownership of media has left 6 corporations with control over 90% of the media

landscape18, as of 2012. The dismantling of Mossadegh’s government by the CIA in Operation

Ajax would be the first act in a series of events over the next few decades that would give

unprecedented legal access to the natural resources of disadvantaged countries around the world.

President Truman was aware of the precedent that would be set by Operation Ajax, which is why

it was not employed until the Eisenhower administration19. The age of information warfare is

upon us; the media is a force multiplier to whatever entity employs its use, extremist cells and

state actors alike. By employing the media, information can be dissected, cut out, interpreted,

and broadcast in a way that aligns with the latent goals of those involved. As such, we see the

War on Terror as a war against extremists and anti-democratic radicals. In truth, the War on
Terror is a construct, designed to instill in the American people a fear and distrust of the world.

Not only has the loss of life been heavily disproportionate, with middle eastern civilians

suffering the most20, but from the War on Terror has come the legal justification for mass

surveillance giving, yet again, unprecedented legal access to the power structure to employ

policies that serve to the advantage of a certain group of actors and corporations.

Terror in America

I identify terrorism through two lenses: the acts done in express condemnation of imperial

expansion and the portrayal of these acts by media to take on a certain quality. Acts of violence,

horrific and justified alike, have taken shape for as long as history has been documented. It is not

far-fetched to say that fear or terror was a component at least consistently, if not in all scenarios.

Why is it that the acts of violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists are considered to be of a

different caliber? The juxtaposition I will make is between Islamic extremists and Ku Klux Klan

members. The KKK was responsible for raids, bombings, executions, and every other type of

economic, social, and in some cases governmental oppression. Elaine Frantz Parsons notes in

Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan During Reconstruction -

“From 1866 through 1871, men calling themselves ‘Ku-Klux’ killed hundreds of black
Southerners and their white supporters, sexually molested hundreds of black women and men,
drove thousands of black families from their homes and thousands of black men and women
from their employment, and appropriated land, crops, guns, livestock, and food from black
Southerners on a massive scale”21
The infiltration of the KKK into high ranking positions of government and society

provide a stark contrast to the understood nature of radical Islamic extremists. David Chalmers’

book Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan helped the Civil Rights Movement details the

interconnectedness of the KKK with societal operations. It outlines how President Truman,
democrats, republicans, and police officers all worked to ensure the Ku Klux Klan would be able

to commit and get away with the murders of thousands of Black men, women, and children. The

organization responsible for addressing and convicting hate crimes was the FBI, yet the FBI was

responsible for COINTELPRO, formed in 1956 and used to surveil, assassinate, imprison, and

infiltrate Black leaders of the civil rights era. When President Nixon took office in 1969, he

consolidated domestic surveillance operations into Operation CHAOS22. The expansion of the

operation saw both physical and electronic surveillance and recon of domestic groups targeted,

such as the Black Panther Party, Students for a Democratic Society, and groups within the

Women’s Liberation movement23. By its end, The CIA had collected files on 7,200 Americans

and a computer index on 300,000 civilians and 1,000 groups24.

Conclusion

We cannot understand terrorism without understanding the corporate interests defining it.

For years, the American public has been informed of the dangers that Islamic radicalism poses to

the free world. Without an explicit analysis of who is benefiting financially and politically from

the middle eastern theater of operations, we will remain unaware of what distinguishes Osama

bin Laden from J. Edgar Hoover. Both of these men were responsible for the violence enacted

upon certain groups, both done for certain reasons. One worked to uphold a way of life, as

Hoover expressed - "the Black Panther Party, without question, represents the greatest threat to

internal security of the country"25. The other worked to enact violence against the structures that

uphold the system, and in doing so was willing to take the lives of innocent civilians. The acts of

violence around the globe are not to be justified, but analyzed. If analyzed objectively, it can be

asserted that the best definition to give for a “terrorist” is someone who uses violence as a means
against Imperial Expansion. The reach of globalism today, and the legal justifications in place,

leave exploited and oppressed countries in the global south with no means of justly revolting, or

changing order. In each country, the people and leaders are aware of the rules by which the

powerful governments play, and they understand that any act against their rule may result in the

“legally justified” militarization of the areas their children grow up in. It is an impossible

situation for the people living in these conditions; without justifying the horrific acts committed,

the beheadings, rapes, and kidnappings, I believe it to be the civic duty of every citizen to

question the role of the media, as well as that of Foreign Aid and Policy.

Notes
1. Gasiorowski, Mark J., et al. Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran. Syracuse University Press, 2004,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1j5d815. Accessed 1 May 2022.
2. Kinzer, Stephen. “All the Shah’s Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror : Kinzer,
Stephen : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” Internet Archive, 2008,
https://archive.org/details/allshahsmena00kinz. Accessed 1 May 2022.
3. “1953 Iran Coup: New U.S. Documents Confirm British Approached U.S. in Late 1952 About Ousting
Mosaddeq.” National Security Archive,
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-08-08/1953-iran-coup-new-us-documents-confirm-britis
h-approached-us-late. Accessed 1 May 2022.
4. Milani, Abbas. Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979, Volumes One and
Two. Syracuse University Press, 2008.
5. Greenwood, Christopher, and Karen Lee. International Law Reports: Volume 186. Cambridge University Press,
2020.
6. Kinzer, Stephen. “All the Shah’s Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror : Kinzer,
Stephen : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” Internet Archive, 2008,
https://archive.org/details/allshahsmena00kinz. Accessed 1 May 2022.
7. Colgan, Jeff D. Partial Hegemony: Oil Politics and International Order. Oxford University Press, 2021.
8. Oppenheim, V. H. “The Past: We Pushed Them.” Foreign Policy, no. 25, 1976, pp. 24–57,
https://doi.org/10.2307/1148022. Accessed 5 May 2022.
9. Colgan, Jeff D. Partial Hegemony: Oil Politics and International Order. Oxford University Press, 2021.
10. Perkins, John. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2004.
11. David K. Harbinson. “The US-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation: A Critical
Appraisal.” Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, 1990, pp. 269–83, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4328102. Accessed 1
May 2022.
12. Perkins, John. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. pp. 84. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2004.
13. “ID-79-7 The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation.” Report By The Comptroller
General of The United States, Mar. 1979.
14. Perkins, John. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Chap. 20 Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2004.
15. Falk, Richard. “The Iran Hostage Crisis: Easy Answers and Hard Questions.” The American Journal of
International Law, vol. 74, no. 2, 1980, pp. 411–17, https://doi.org/10.2307/2201508.
16. Falk, Richard. “The Iran Hostage Crisis: Easy Answers and Hard Questions.” The American Journal of
International Law, vol. 74, no. 2, 1980, pp. 411–17, https://doi.org/10.2307/2201508.
17. Prier, Jarred. “Social Media as Information Warfare.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 4, 2017, pp.
50–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/26271634.
18. Lutz, Ashley. “These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America.” Insider, 14 June 2012,
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?utm_so
urce=reddit.com. Accessed 1 May 2022.
19. “1953 Iran Coup: New U.S. Documents Confirm British Approached U.S. in Late 1952 About Ousting
Mosaddeq.” National Security Archive,
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-08-08/1953-iran-coup-new-us-documents-confirm-british-approa
ched-us-late. Accessed 1 May 2022.
20. Wilkins, Brett. “Common Dreams.” Common Dreams, 2 Dec. 2021,
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/12/02/pentagon-blasted-unacceptable-failure-reckon-civilian-casualties.
Accessed 4 May 2022.
21. Parsons, Elaine Frantz. Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan during Reconstruction. UNC Press Books, 2015.
22. Goldstein, Robert Justin. Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976. University of Illinois
Press, 2001.
23. Goldstein, Robert Justin. Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976. University of Illinois
Press, 2001.
24. Hixson, Walter L. The United States and the Vietnam War: Military Aspects of the Vietnam Conflict. 2000.
25. “A Huey P. Newton Story - People - J. Edgar Hoover & the FBI.” PBS,
https://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/people/people_hoover.html. Accessed 3 May 2022.

Works Cited

“1953 Iran Coup: New U.S. Documents Confirm British Approached U.S. in Late 1952 About

Ousting Mosaddeq.” National Security Archive,

 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-08-08/1953-iran-coup-new-us-docume

nts-confirm-british-approached-us-late. Accessed 16 May 2022.

“A Huey P. Newton Story - People - J. Edgar Hoover & the FBI.” PBS,

https://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/people/people_hoover.html. Accessed 17 May 2022.

Anthony, John Duke. “The US-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Co-Operation.”

King Faisal and the Modernisation of Saudi Arabia, Routledge, 2019, pp. 102–09,

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429051562-7. Accessed 16 May 2022.

Colgan, Jeff D. Partial Hegemony: Oil Politics and International Order. Oxford University

Press, 2021.

Falk, Richard. “The Iran Hostage Crisis: Easy Answers and Hard Questions.” The American

Journal of International Law, vol. 74, no. 2, 1980, pp. 411–17,

https://doi.org/10.2307/2201508.

Gasiorowski, Mark J., et al. Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran. Syracuse

University Press, 2004, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1j5d815. Accessed 16 May 2022.

---. “Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran.” JSTOR, Syracuse University Press,

2004, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1j5d815. Accessed 17 May 2022.

Goldstein, Robert Justin. Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976. University

of Illinois Press, 2001.

Greenwood, Christopher, and Karen Lee. International Law Reports: Volume 186. Cambridge

University Press, 2020.

Hixson, Walter L. The United States and the Vietnam War: Military Aspects of the Vietnam

Conflict. 2000.

“ID-79-7 The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation.” Report By The
 Comptroller General of The United States, Mar. 1979.

Kinzer, Stephen. “All the Shah’s Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror :

Kinzer, Stephen : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” Internet

Archive, 2008, https://archive.org/details/allshahsmena00kinz. Accessed 16 May 2022.

Lutz, Ashley. “These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America.” Insider, 14 June

2012,

https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-americ

a-2012-6?utm_source=reddit.com. Accessed 17 May 2022.

Milani, Abbas. Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979,

Volumes One and Two. Syracuse University Press, 2008.

Parsons, Elaine Frantz. Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan during Reconstruction. UNC Press

Books, 2015.

Perkins, John. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2004.

Prier, Jarred. “Social Media as Information Warfare.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 4,

2017, pp. 50–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/26271634.

Wilkins, Brett. “Common Dreams.” Common Dreams, 2 Dec. 2021,

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/12/02/pentagon-blasted-unacceptable-failure

-reckon-civilian-casualties. Accessed 17 May 2022.