4 ms·

“You obviously need an education” :eyeroll: Pretty fresh coming from someone who “obviously” missed the entire point of my post. No one claims that present was

“You obviously need an education” :eyeroll: Pretty fresh coming from someone who “obviously” missed the entire point of my post. No one claims that present wasn’t caused by the past. The question is who bears moral responsibility today for a regime that Iranians placed in power, that Iranians (a large enough chunk at least) continue to support, etc. Iranians are not uniquely automatons. They own their regime at least as much as anyone else, especially at this point. That US actions set a chain of events in motion does not absolve Iranians of everything they decided to do since. You are confusing causation and fault/responsibility. The US interventions, the Shah’s personal decisions, the ayatollahs’ decisions, the rise of Islam, the Persian Empire, the first humans who left Africa, are all causes of the current situation. But to determine who is at fault, who is responsible, is a very different question. Proximity in time is only a vague heuristic. It’s common in every day parlance to mix these concepts up. Legal systems have been confused about the distinction for thousands of years. But the distinction is very important to speaking sensibly about things.

AndrewBissell 6y ago
One thing to bear in mind in this discussion is that the U.S. did not simply exit stage left after the revolution in Iran. We've continued to isolate Iran both economically and militarily, especially with lavish support to Israel and even to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. It's impossible to say what kind of government Iran would have without American interventionism because it's never been free of American interventionism. It's sort of trivially true that responsibility for every facet of the Islamic Revolution in Iran can't be laid directly at the feet of the U.S. But, when you screw around with another country explicitly to steal their resources and exploit their people, it's silly to expect whatever violent resistance springs up to be rational and measured in every respect. They may even find it useful to heighten certain differences with the colonizing power to gain support from the people.
- sharadov 6y ago
  Exactly my point. The US supported a despot like Saddam, ignored all the atrocities, propping up Israel.
- anonunivgrad 6y ago
  Are you going to blame the the Nazi regime and the Holocaust on the WWI victors who refused to make a reasonable deal with a defeated Germany? It’s hard to imagine WW2 without the horrid WW1 peace terms. But we rightly lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Nazis and their supporters.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    It is an extremely blinkered view of history to look at each event as a totally isolated occurrence of individual actors divorced from any wider social context or developments. There's more than just a little self-exculpation at work when the Western Allied powers -- who initially financed Hitler's war machine, hoped he'd be a useful tool against the Red Menace, and even served as a source of inspiration to his eugenicist ideology -- downplay and ignore their own role as a handmaiden to Nazism. Incidentally, in 1953 when the CIA carried out its coup in Iran it was basically run and controlled by people who had made a great deal of money financing the Nazi war effort and then imported a bunch of Nazi war criminals to work for Western intelligence and the space program.
    - artificial 6y ago
      Do you have any good suggestions/recommendations for learning about the CIA during this period? Sounds fascinating and I'd welcome any books or long form comprehensive articles on the topic.
      - AndrewBissell 6y ago
        "Devil's Chessboard" is a good overall view of the CIA although not specifically about the postwar period. Stephen Kinzer has some good books which touch on the subject including "The Brothers" and "Poisoner in Chief." Christopher Simpson's "Forbidden Trilogy" (esp. "Blowback") is very good as well.
        artificial 6y ago
        Excellent, added to my queue, I really appreciate it. I'm curious how much of an impact the importation of talent had, I've not researched this subject much so any direction is welcome. Have a good weekend!
sharadov 6y ago
You gave a terrible example of comparing the Roman empire to events in Iran. And,I was merely correcting you. Interventions have massive consequences, and Iran has been isolated by successive US governments since then.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

One thing to bear in mind in this discussion is that the U.S. did not simply exit stage left after the revolution in Iran. We've continued to isolate Iran both economically and militarily, especially with lavish support to Israel and even to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. It's impossible to say what kind of government Iran would have without American interventionism because it's never been free of American interventionism. It's sort of trivially true that responsibility for every facet of the Islamic Revolution in Iran can't be laid directly at the feet of the U.S. But, when you screw around with another country explicitly to steal their resources and exploit their people, it's silly to expect whatever violent resistance springs up to be rational and measured in every respect. They may even find it useful to heighten certain differences with the colonizing power to gain support from the people.

sharadov 6y ago
Exactly my point. The US supported a despot like Saddam, ignored all the atrocities, propping up Israel.
anonunivgrad 6y ago
Are you going to blame the the Nazi regime and the Holocaust on the WWI victors who refused to make a reasonable deal with a defeated Germany? It’s hard to imagine WW2 without the horrid WW1 peace terms. But we rightly lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Nazis and their supporters.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  It is an extremely blinkered view of history to look at each event as a totally isolated occurrence of individual actors divorced from any wider social context or developments. There's more than just a little self-exculpation at work when the Western Allied powers -- who initially financed Hitler's war machine, hoped he'd be a useful tool against the Red Menace, and even served as a source of inspiration to his eugenicist ideology -- downplay and ignore their own role as a handmaiden to Nazism. Incidentally, in 1953 when the CIA carried out its coup in Iran it was basically run and controlled by people who had made a great deal of money financing the Nazi war effort and then imported a bunch of Nazi war criminals to work for Western intelligence and the space program.
  - artificial 6y ago
    Do you have any good suggestions/recommendations for learning about the CIA during this period? Sounds fascinating and I'd welcome any books or long form comprehensive articles on the topic.
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      "Devil's Chessboard" is a good overall view of the CIA although not specifically about the postwar period. Stephen Kinzer has some good books which touch on the subject including "The Brothers" and "Poisoner in Chief." Christopher Simpson's "Forbidden Trilogy" (esp. "Blowback") is very good as well.
      - artificial 6y ago
        Excellent, added to my queue, I really appreciate it. I'm curious how much of an impact the importation of talent had, I've not researched this subject much so any direction is welcome. Have a good weekend!

sharadov 6y ago

You gave a terrible example of comparing the Roman empire to events in Iran. And,I was merely correcting you. Interventions have massive consequences, and Iran has been isolated by successive US governments since then.