9 ms·

How Iran fell out with the West

24 points by joosters 11y ago

joosters 11y ago
Adam Curtis' blog makes for good reading on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/83a85833-1769-377f-b716-06c488f5c1d4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/83a85833-1769-...
phaedryx 11y ago
I think it all goes back to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
fapjacks 11y ago
Sort of on-topic, and about the Iran deal: It basically green-lights Iran's continuing atomic weapons program. I have read the agreement, and there is nothing in there that actually will impede Iran's progress towards creating nuclear weapons. Also, it lets them keep their centrifuges (!) and ballistic missiles (!). I really am at a complete loss to explain what the purpose of the "deal" was, considering it does absolutely nothing towards our goal of stopping Iranian atomic weapons development.
- joosters 11y ago
  The deal doesn't mean they have to abandon all weapons. I'm sure Iran would argue they have ballistic missiles for the very same reason the USA has them - for defence, i.e. to dissuade other countries from attacking them.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Ballistic missiles with just a bunch of TNT or C4 on the tip aren't all that much of a deterrent...
- lisper 11y ago
  > I have read the agreement You must not have read it very carefully. On page 3 it says: "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."
  - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
    Indeed. Here's a copy of the deal: http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/ir... Plus the entire agreement talks extensively about scaling back their enrichment, areas of research, and international monitoring. Here's a nice easy to consume summary: http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal-say-the-big-plan-blocks-these-4-pathways-to-nuclear-weapons http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal... The OP is either being untruthful about having read the agreement, or has some type of agenda and is intending to mislead. Hard to argue that they're making claims in good faith giving out inconsistent their claims are with facts.
    - fapjacks 11y ago
      You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel. The fact that they have them -- and are allowed to keep them -- flies in the face of any paperwork claiming that it wants to dismantle a nuclear weapons development programme. I personally have friends living in Iran who tell me that the people of that nation widely believe their government is developing nuclear weapons, and are terrified that this deal will allow them to continue, and I can't say I blame them one bit. This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words.
      - lisper 11y ago
        > You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel Not true. Centrifuges are used to make reactor fuel too. > allowed to keep them They are being phased out over the next ten years. Under close IAEA scrutiny. > This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words. You know, it's not just Obama and Kerry who signed off on this, it's China, France, Russia, the UK, and Germany too. The only ones who don't like this deal are the Republicans, Benjamin Netanyahu, and you. And the Republicans reflexively oppose anything Barack Obama supports, so their opinion can pretty much be discounted. Just out of curiosity, though, what exactly do you suggest we do?
- danbruc 11y ago
  As long as the existing nuclear powers are not considering to bring their nuclear arsenal down to zero, trying to force other countries not to develop nuclear weapons is pure hypocrisy. Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives, guarantee military support, pay them or whatnot. Embargoing them and attacking them with Stuxnet is just evil.
  - davmre 11y ago
    > Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. Most non-proliferation activists, Obama included, have the stated goal of a "world without nuclear weapons", in which the US and Russia also bring their stockpiles down to zero. Superpowers are already wealthy enough to win wars by conventional means, and they have the most to lose from rogue nuclear strikes, so they have strong incentives to work in this direction. That said the fact of the matter is that the US and Russia do have large nuclear stockpiles, and don't like each other very much, so coordinating simultaneous arms reductions is a tricky game-theoretic dance. Hopefully we'll get there, but it may take a long time. While that progresses, preventing new nuclear powers from springing up is an equally important part of the nonproliferation agenda. > If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives. That's exactly what the sanctions regime against Iran has been: a set of incentives engineered so that giving up nukes is in their best interest.
    - danbruc 11y ago
      The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. At worst you would have to break or cancel the agreement one day and I can hardly imagine negative consequences if the situation in the world developed in a way that doing so is deemed necessary. Also unilaterally decreasing the nuclear stockpile from about 5000 right now to say 4000 or 2000 is not really dangerous. If you ever come into a situation where you need more than 2000 nuclear weapons I can't imagine that it makes any real difference whether you have one more or 3000 more. And this would really send a strong message to the other nuclear powers. Russia one, USA one, Russia one, USA one, ... is pretty silly in the current situation. Maybe if there is only a handful left. Sanctions is exactly what I did not mean. Yes, it provides incentives but absolutely in the wrong way. If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage.
- radmuzom 11y ago
  Even if they do develop nuclear weapons, so what? I can see only see a positive side to it where the USA will think twice before messing with the internal affairs of a country again.
  - nextweek2 11y ago
    The greater threat is the Middle East destroying each other. Israel has been very clear that it thinks Iran will drop the bomb on them. Then you'll also find Sunni verses Shia. The region is a powder keg of history.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Israel has been very clear that it thinks Iran will drop the bomb on them. Israel's real concern is probably that its own nuclear arsenal stops being an absolute trump card that makes it undeterable as soon as any of its regional rivals also has nuclear weapons. But, you know, that's obviously not the way any government is going to publicly frame their concerns, for obvious reasons.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    A country that regularly has mobs chanting "Death to America", and you don't see anything but positives to them having nuclear weapons? Seriously?
- davmre 11y ago
  The entire point of the deal, politically speaking, is to dismantle Iran's nuclear program in a way that allows Rouhani and the Iranian moderates to save face to their own people by maintaining the apparent shell of a nuclear program. So they get to claim, "we still have centrifuges, we still do nuclear research", and those claims are literally true but substantively false. In fact they're only keeping a small number of very old centrifuges that are carefully monitored, the equipment necessary to make new centrifuges is locked down with constant inspections, future imports of such equipment are highly restricted, extraction of their natural uranium deposits is carefully monitored, along with many other measures designed to make it impossible to move towards a bomb. Ernest Moniz, the US energy secretary who helped negotiate the deal, is a nuclear physicist. US national labs employ many of the world's top nuclear experts, who consulted on the deal. When they, and most of the rest of the world's experts on nuclear physics and nuclear policy, say this is a good deal (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good), I'm inclined to think it has some merit. Could it be flawed? Sure. But you need a better argument than "OMG it lets them keep some centrifuges".
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Iran was targeted by British and U.S. imperialism to rip off their oil. When they elected Mossadegh, he put a stop to it. The CIA was sent in to overthrow him with the plan being hatched at the U.S. embassy. Twenty years of oppression under the pro-US Shah led to a revolution led by Khomeni and they unsurprisingly hit the embassy where it all started. From there, it was decades of U.S. and partners getting back at them for their intolerance of oil-stealing dictatorships with sanctions that hurt civilians, media BS, funding for Iraq's side of their war, Stuxnet, etc. CIA didn't admit what they did for decades. Just recently admitted it and the real reason why ("resources"). Not crazy Arabs and their religious agenda: just a result of America doing horrible stuff to innocent people for decades for evil reasons. Admitted it, but no apologies or end to sanctions. Most Americans still read lies in history books. Politicians still screwing with them. And that's just Iran. I'm sure you can only imagine that the truth behind situation in other Middle Eastern countries is similarly dark and with Western influence. phaedryx's link at least will get you started on this one. Next look up all that funding Bush Sr and CIA gave Saddam and bin Laden while docs warned that it could have "blowback." Can't blame them for later wars or terrorist attacks involving same names, though, can we?
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  > Not crazy Arabs and their religious agenda. I may be misremembering, but weren't the Americans supporting the crazy religious? At the time, they were considered less scary than the godless communists.
  - andreasvc 11y ago
    Yes the US initially supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    Different group and location, but yes, we backed the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the soviets. The enemy of my enemy etc...
    - 11y ago
GnarfGnarf 11y ago
The U.S. had a chance to do things right if they had left Mohammad Mossadegh alone. Can you blame the Persians for being pissed? We are the authors of our own misfortune. Your average American has never heard of Mossadegh.
- andreasvc 11y ago
  It's not possible to know what would have happened if Mossadegh was left alone by the US. It seems to me that the article hinted at conservative elements taking over regardless, and there could have been many other events troubling Iran's relationship with the west.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > It's not possible to know what would have happened if Mossadegh was left alone by the US. It seems to me that the article hinted at conservative elements taking over regardless Sure, but there's a difference for the US between "conservative elements taking over" in Iran and "conservative elements taking over buoyed on a wave of anti-US feeling directly resulting from the US imposition of an unpopular, brutal regime" in Iran.
- ctchocula 11y ago
  We are making steps. For example, there is a nice exhibition in a Washington DC's Hirshhorn Art Museum called Facing History by Iranian-born artist Shirin Neshat that talks about history of Iran and illustrates how heavy in propaganda news was in 1953 at giving justification for British intervention in toppling Mossadegh. I think the Museum in allowing such an exhibition to be shown in the US is in some sense admitting US made a mistake (with the CIA intervention). It also teaches future generations that whatever the media and the government says should be taken with a grain of salt.
dragontamer 11y ago
Is it wrong that a comic book is actually the best insight into this whole ordeal? http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-Story-Childhood-Marjane-Satrapi/dp/037571457X http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-Story-Childhood-Marjane-Sat... http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-2-The-Story-Return/dp/0375714669 http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-2-The-Story-Return/dp/03757...
smnrchrds 11y ago
There are three defining occurrences in Iran-US relationship: 1. The US organized a coup, removing liberal elected prime minister of Iran to bring back the king Iranians despised and have effectively overthrown. This would change the course of Iranian history forever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... 2. Iran hostage crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis 3. US support of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Even when he started using chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... For an article which wants to find why Iran fell out with the west, it is not merely ignorant to remove the first and most important cause of the current mistrust. It looks very much like propaganda.
- adventured 11y ago
  It covers #1 and #2, eg - "The same shah whom Washington was now trying to shun had been lifted to power in a 1953 coup engineered by the CIA and the British, displacing the elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who had had the temerity to nationalise the Iranian oil industry. "
- andreasvc 11y ago
  All 3 were covered (though no mention of chemical weapons).
joshuaheard 11y ago
You really have to take the long view to understand Iran. For 500 years, Iran had a monarchy, until after WW2 when the "Shah of Iran" took over. In order to modernize his country, he formed a parliament like England, which appointed Mossadegh as PM. Unfortunately, Mossadegh exiled the Shah, nationalized the oil industry, and suspended elections. The British were the main oil industry, there, so they fought back with the help of the US. The US gave opposition groups money since we were fighting the cold war and Mossadegh was pro-communist. The money was to be used in a campaign for democratic elections. However, the Iranians could not agree on the rules for the elections. There as a large bloc that wanted to return to a monarchy who brought back the Shah. The Shah then took control of the country. Later, the Islamist took over the country by revolution, much as ISIS is doing today. They have been in power ever since enforcing radical Sharia law. The narrative that America overthrew a democratically elected government in a coup is just false.
- hashemian 11y ago
  " The narrative that America overthrew a democratically elected government in a coup is just false." Glad to know that your knowledge is more than CIA even (sarcasm), as they already admitted that: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role...
  - joshuaheard 11y ago
    This is consistent with my statement above. The CIA admitted it had a role, which I acknowledge. They gave them money and assisted the local faction in the return of the monarch. And, since elections had been suspended, the depose was not democratically elected. The newspaper sensationalizes the actions of the CIA, and that has become the new narrative.
contingencies 11y ago
The author is a nearly 70 year old Cambridge-educated staunch BBC journo. The Arabic world is his thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Muir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Muir .. Iran isn't. He claims government policies bankrupted the country, and they may have contributed heavily, but he neglects to mention the oh-so-subtle truth that Israel and the US pressured Europe to rubber-stamp disconnecting the entire country from the international interbank financial transfer monopoly SWIFT through a slapdash front entity known as 'United Against a Nuclear Iran', billing itself as a "non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization" whose members included the former director of Mossad, Council on Foreign Relations fellows and Bush's homeland security advisor. SWIFT had previously carefully cultivated a nominally apolitical image, and its director described the move as "unprecedented".

24 points by joosters 11y ago

Adam Curtis' blog makes for good reading on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/83a85833-1769-377f-b716-06c488f5c1d4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/83a85833-1769-...

phaedryx 11y ago

I think it all goes back to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

fapjacks 11y ago

Sort of on-topic, and about the Iran deal: It basically green-lights Iran's continuing atomic weapons program. I have read the agreement, and there is nothing in there that actually will impede Iran's progress towards creating nuclear weapons. Also, it lets them keep their centrifuges (!) and ballistic missiles (!). I really am at a complete loss to explain what the purpose of the "deal" was, considering it does absolutely nothing towards our goal of stopping Iranian atomic weapons development.

joosters 11y ago
The deal doesn't mean they have to abandon all weapons. I'm sure Iran would argue they have ballistic missiles for the very same reason the USA has them - for defence, i.e. to dissuade other countries from attacking them.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Ballistic missiles with just a bunch of TNT or C4 on the tip aren't all that much of a deterrent...
lisper 11y ago
> I have read the agreement You must not have read it very carefully. On page 3 it says: "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  Indeed. Here's a copy of the deal: http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/ir... Plus the entire agreement talks extensively about scaling back their enrichment, areas of research, and international monitoring. Here's a nice easy to consume summary: http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal-say-the-big-plan-blocks-these-4-pathways-to-nuclear-weapons http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal... The OP is either being untruthful about having read the agreement, or has some type of agenda and is intending to mislead. Hard to argue that they're making claims in good faith giving out inconsistent their claims are with facts.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel. The fact that they have them -- and are allowed to keep them -- flies in the face of any paperwork claiming that it wants to dismantle a nuclear weapons development programme. I personally have friends living in Iran who tell me that the people of that nation widely believe their government is developing nuclear weapons, and are terrified that this deal will allow them to continue, and I can't say I blame them one bit. This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words.
    - lisper 11y ago
      > You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel Not true. Centrifuges are used to make reactor fuel too. > allowed to keep them They are being phased out over the next ten years. Under close IAEA scrutiny. > This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words. You know, it's not just Obama and Kerry who signed off on this, it's China, France, Russia, the UK, and Germany too. The only ones who don't like this deal are the Republicans, Benjamin Netanyahu, and you. And the Republicans reflexively oppose anything Barack Obama supports, so their opinion can pretty much be discounted. Just out of curiosity, though, what exactly do you suggest we do?
danbruc 11y ago
As long as the existing nuclear powers are not considering to bring their nuclear arsenal down to zero, trying to force other countries not to develop nuclear weapons is pure hypocrisy. Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives, guarantee military support, pay them or whatnot. Embargoing them and attacking them with Stuxnet is just evil.
- davmre 11y ago
  > Why can the USA and Russia and the others have nuclear weapons but not Iran? There is no justification for that. Most non-proliferation activists, Obama included, have the stated goal of a "world without nuclear weapons", in which the US and Russia also bring their stockpiles down to zero. Superpowers are already wealthy enough to win wars by conventional means, and they have the most to lose from rogue nuclear strikes, so they have strong incentives to work in this direction. That said the fact of the matter is that the US and Russia do have large nuclear stockpiles, and don't like each other very much, so coordinating simultaneous arms reductions is a tricky game-theoretic dance. Hopefully we'll get there, but it may take a long time. While that progresses, preventing new nuclear powers from springing up is an equally important part of the nonproliferation agenda. > If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons provide them incentives. That's exactly what the sanctions regime against Iran has been: a set of incentives engineered so that giving up nukes is in their best interest.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. At worst you would have to break or cancel the agreement one day and I can hardly imagine negative consequences if the situation in the world developed in a way that doing so is deemed necessary. Also unilaterally decreasing the nuclear stockpile from about 5000 right now to say 4000 or 2000 is not really dangerous. If you ever come into a situation where you need more than 2000 nuclear weapons I can't imagine that it makes any real difference whether you have one more or 3000 more. And this would really send a strong message to the other nuclear powers. Russia one, USA one, Russia one, USA one, ... is pretty silly in the current situation. Maybe if there is only a handful left. Sanctions is exactly what I did not mean. Yes, it provides incentives but absolutely in the wrong way. If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage.
radmuzom 11y ago
Even if they do develop nuclear weapons, so what? I can see only see a positive side to it where the USA will think twice before messing with the internal affairs of a country again.
- nextweek2 11y ago
  The greater threat is the Middle East destroying each other. Israel has been very clear that it thinks Iran will drop the bomb on them. Then you'll also find Sunni verses Shia. The region is a powder keg of history.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Israel has been very clear that it thinks Iran will drop the bomb on them. Israel's real concern is probably that its own nuclear arsenal stops being an absolute trump card that makes it undeterable as soon as any of its regional rivals also has nuclear weapons. But, you know, that's obviously not the way any government is going to publicly frame their concerns, for obvious reasons.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  A country that regularly has mobs chanting "Death to America", and you don't see anything but positives to them having nuclear weapons? Seriously?
davmre 11y ago
The entire point of the deal, politically speaking, is to dismantle Iran's nuclear program in a way that allows Rouhani and the Iranian moderates to save face to their own people by maintaining the apparent shell of a nuclear program. So they get to claim, "we still have centrifuges, we still do nuclear research", and those claims are literally true but substantively false. In fact they're only keeping a small number of very old centrifuges that are carefully monitored, the equipment necessary to make new centrifuges is locked down with constant inspections, future imports of such equipment are highly restricted, extraction of their natural uranium deposits is carefully monitored, along with many other measures designed to make it impossible to move towards a bomb. Ernest Moniz, the US energy secretary who helped negotiate the deal, is a nuclear physicist. US national labs employ many of the world's top nuclear experts, who consulted on the deal. When they, and most of the rest of the world's experts on nuclear physics and nuclear policy, say this is a good deal (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good), I'm inclined to think it has some merit. Could it be flawed? Sure. But you need a better argument than "OMG it lets them keep some centrifuges".

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Iran was targeted by British and U.S. imperialism to rip off their oil. When they elected Mossadegh, he put a stop to it. The CIA was sent in to overthrow him with the plan being hatched at the U.S. embassy. Twenty years of oppression under the pro-US Shah led to a revolution led by Khomeni and they unsurprisingly hit the embassy where it all started. From there, it was decades of U.S. and partners getting back at them for their intolerance of oil-stealing dictatorships with sanctions that hurt civilians, media BS, funding for Iraq's side of their war, Stuxnet, etc. CIA didn't admit what they did for decades. Just recently admitted it and the real reason why ("resources"). Not crazy Arabs and their religious agenda: just a result of America doing horrible stuff to innocent people for decades for evil reasons. Admitted it, but no apologies or end to sanctions. Most Americans still read lies in history books. Politicians still screwing with them. And that's just Iran. I'm sure you can only imagine that the truth behind situation in other Middle Eastern countries is similarly dark and with Western influence. phaedryx's link at least will get you started on this one. Next look up all that funding Bush Sr and CIA gave Saddam and bin Laden while docs warned that it could have "blowback." Can't blame them for later wars or terrorist attacks involving same names, though, can we?

saint_fiasco 11y ago
> Not crazy Arabs and their religious agenda. I may be misremembering, but weren't the Americans supporting the crazy religious? At the time, they were considered less scary than the godless communists.
- andreasvc 11y ago
  Yes the US initially supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  Different group and location, but yes, we backed the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the soviets. The enemy of my enemy etc...
  - 11y ago

GnarfGnarf 11y ago

The U.S. had a chance to do things right if they had left Mohammad Mossadegh alone. Can you blame the Persians for being pissed? We are the authors of our own misfortune. Your average American has never heard of Mossadegh.

andreasvc 11y ago
It's not possible to know what would have happened if Mossadegh was left alone by the US. It seems to me that the article hinted at conservative elements taking over regardless, and there could have been many other events troubling Iran's relationship with the west.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > It's not possible to know what would have happened if Mossadegh was left alone by the US. It seems to me that the article hinted at conservative elements taking over regardless Sure, but there's a difference for the US between "conservative elements taking over" in Iran and "conservative elements taking over buoyed on a wave of anti-US feeling directly resulting from the US imposition of an unpopular, brutal regime" in Iran.
ctchocula 11y ago
We are making steps. For example, there is a nice exhibition in a Washington DC's Hirshhorn Art Museum called Facing History by Iranian-born artist Shirin Neshat that talks about history of Iran and illustrates how heavy in propaganda news was in 1953 at giving justification for British intervention in toppling Mossadegh. I think the Museum in allowing such an exhibition to be shown in the US is in some sense admitting US made a mistake (with the CIA intervention). It also teaches future generations that whatever the media and the government says should be taken with a grain of salt.

dragontamer 11y ago

Is it wrong that a comic book is actually the best insight into this whole ordeal? http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-Story-Childhood-Marjane-Satrapi/dp/037571457X http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-Story-Childhood-Marjane-Sat... http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-2-The-Story-Return/dp/0375714669 http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-2-The-Story-Return/dp/03757...

smnrchrds 11y ago

There are three defining occurrences in Iran-US relationship: 1. The US organized a coup, removing liberal elected prime minister of Iran to bring back the king Iranians despised and have effectively overthrown. This would change the course of Iranian history forever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... 2. Iran hostage crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis 3. US support of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Even when he started using chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... For an article which wants to find why Iran fell out with the west, it is not merely ignorant to remove the first and most important cause of the current mistrust. It looks very much like propaganda.

adventured 11y ago
It covers #1 and #2, eg - "The same shah whom Washington was now trying to shun had been lifted to power in a 1953 coup engineered by the CIA and the British, displacing the elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who had had the temerity to nationalise the Iranian oil industry. "
andreasvc 11y ago
All 3 were covered (though no mention of chemical weapons).

joshuaheard 11y ago

You really have to take the long view to understand Iran. For 500 years, Iran had a monarchy, until after WW2 when the "Shah of Iran" took over. In order to modernize his country, he formed a parliament like England, which appointed Mossadegh as PM. Unfortunately, Mossadegh exiled the Shah, nationalized the oil industry, and suspended elections. The British were the main oil industry, there, so they fought back with the help of the US. The US gave opposition groups money since we were fighting the cold war and Mossadegh was pro-communist. The money was to be used in a campaign for democratic elections. However, the Iranians could not agree on the rules for the elections. There as a large bloc that wanted to return to a monarchy who brought back the Shah. The Shah then took control of the country. Later, the Islamist took over the country by revolution, much as ISIS is doing today. They have been in power ever since enforcing radical Sharia law. The narrative that America overthrew a democratically elected government in a coup is just false.

hashemian 11y ago
" The narrative that America overthrew a democratically elected government in a coup is just false." Glad to know that your knowledge is more than CIA even (sarcasm), as they already admitted that: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role...
- joshuaheard 11y ago
  This is consistent with my statement above. The CIA admitted it had a role, which I acknowledge. They gave them money and assisted the local faction in the return of the monarch. And, since elections had been suspended, the depose was not democratically elected. The newspaper sensationalizes the actions of the CIA, and that has become the new narrative.

contingencies 11y ago

The author is a nearly 70 year old Cambridge-educated staunch BBC journo. The Arabic world is his thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Muir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Muir .. Iran isn't. He claims government policies bankrupted the country, and they may have contributed heavily, but he neglects to mention the oh-so-subtle truth that Israel and the US pressured Europe to rubber-stamp disconnecting the entire country from the international interbank financial transfer monopoly SWIFT through a slapdash front entity known as 'United Against a Nuclear Iran', billing itself as a "non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization" whose members included the former director of Mossad, Council on Foreign Relations fellows and Bush's homeland security advisor. SWIFT had previously carefully cultivated a nominally apolitical image, and its director described the move as "unprecedented".