One thing that amazes me about this...there are many...is the way in which Iran is routinely portrayed. Demonization is expected when you're gearing up for Operation Freedom Iran, but the whole history of the situation is looked at in an incredibly one sided manner. We mention them 'hating' the US all the time, as proof of how really, really bad they are, fanatics, even, and no one bothers to ask why. Just a bunch of crazy A-Rabs. We mention the Embassy thing, but does anyone even know why it happened? What they were pissed about? It was just a little more than Israel... Here's a recap. 1951...Iran elects a popular and populist Prime Minister, the people's check to the power of the old regime Shah. Prime Mimister Musadeg proceeds to restrict the power of the SHah's secret police, the Savak, in light of the thousands of unaccounted deaths while in police custody during 'questioning'....oh, and he nationalizes the oil industry. The CIA and British intelligence, the intel arms of the two greatest oil trade partners with the up till then Shah lead industry come up with Operation Ajax; To provoke, fund, and implement the overthrow of the Prime Minister and get the power back where it belongs; in the hands of a non-elected monarch...oh, and as a completely non-related issue, the Shah agrees to resume the oil business with the US and Great Britain as 'favorable partners'. So they pull it off, Musadeg goes down, and the Shah gets absolute power back. First succesfull CIA overthrow operation. Years later, with a death toll similar to Hussein's in his wake, the Shah is again overthrown by a popular movment, and instead of being brought to justice for the countless thousand dead by his orders, the Shah is given refuge and amnesty by the US government...nominally for his health. So the Iranians, just a little annoyed with us about the whole toppling their democratically elected official, giving absolute power to a man who had and continued to rule with blood, and then giving him a nice retirement thing take our Embassy and hold them as hostages...and that's all we remember, as if it began there. We overthrew another nations government because their dictator liked us better than Russia and gave us cheap oil, we put in power a man who killed countless instead of an elected official we liked less, and then we gave the same man safe haven from his own nation's justice...and we say they started it by taking our Embassy staff hostage. So we get another bloody dictator puppet of ours to start a war against them, costing how many hundreds of thousands more lives... And now, years later, they're the bad guys because they don't like us!?!?!? How would you expect them to feel, warm and fuzzy? We are directly responsible for years of oppression, deaths by the thousands, war and suffering, but because we made it happen 'over there' we have the gaul to give them the black hats because of the embassy thing...where how many died, exactly?
http://www.mage.com/TLbody.html I always knew Iran had an amazing history, (as does all of the region) this link is an excellent overview for those interested. I thought I would just throw this in here because so much of the talk is of the recent political history. KC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51233-2003May28.html?nav=hptop_ts Iranian Apathy May Hinder U.S. Bid to Foment Unrest Reformists Warn Against Destabilization Campaign By Karl Vick Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, May 29, 2003; Page A14 ISTANBUL, May 28 -- Iranian analysts warn that any U.S. plan to foment popular unrest in Iran will run up against the same challenge that has stalled the country's struggling reform movement: The careworn Iranian public is steadily disengaging from politics. "In the current situation, it's impossible," said Saeed Laylaz, a reformist journalist and businessman. "The people are going to their homes, not coming out into the streets. The atmosphere in Tehran and Iran is being de-politicized, step by step and day by day." As U.S. policymakers debate what stance to adopt toward a country they accuse of sheltering senior members of al Qaeda and seeking to develop nuclear weapons, the assessment voiced by Laylaz and echoed by other reformists and foreign diplomats in telephone interviews this week suggests scant support for those urging destabilization of a government that remains largely under the control of unelected conservative clerics. Iranian officials today dismissed Bush administration allegations regarding Iran's support of terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear armaments. Speaking at a conference of Muslim nations, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Iran abhorred the "fanatic and perverted beliefs" of al Qaeda, which Tehran worked to defeat, along with al Qaeda's Taliban patrons in Afghanistan, for years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks drew the United States into war there. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said several al Qaeda suspects had been held for questioning but that it was not clear whether they were senior operatives or more like the 500 foot soldiers Iran says it has arrested and shipped to their home countries since 2001. In addition, Kharrazi denied reports by an Iranian opposition group that Iran had built two small nuclear plants as back-ups to a uranium enrichment facility that inspectors from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency examined in February. He warned against preemptive military strikes against any of the facilities. "Resorting to force, or directing unverified accusations . . . will only undermine the current international arrangements," Kharrazi said. U.S. officials are watching Tehran's response closely as the Bush administration mulls shifting to a policy of destabilizing Iran. Senior U.S. officials were scheduled to discuss policy toward Iran on Tuesday, but the meeting was postponed until Thursday and specifics regarding any program to influence public sentiment within Iran have not emerged. By many accounts, Iranians remain broadly dissatisfied with the conservative clerics who, almost a quarter-century after the 1979 Islamic revolution deposed a U.S.-backed monarchy, still control the government's most powerful institutions. But the reformist politicians who dominate the elective positions in Iran's government also have lost popular support for failing to deliver promised social freedoms and economic opportunities. Gone, analysts say, are the hopeful legions who twice in six years swept President Mohammad Khatami and a reformist parliament into office, both times with more than 70 percent of the vote. "Because we're here on the ground, we see more shades than the U.S. does," said a foreign diplomat in Tehran, where the United States has had no diplomatic presence since militants seized the U.S. Embassy on Nov. 4, 1979, and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. "We don't see a disaffected mass -- apathetic, yes, but not disaffected." That public frustration, though widespread, is focused inward, according to Iranian observers and diplomats. When a few thousand students took to the streets last November, witnesses said the demonstrations were confined to campus of Tehran University both by security forces and the disinclination of bystanders to join in. And when municipal elections were held across Iran on Feb. 12, no city recorded more than a one-third voter turnout. Only 12 percent of those eligible to vote turned out in the capital. "In the last few years, when the majority of people participated in elections, their experience was disappointment," said Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a law professor at the Supreme National Defense University. "Non-participation has become a kind of protest against the system as a whole." Laylaz, an editor at the reformist newspaper Norooz, said hard-liners have mollified some segments of society, particularly Iran's youthful majority, by granting limited, marginal freedoms while keeping a tight hold on political power. Young couples hold hands in public now without apparent fear of admonishment from the religious police. Women in Tehran routinely wear head scarves well back on their head, and some don coats that hug their figures. "This is very, very important to making the people relaxed," Laylaz said. "The atmosphere is not comparable with six years ago. The regime has changed." Regardless of how they feel about their leaders, said another reformer, ordinary Iranians would likely resist any outside efforts to stir up dissent. "If anybody took a look at Iranian history, the likelihood of fomenting mass popular uprising in the midst of foreign interference is naïve," said the reformer, an academic who spoke on condition he not be identified by name. "Right now it would result in the opposite, emboldening a sense of collective resentment against a superior outside power. "This is at the popular level," the academic added. "At the elite level it would be even worse. You would have strong resentments and a closing together of various factions, reformers and conservatives." One issue on which reformers and hard-liners already have closed ranks is development of a nuclear program -- which officials maintain is solely intended to meet energy needs -- that for them emphasizes both national pride and the existence of Israel's nuclear program. Likewise, in interviews last month, reformers and hard-liners also warned that the United States should not ally itself with the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or People's Mujaheddin. The Iranian opposition group, long based in Iraq and supported by Saddam Hussein, is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Because the group seeks to unseat the Tehran government, Pentagon officials last month made moves toward making it a U.S. client before amending that plan and demanding the group surrender its tanks and other heavy weapons. The back-and-forth sent mixed signals to the people of Iran, analysts and diplomats said, and today a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, said "America is not serious about fighting terrorism. It adopts a double standard."
rezdawg: I would say by funneling money and to the indigenous reform/revolutionary movement, launching a psyops campaign directed squarely against the mullahs - to include the use of electronic warfare and deception - and in general "supporting the people" in any way that we can and that they may ask for. Also, strictly enforce an oil embargo while this is going on, as well as blockading the Straits of Hormuz from Iranian oil exports. One could argue that these are all tools of warfare, and they would be right. But these methods would not involve us killing anyone, or even firing a shot, and they would probably greatly accellerate the mullahs' downfall. That is what I would say. I can't speak for the author, but I imagine it's something similar. MacBeth: Nice job leaving out 24 years' worth of Iranian terrorism and support for terrorism against Israel and the US. Nice job indeed. There's a reason that they've been leading the State Department's list of terrorism-supporting nations ever since State has had such a list. And they are not Arabs. Woofer: Actually, a good article. Many of the reformers fear moving too fast and having the appearance of US backing. I would respect their wishes and act alone where appropriate, lend them behind-the-scenes support where it wouldn't be noticed, and openly support others who are not so interested in being secretive. It should also be kept in mind that there are varying degrees of "reformer" in Iran; some are not the progressive leaders that we might think them to be with that description attached (ie, we would not classify them as reformers, only slightly less insane than other mullahs). Also, most "reformers" are still Islamic clerics who tie their power base into the Revolutionary Command Council, and do not really want to rock the boat; attaching the term "reformer" to one's self makes you more attractive to Tehran's voting age population nowadays. It does not necessarily mean anything in the Western progressive sense. This is an issue worthy of discussion, though.
Here are a few CIA and State links regarding Iran: CIA World Factbook (Iran): http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html State Department Background Notes: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5314.htm Iran's WMD and ballistic missile programs: http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/archives/2000/walpole_missile_092200.htm A very good .pdf that gives a thorough overview on Iran, including terrorist activity (best one here): http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7974.pdf State's 2002 report on global terrorism (state sponsored): http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm
tree...you obviously didn't get the point of my post...i was explaining the historical perspective of the Iran-US animosity that no one here discusses. If you truly believe that no one in here is aware of or discusses Iran's role in the terrorism and anti-Israeli movement, I don't know what to say. If I were to make a post about , say, Canada being involved in VietNam, and point out that it wasn't just US troops dying over there, would you come back at me with the response " Nice job of leaving out the tens of thousands of US soldiers who died over there."? The A-Rab comment was designed to point out an extemem version of group think...you and I really don't connect, sometimes. In that my post was about refuting the perspective that the US-Iran conflict began with the embassy and has since then been about their terrorism.anti)Israeli position, that part was assumed. Now...getting down to the substance of my post, can you argue that what we did both bears an awful lot of similarity to what we are doing now, was wrong, and was at least partly responsible for the situation/conflict/animosity as it stands? Were you an Iranian, given that history,how would you feel about the Good Ol' USA? Don't you see that it is common to discuss the US-Iran conflict as starting with the Embassy, being about their radical religion and anti-Jewish stance? How often do you see Ajax brought up? Isn't that a bit like talking about black-white conflict in America, and beginning the histroy of the discussion with Stokely Carmichael?
