Iran and the West

[Nerd Fangs]

This is a good documentary series on the history of Iran. People interviewed include Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Empress Farah Pahlavi of Iran, Fidel Castro, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Vladimir Putin.

Iran and the West is the name of a three part British documentary series shown in February 2009 on BBC Two to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

1. The Man Who Changed the World

Key figures tell the inside story of Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to power, the fall and exile of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and the events surrounding the Iran hostage crisis.
6iar_1OKOmc

Kxetu3PORCs

YC4peQcGKQc

peZHwm7tm3E

1H-yQoo-i5Y

apcE9-AC3IM

2. The Pariah State

Inside stories are told by two ex-presidents of Iran and leading westerners. Subjects covered in this edition include the Lebanon hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq War, the death of Ayatollah Khomeini and the changing political climate of the Middle East following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War.

eOKRbYjqgg0

PDIkoLm-Zzc

poV9yBEmmtA

d0lYSKvPhlo

QnHqNlCR7Ms

aif7kFl5ptc

3. Nuclear Confrontation

The inside story of the West's continuing nuclear confrontation with Iran. Subjects covered in this episode include the rise of the Taliban in Iran's neighbour Afghanistan, the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Iraq War and Iran's emerging nuclear program.

sL1d7777SAU

kSzTwEpn_Ys

hGzLvuyv-lI

9ikwy8p4Yc8

NH7pA_-epzg

fO0lNjxtayU

Thoughts on the history of Iran/events/Iranian revolution/US foreign policy etc.?

[Cory]

Most people don't realize that Iran (Persia, at the time) was once a rather strong democracy until the CIA/MI6 organized a coup to remove it and place the Shah as dictator. And they did it all so BP wouldn't lose profit. You see, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh wanted to nationalize the oil industry there with the goal of spreading the wealth from the oil to his citizens.

The CIA/MI6 launched "Operation Ajax" with actions such as false-flag "terrorist" attacks and blamed it on the "communists" in the Mosaddegh "regime". Upon seizing power, the Shah set up the infamous secret police, SAVAK. SAVAK was similar to Stalin's NKVD, it engages in torture and repression at extreme levels. After 30 odd years of repression, the people of Persia had enough.

The Islamic-based movement had the most broad support and could unite behind a single leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. The revolution began as a series of strikes, eventually escalating to an all-out armed uprising upon the dramatic return of Khomeini (think of Lenin's train arriving in Leningrad, 1917). The people voted to install the Islamic Republic of Iran in a referendum.

The most powerful military in the Middle East (the Shas Persia had a very well-equipped and well lead military, with western weapons, much better than Israel at the time) had just fallen apart under the weight of revolution and upheaval. A relativity new Iraqi dictator sees a chance for easy glory, and the United States sees a chance to contain the revolution, which it sees as a major threat to American interests in the region.

The Iran-Iraq war would last from 1980 until 1988, with no major land gains by either side in the entire war. The war was fought more along the lines of WWI than any other war. Fighting was mostly stalemate with chemical weapons being used on a large-scale, for the first and only time sense WWI.
Iran had the advantage of being the defender, and rallied it's people to "defend the revolution" against the Iraqi invader. As a result of both this and general population, the Iranians could field much more troops than Iraq, but used "human wave" assaults a lot. Iraq, however, had a better quality army with a decent tank arm. Also, they had the funding and support of almost the entire world (both the US and USSR supported Iraq, for similar reasons).

Due to he 1953 coup, the resulting SAVAK terror, and American support for Iraq 1980-88, Iran has always viewed the USA/West with distrust. However, things are starting to change. You see, the younger generation of Iranians are more-liberal, more pro-western, than their parents or grandparents, and significantly so. I personally think the "green uprising" was the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic. The simple fact that the government didn't send in tanks and the military to crush the protesters shows that the government fears possibly losing it's legitimacy to it's people. Within a generation or two Iran will be well on the way to being a liberal-democracy along the lines of today's Iraq, just without the terrorism/unrest.

So, in effect, the cycle has gone all the way around for Persia/Iran. first a republic deposed in a coup, then two periods of repression, now on it's way back to a republic (no, I don't consider the Islamic "Republic" are genuine republic).

Good for them I say. :thumbsup:

[Thought Riot]

Most people don't realize that Iran (Persia, at the time) was once a rather strong democracy until the CIA/MI6 orgonized a coup to remove it and place the Shah as dictator. And they did it all so BP wouldn't lose profit. You see, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh wanted to nationalize the oil industry there with the goal of spreading the wealth from the oil to his citizens.

The CIA/MI6 launched "Operation Ajax" with actions such as false-flag "terrorist" attacks and balmed it on the "communists" in the Mosaddegh "regime". Upon seizing power, the Shah set up the infamous secret police, SAVAK. SAVAK was similar to Stalin's NKVD, it engages in toture and repression at extreme levels. After 30 odd years of repression, the people of Persia had enough.

The Islamic-based movment had the most broad support and could unite behind a single leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. The revolution began as a series of strikes, eventually esclating to an all-out armed uprising upon the dramatic return of Khomeini (think of Lenin's train arriving in Leningrad, 1917). The people voted to install the Islamic Republic of Iran in a referendum.


Bingo. This is absolutely true. And it's critical to know about this because it is a major fact in Middle East relations now. It's hardly a wonder that they don't trust us. And with good reason. It's sad how very little Americans are even aware that this happened.

edit: wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

[AtrainV]

Cory, what I don't understand is how you can make so many good, well thought out points yet still have such poor spelling. You don't see cohesive ideas and spelling mistakes go hand in hand very often.

I'm not actually criticizing you, here, I'm honestly curious.

[L33tz]

Cory, what I don't understand is how you can make so many good, well thought out points yet still have such poor spelling. You don't see cohesive ideas and spelling mistakes go hand in hand very often.

I'm not actually criticizing you, here, I'm honestly curious.

who cares about spelling.

[Bleeding Kansas]

I once remember watching a documentary on PBS about Iran. It was absolutely fascinating! It was said that "Women in Tehran had shorter skirts than in Paris before the Revolution." I never knew that Iran was in anyway secular. I was blown away.

They are not Arab, they are Persian
They do not speak Arabic, they speak Fārsi


Everyone looks at this guy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_2009.jpg
And makes judgments about the Persian people.

that is about as bad as looking at this guy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg
and judging the American people.

[Cory]

Cory, what I don't understand is how you can make so many good, well thought out points yet still have such poor spelling. You don't see cohesive ideas and spelling mistakes go hand in hand very often.

I'm not actually criticizing you, here, I'm honestly curious.

I was kind of high at the time and have a tendency to "rush through" writing, especially when it's a rather large item.

That and I didn't bother too much with it seeing as it's an online message board and all.

[Dr rocker]

It does go much deeper however. The peoples of that region, and some of the regions around it are of Alexandrian decent in culture and so have a very hostile and war like nature.

Although Iran once attacked India when it was owned by a British company, they did get their arse torn out by the British and Russian empires. It has allways thrived on in-fighting.

Imagine a bunch of fucked up Afghans that live in a place semi hospitable as my friend from Iran told me. I have only seen scenic views of beutiful mixed landscapes of desert, mountain, snow and sea.


Iran is a very strange place that has a very mixed and complex culture due to its nature of having a lot of ports in its Southern area. It has a very mixed but accepted mix of population, due to the trade that engages in the area by small boat workers - transporting goods from East Africa to Bombay and beyond and all of the peoples between.

It shows us we should all learn from each other.

[The Flux Capacitard]

Cory hit the nail on the head, absolutely. As an American, one of the things that pisses me off the most about our country is the average person's complete unwillingness to acknowledge that our government is the root cause of all our conflicts around the world. It's easy to say "nuke all them Arabs!" when you turn a blind eye to who is casting stones first. You cannot break a man's nose at the dinner table and think he'll be happy to stay for dessert.

As far as Iran goes, I respect the hell out of them and congratulate them on their first nuclear reactor.

[Ebola]

Very interesting topic. I also think it is disturbing that US has been prime reason or at the very least agitator in all of their armed conflicts through their relativly short history. One could claim that every single war US has been in in the last 70 years was started by "false flag" operations (if one realizes that both Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were in fact "false flag" ops).

To me it seems that US needs a war somewhere, both politically and financially. If there isn´t one going on that they can bug into, they just start their own... That they have not only supplied the enemy with weapons and other equipment but also trained them for guerilla warfare (CIA training) in most cases does not improve the situation.

[Cory]

Very interesting topic. I also think it is disturbing that US has been prime reason or at the very least agitator in all of their armed conflicts through their relativly short history.

I think it's some kind of punishment for their "succesful defiance" of the Western Capitalists in 1979.

One could claim that every single war US has been in in the last 70 years was started by "false flag" operations (if one realizes that both Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were in fact "false flag" ops).

And one would be more or less right. Hell you could even go back to the Spanish-American War if you wanted. The explosion on the Maine just seems too well timed for me....

As for Pearl Harbour though, I don't think you could go as far as to call it a "false-flag" op per se. It was more they allowed the attack to be a suprise as to help rally the nation. Despite what you hear from some we couldn't just "go hit their fleet first", then the heart of the American people would not be in the war.

To be honest I think it was kind of nessary because the USA needed to enter the war against Germany ASAP. And Hitler wasn't going to go to war with America until after the Soviets were defeated, thus freeing up 80% of their ground forces for defense of the West (remember he only declared war because be thought with Japan helping against the West he would be able to defeat the Soviets in 1942).

This would create an impossible situation, this could not be allowed to happen.

To me it seems that US needs a war somewhere, both politically and financially. If there isn´t one going on that they can bug into, they just start their own... That they have not only supplied the enemy with weapons and other equipment but also trained them for guerilla warfare (CIA training) in most cases does not improve the situation.

War is an intregal part of the American economy. Has been sence the 50's. Good ole' Ike has a few words on this issue.