Perspective on Iran

Just finished taking a course on Islam in Iran this semester and it blew my mind how little I knew about Islam and the Middle East. Especially the US involvement in the 1950's.

Thought I should share, and hear some of the thoughts of others on the board.

Iran wasn't always the big bad radical state it now is. It actually had a democracy, and we overthrew it. Some argue that if we didn't do it, then the Soviets would have, so it was necessary. While I understand the Soviet threat was real, I personally don't buy it.

This quote from a prisoner during the 1979 hostage crisis kind of gives you perspective on some of what this country does under the radar, and the blowback that comes with it.

He said, “I had been sitting in my solitary cell as a hostage for about a year, when one day the cell door opens, and there is standing one of the hostage takers, one of my jailers. And all of my rage and my fury built up over one year sitting in that cell just burst out, and I started screaming at him, and I was telling him, ‘You have no right to do this! This is cruel, this is inhumane! These people have done nothing! This is a violation of every law of god and man! You cannot take innocent people hostage!’” He said, “I went on like this for several minutes. When I was finally out of breath, the hostage taker paused for a moment, and then he leaned into my cell and said, in very good English, ‘You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.’"

aYutojeC5Kk

Wow, that was a very good video. I had no idea that Iran used to be a democracy. After watching that video I feel that while it was very wrong for us to overthrow their government, especially just because the main benefit was for the British, there's not much that can be done about it now. I can only wonder what if we knew that Iran's democratic leader in '53 pretty much hated communism, would we have called bs on the British? Either way what's done is done and we can't take that back now. I do wish we could get on good terms with Iran though now.

Didn't the whole thing start because of well...oil? If I remember right the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (or something like that) was some sort of joint agreement between Britain and Persia (ultimately Iran) for Britain to tap into Persia/Iran's oil reserves and in exchange citizens of Iran would get certain benefits (jobs, better schools, stronger infrastructure).

Which apparently didn't really happen (I don't know, I wasn't around in the '50s). And then some secular, democratic leader was elected in Iran who listened to the cries for nationalizing this oil company, which eventually became BP.

And the British got mad and sought the US' help. But not much really happened because President Truman had a "containment" philosophy. Yet within a few months Eisenhower became President and his "interventionist" philosophy bode well for the British and reinstated the pro-Western Shah; who was essentially a puppet. Until the Iranians had enough and overthrew him in the late 70s.

Or something like that

Hahaha. Ooops. I guess I could have just watched the video first :)

Perfect example of why we need to get the hell out of the middle east ASAP. I mean that from an oil stand point. We have to rid ourselves of the shackles of dealing with these people because ultimately we can't make the ight decision because most of the choices are bteween two evils. We have spent so much time and effort trying to back channel, subvert and control there is no wonder that they hate us. Continuing to stay means we have to continue the same type of things and that just screws us more.

it wasn't that long ago when we handed guns and ammunition to Al Quaeda( sp?) to try and thwart the Russian advances. these types of decisions are always short term fixes.

it wasn't that long ago when we handed guns and ammunition to Al Quaeda( sp?) to try and thwart the Russian advances. these types of decisions are always short term fixes.

We never gave guns to Al Qaeda. We gave guns to the mujahadeen. Granted, many members of the muj are current members of terrorist organizations, but some of them are still allies (e.g., the Northern Alliance). Just as McCain shouldn't confuse AQI with Shia groups, we shouldn't confuse the muj with AQ.

weren't these the same terrorists that were in Afghanistan during the half assed Russian coup? whatever they want to call themselves, it makes no difference

Perfect example of why we need to get the hell out of the middle east ASAP. I mean that from an oil stand point. We have to rid ourselves of the shackles of dealing with these people because ultimately we can't make the ight decision because most of the choices are bteween two evils. We have spent so much time and effort trying to back channel, subvert and control there is no wonder that they hate us. Continuing to stay means we have to continue the same type of things and that just screws us more.

From an oil standpoint, you are correct.

Having historical context really helps in defeating the dumb notions of "they hate us because of our freedoms" and "Islamofascism."