U.S. vs. Iran: What are we missing?
There is constant chatter and media alarm in the US concerning Iran. As usual, we are fed the information that is not only one-sided, but is mostly a smoke bomb hiding many of the fouls that we have commited against a country that is not very different from some of our "allies" in the region. Actually, the media has made a conscious decision to ignore the facts, and keep them distorted for propaganda reasons. Iran and the US have an ugly history and today, the history has turned to a selective dismantling of a potentially great nation.
Iran, and the region it was born in began around 3,200 BCE. Iran reigns as one of the oldest, major continuous civilizations. America on the other hand was established around 1776. That means that a culture, effectively five thousand years older than ours has an edge, and is certainly more well defined. Even our European counterparts can't compete with that. Iranian culture, though battered and abused, remains intact, and that is much more than anyone can say for American culture; whatever that is.
So how did we wind up in this diplomatic port-o-let with a nation of intelligent people? There are many reasons, and I will touch enough of them to fill in some of the blanks that our whore of a media will not tell you. The media's pimp is very strict on the way these stories are told; yes, our government is an abusive pimp who doesn't mind slapping her ho's around. As far as American citizens go, shallow justification equals belief, and are little more than headline readers; read from mainstream sources.
American/Iranian history effectively begins in 1953. That was the year that the CIA and the Brits decided to stage a coup (The "28 Mordad coup"). They successfully toppled a government with a democratically elected leader (Mohammad Mossadegh) , only to replace him with a military government led by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. During this time period, the CIA commonly deposed leaders that didn't fit the bill of "protecting national interests". They also hired mobsters, thugs, soldiers, and citizens to propagandize the coup attempt; somewhere between 300-800 people were killed, and most of these attempts were complete, embarrassing failures. Mossadegh was subsequently convicted of treason, served three years in prison, and was confined under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Pahlavi subsequently succumbed to the power of authoritarianism. His reign was entirely dependent upon the US, and as usual, he lost our support, and was overthrown in 1979. The benefits of these crimes gained the US a stake in Iranian oil proceeds, and "prevented the further spread of Communism".
This is where it gets interesting. All of Iran's oil production was owned exclusively by the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP). By the late forty's, the citizenry and government officials saw it for what it was -exploitative and imperialistic. By 1951, Iranian oil was nationalized in a move that was no doubt related to US and British eyes, staring at all of Iran's oil (post WWII). 1979 was perhaps the most unsettling time for Iran; the year of the revolution. That is another article entirely, but the actions taken by the US led to exiles, protests, remote organizing of the revolution in Paris, and the eventual taking of fifty-two American hostages. They were held for 444 days, prompting the US to freeze Iran's assets. We all know that American life is not only more important (joke) than others', but they are a great war making tool when they are held hostage, and make it easier to ignore laws.
As if a force larger than America had intervened, in 1980, we cut ties to Iran and banned exports to them. Iranian diplomats were also expelled. If that weren't enough, a botched rescue attempt that same year saw eight American service men killed. The story is that the weather caused the crash, but that could be the "story" in a less embarrassing form. I can't help but think that the US has never observed international law. The hostages were taken in the wake of a pro-revolutionary protest by students outside the American Embassy in Tehran.
The hostages were released in 1981 through mediation by Algeria. The result of this mediation produced the "Algiers Accords" The details through my research on this point in time seem a little fishy, but basically, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, and this led to talks between Iran, and the US. Somehow all of this happened almost to the minute that Carter's term ended, and Reagan's began. It is almost as if it was a big coincidence...or maybe political posturing on Reagan's part to show his muscle.
Fast forward to 1986. President Reagan found himself in a pickle. There were 96, multi-national hostages being held in Lebanon, mostly American, and it was being blamed on Hezbollah. There is speculation that Iran and Syria were directly involved, but it's easier to blame a group instead of a sovreign nation; groups are "terrorists", and they are not protected by international law. They never accepted responsibilty for the kidnappings because they didn't do it. Reagan knew this, and he knew that it was a direct result of Iranian policy and defiance toward the American tyrants. The aftermath of the Iran/Iraq war neccessitated the end of the hostage crisis in the form of Iran and Syria needing Western aid. This seemed like a bite to the hand of a potential food source.
In walks the Iran-Contra Affair . This "affair" was actually a deliberate and illegal thing. Reagan traded (sold) arms to Iran in a swap for the hostages. Yeah, Reagan was a crooked whore of corporate America; back in the good old days. The proceeds were being funneled to the Sandanistas of Nicaragua, or "Contras" (Contras were anti-communist fighters). The sales of these weapons were kind of like calling a customer service number. You talk to this guy, but he can only do this or that, and thus begins the transfer process. These weapons were being sold to Iran via Israel, and upon delivery of the weapons by air-drop from Israel, they (Israel) were then compensated, and given a sort of "Sears catalog" of US weapons. Hopefully people will quit missing Reagan; unless they fit the definition of "domestic terrorist". Oliver North was the main dealer in this arms deal, and took the fall for most of it while Reagan was kept safe by saying that North acted without the President's knowledge. The rest of the scandal played out in court. There were further, failed negotiations with Iran concerning more hostages, but those were mostly kept under the radar of public knowledge. Presidential failures used to take years to come out in the news; not the case now.
1988 saw the "accidental" shooting down of a civilian Iranian airliner by US Navy ship "Vincennes" over the Persian Gulf. All 290 passengers were killed, 66 were children. This event was no doubt a culmination of tensions, and aggression from both political and military fronts. This attack occured in Iranian territorial waters, and the ship allegedly fired on the airliner because they mistook it for an F-14 Tomcat. (US made jet, only flown by us and Iran) Somebody needs some glasses. Though the US never took responsibility for this act, nor did they apologize, they reached a $61 million settlement in 1996. It only took eight years...
The ninety's saw little in the way of diplomatic relations. Clinton decided to launch an isolation campaign on Iran because they earned the title of "terrorist state". He actually imposed sanctions on corporations who sold to Iran and Libya. The rest of the decade was a game of "no" from Iran to our government. The next item of note came in 2000. Secretary of State Madeline Albright lifted a ban on the importing of Iranian items to America. It is said that she acknowledged the US role in the 1953 coup, but did not apologize. America almost did the right thing.
To the present, the US has played the bully to Iran by imposing economy crushing sanctions on them, and harrassing them in general. The biggest issue today has to be their nuclear program. Though the US government, nor the IAEA can confirm it, there is an insistence that they are working toward nuclear arms. This particular talking point is disturbing on many fronts. First, there are many nuclear armed states in this world, and they are not all exactly friendly to the US. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and broke up into multiple countries, many nuclear weapons became unaccounted for. Those are unknown variables at this point. The list of known nuclear armed states: US, Russia, China, Israel (they deny it), North Korea, Pakistan, India, France, Britain, and a handful of countries that were either developing these weapons, or have dismantled them. What's the difference between North Korea and Iran? The US has to have a reason to be picking Iran apart for their nuclear ambitions; why not North Korea? Are they more stable than Iran? No. This has everything to do with location, and old grudges. We also have a militant bully state neighboring Iran that must be kept safe at all costs. Israel. Do we protect them because they are friendly? No. It must have to do with the bible, or simply because they are a powerful terrorist ally. Israel is no more than a watchdog serving our purposes of de-stabilizing the Middle East. They also hate Iran, and the feeling is mutual. If anyone deserves to be on the list of terrorist states, it is surely them. Genocide is never appropriate (Gaza).
H.R. 3783: Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere act 2012. This bill was passed to make it legal for the US to intervene where neccessary to keep Iran from making defensive or economic ties with Latin America for fear of it's interests in the Western Hemisphere. Ahmadi recently toured Latin America, and among his stops were Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Despite the gulf of differences between he and Hugo Chavez, they seem to have an amicable relationship. Chavez leans more toward human rights, while Ahmadi is a gross violator of them. They are being dubbed "The Diabolical Duo" by the US media. Shame on them for making economic plans to better their countries. Any headline with either of those two presidents, both elected, sells. We have no reason to fear anti-capitalists; they will be the ones to teach us another way when the US realizes that it is not working.
Don't expect anything to change in the way of a thawing in US policy toward Iran. The US government loves to hate Iran, and it will do everything in it's imperialistic power to thwart any possibility of success for an otherwise educated nation. The only chance for them to leave Iran alone is if Iran decides to further isolate, something like Cuba did after the revolution. Until then, expect the government to quickly pass bills against a harmless state while American citizens wait for aid from the same congress that gives the impression that it cannot agree on anything. It is simply not true.
Iran, and the region it was born in began around 3,200 BCE. Iran reigns as one of the oldest, major continuous civilizations. America on the other hand was established around 1776. That means that a culture, effectively five thousand years older than ours has an edge, and is certainly more well defined. Even our European counterparts can't compete with that. Iranian culture, though battered and abused, remains intact, and that is much more than anyone can say for American culture; whatever that is.
So how did we wind up in this diplomatic port-o-let with a nation of intelligent people? There are many reasons, and I will touch enough of them to fill in some of the blanks that our whore of a media will not tell you. The media's pimp is very strict on the way these stories are told; yes, our government is an abusive pimp who doesn't mind slapping her ho's around. As far as American citizens go, shallow justification equals belief, and are little more than headline readers; read from mainstream sources.
American/Iranian history effectively begins in 1953. That was the year that the CIA and the Brits decided to stage a coup (The "28 Mordad coup"). They successfully toppled a government with a democratically elected leader (Mohammad Mossadegh) , only to replace him with a military government led by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. During this time period, the CIA commonly deposed leaders that didn't fit the bill of "protecting national interests". They also hired mobsters, thugs, soldiers, and citizens to propagandize the coup attempt; somewhere between 300-800 people were killed, and most of these attempts were complete, embarrassing failures. Mossadegh was subsequently convicted of treason, served three years in prison, and was confined under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Pahlavi subsequently succumbed to the power of authoritarianism. His reign was entirely dependent upon the US, and as usual, he lost our support, and was overthrown in 1979. The benefits of these crimes gained the US a stake in Iranian oil proceeds, and "prevented the further spread of Communism".
This is where it gets interesting. All of Iran's oil production was owned exclusively by the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP). By the late forty's, the citizenry and government officials saw it for what it was -exploitative and imperialistic. By 1951, Iranian oil was nationalized in a move that was no doubt related to US and British eyes, staring at all of Iran's oil (post WWII). 1979 was perhaps the most unsettling time for Iran; the year of the revolution. That is another article entirely, but the actions taken by the US led to exiles, protests, remote organizing of the revolution in Paris, and the eventual taking of fifty-two American hostages. They were held for 444 days, prompting the US to freeze Iran's assets. We all know that American life is not only more important (joke) than others', but they are a great war making tool when they are held hostage, and make it easier to ignore laws.
As if a force larger than America had intervened, in 1980, we cut ties to Iran and banned exports to them. Iranian diplomats were also expelled. If that weren't enough, a botched rescue attempt that same year saw eight American service men killed. The story is that the weather caused the crash, but that could be the "story" in a less embarrassing form. I can't help but think that the US has never observed international law. The hostages were taken in the wake of a pro-revolutionary protest by students outside the American Embassy in Tehran.
The hostages were released in 1981 through mediation by Algeria. The result of this mediation produced the "Algiers Accords" The details through my research on this point in time seem a little fishy, but basically, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, and this led to talks between Iran, and the US. Somehow all of this happened almost to the minute that Carter's term ended, and Reagan's began. It is almost as if it was a big coincidence...or maybe political posturing on Reagan's part to show his muscle.
Fast forward to 1986. President Reagan found himself in a pickle. There were 96, multi-national hostages being held in Lebanon, mostly American, and it was being blamed on Hezbollah. There is speculation that Iran and Syria were directly involved, but it's easier to blame a group instead of a sovreign nation; groups are "terrorists", and they are not protected by international law. They never accepted responsibilty for the kidnappings because they didn't do it. Reagan knew this, and he knew that it was a direct result of Iranian policy and defiance toward the American tyrants. The aftermath of the Iran/Iraq war neccessitated the end of the hostage crisis in the form of Iran and Syria needing Western aid. This seemed like a bite to the hand of a potential food source.
In walks the Iran-Contra Affair . This "affair" was actually a deliberate and illegal thing. Reagan traded (sold) arms to Iran in a swap for the hostages. Yeah, Reagan was a crooked whore of corporate America; back in the good old days. The proceeds were being funneled to the Sandanistas of Nicaragua, or "Contras" (Contras were anti-communist fighters). The sales of these weapons were kind of like calling a customer service number. You talk to this guy, but he can only do this or that, and thus begins the transfer process. These weapons were being sold to Iran via Israel, and upon delivery of the weapons by air-drop from Israel, they (Israel) were then compensated, and given a sort of "Sears catalog" of US weapons. Hopefully people will quit missing Reagan; unless they fit the definition of "domestic terrorist". Oliver North was the main dealer in this arms deal, and took the fall for most of it while Reagan was kept safe by saying that North acted without the President's knowledge. The rest of the scandal played out in court. There were further, failed negotiations with Iran concerning more hostages, but those were mostly kept under the radar of public knowledge. Presidential failures used to take years to come out in the news; not the case now.
1988 saw the "accidental" shooting down of a civilian Iranian airliner by US Navy ship "Vincennes" over the Persian Gulf. All 290 passengers were killed, 66 were children. This event was no doubt a culmination of tensions, and aggression from both political and military fronts. This attack occured in Iranian territorial waters, and the ship allegedly fired on the airliner because they mistook it for an F-14 Tomcat. (US made jet, only flown by us and Iran) Somebody needs some glasses. Though the US never took responsibility for this act, nor did they apologize, they reached a $61 million settlement in 1996. It only took eight years...
The ninety's saw little in the way of diplomatic relations. Clinton decided to launch an isolation campaign on Iran because they earned the title of "terrorist state". He actually imposed sanctions on corporations who sold to Iran and Libya. The rest of the decade was a game of "no" from Iran to our government. The next item of note came in 2000. Secretary of State Madeline Albright lifted a ban on the importing of Iranian items to America. It is said that she acknowledged the US role in the 1953 coup, but did not apologize. America almost did the right thing.
To the present, the US has played the bully to Iran by imposing economy crushing sanctions on them, and harrassing them in general. The biggest issue today has to be their nuclear program. Though the US government, nor the IAEA can confirm it, there is an insistence that they are working toward nuclear arms. This particular talking point is disturbing on many fronts. First, there are many nuclear armed states in this world, and they are not all exactly friendly to the US. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and broke up into multiple countries, many nuclear weapons became unaccounted for. Those are unknown variables at this point. The list of known nuclear armed states: US, Russia, China, Israel (they deny it), North Korea, Pakistan, India, France, Britain, and a handful of countries that were either developing these weapons, or have dismantled them. What's the difference between North Korea and Iran? The US has to have a reason to be picking Iran apart for their nuclear ambitions; why not North Korea? Are they more stable than Iran? No. This has everything to do with location, and old grudges. We also have a militant bully state neighboring Iran that must be kept safe at all costs. Israel. Do we protect them because they are friendly? No. It must have to do with the bible, or simply because they are a powerful terrorist ally. Israel is no more than a watchdog serving our purposes of de-stabilizing the Middle East. They also hate Iran, and the feeling is mutual. If anyone deserves to be on the list of terrorist states, it is surely them. Genocide is never appropriate (Gaza).
H.R. 3783: Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere act 2012. This bill was passed to make it legal for the US to intervene where neccessary to keep Iran from making defensive or economic ties with Latin America for fear of it's interests in the Western Hemisphere. Ahmadi recently toured Latin America, and among his stops were Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Despite the gulf of differences between he and Hugo Chavez, they seem to have an amicable relationship. Chavez leans more toward human rights, while Ahmadi is a gross violator of them. They are being dubbed "The Diabolical Duo" by the US media. Shame on them for making economic plans to better their countries. Any headline with either of those two presidents, both elected, sells. We have no reason to fear anti-capitalists; they will be the ones to teach us another way when the US realizes that it is not working.
Don't expect anything to change in the way of a thawing in US policy toward Iran. The US government loves to hate Iran, and it will do everything in it's imperialistic power to thwart any possibility of success for an otherwise educated nation. The only chance for them to leave Iran alone is if Iran decides to further isolate, something like Cuba did after the revolution. Until then, expect the government to quickly pass bills against a harmless state while American citizens wait for aid from the same congress that gives the impression that it cannot agree on anything. It is simply not true.
Good information. The only part that is wrong is that anti-capitalists will teach us another way. Anti-capitalists have been running the U.S. for at least a century. Capitalism was done away with a long time ago, and is actually a great system when it isn't artificially manipulated.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I should have said something like they will teach us a more pure form of capitalism. I think that no matter what form of government you practice these days, capitalism will be present in one form or another. The freedom to earn in a "fluid society" is a great thing. Thank you for the insight.
ReplyDelete