
How Iran fell out with the West - joosters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33552911
======
nickpsecurity
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
> 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.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Different group and location, but yes, we backed the mujahideen in Afghanistan
against the soviets.

The enemy of my enemy etc...

~~~
nickpsecurity
Exactly. Tools to be used in a proxy-war with little thought on long-term
consequences.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Eh, not really. There is a whole group within the Pentagon that evaluates long
term strategy, J5. The problem is, it's impossible to tell what will happen in
the years after a particular conflict subsides on either side.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I could've told you whether a coup was likely to increase or worsen stability:
always default on the latter if imperialism is the motive. Likewise, financing
dictators' wars or religious nutjob's training in beating superpowers. Either
this group you mentioned is incompetent or nobody listened to them. I'm going
with the latter since many of the documents warn of high risk of blowback.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Except you would probably be wrong. I know the crowd here likes to think they
can solve all problems better than the status quo but the reality is that for
these kinds of things data doesn't help much. See: COIN

------
smnrchrds
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%A9ta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war)

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
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. "

------
GnarfGnarf
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
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
> 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.

------
phaedryx
I think it all goes back to this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

------
dragontamer
Is it wrong that a comic book is actually the best insight into this whole
ordeal?

[http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-Story-Childhood-Marjane-
Sat...](http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-Story-Childhood-Marjane-
Satrapi/dp/037571457X)

[http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-2-The-Story-
Return/dp/03757...](http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-2-The-Story-
Return/dp/0375714669)

------
contingencies
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".

------
joosters
Adam Curtis' blog makes for good reading on the subject:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/83a85833-1769-...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/83a85833-1769-377f-b716-06c488f5c1d4)

------
fapjacks
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.

~~~
lisper
> 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
Indeed. Here's a copy of the deal:

[http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-
eeas/docs/iran_agreement/ir...](http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-
eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf)

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...](http://www.bustle.com/articles/97038-what-does-the-iran-deal-say-the-
big-plan-blocks-these-4-pathways-to-nuclear-weapons)

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
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
> 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?

~~~
fapjacks
Draft up a document that doesn't let Iran keep centrifuges and missiles and
schedule their own inspector visits at their leisure? "They are being phased
out" but the thing you're not mentioning is that they're only phasing out _a
portion_ of those. If Iran abides by the entire agreement, they will come out
the other end with working centrifuges (and therefore the ability to enrich
uranium to weapons-grade).

Elsewhere in your response, ad hominem, appeal to authority, appeal to
popularity. Come on.

------
joshuaheard
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
" 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...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-
role-1953-iranian-coup)

~~~
joshuaheard
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.

