
Iran’s exceptional reaction to 9/11 attacks (2015) - puyask
https://photosiran.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/irans-exceptional-reaction-to-911-attacks-candlelit-vigils-for-the-victims-and-60k-soccer-fans-respected-a-minutes-silence-2/
======
astrodust
This is one of the saddest legacies. The amount of empathy for America was
shocking, absolutely staggering, after 9/11\. There were countries with every
reason to hate America, but they too joined in the vigils and were respectful
of the loss.

I doubt you'll ever see anything like that again.

That enormous stockpile of goodwill, like the US budget surplus, was uselessly
frittered away within years and everyone was back to hating America again.

If there's another attack of this magnitude I think the whole world will be so
afraid of what America will do in retaliation that they won't have any
strength left for empathy.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
the people of Iran also have every reason to dislike their own dictatorial
government [1]; empathy towards the USA might also be a way to display
attitudes towards their own system of government, such a display would
otherwise be suppressed.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran)

~~~
j_koreth
Although it was the CIA=led coup of the democratically elected government that
led conditions to go so extreme with the Islamic Republic and Anti-Western
sentiments

~~~
bobcostas55
"Democratically elected" is one of those wonderful phrases, like "(People's)
Democratic Republic" that always means the exact opposite of what the words
mean.

Mossadegh never won a popular election. He became Prime Minister by
assassinating the previous guy, the Parliament then made him Prime Minister.
After he got power, he pardoned the assassin, btw.

~~~
aburan28
Well surely supporting the Shah and the absolute brutality conducted by Savak
helped our image

~~~
eternalban
Did you actually experience the "brutality of [S.A.V.A.K.]" first hand or is
this something you've read?

One of my uncles, pretty high up in the Tudeh (Communist) Party, spent two
tours in Shah's prisons as a political prisoner. He also spent one tour in the
Ayatollahs' prisons for the same issue: being a communist. A few years ago,
when he came visiting States side, I asked him about it.

What he told me was that the Shah's prisons were a joke compared to the ones
run by IRI. I have fond memories of him from the late 70s as a very self
confident and charming man. Per family gossip, after his release from IRI's
prisons he barely said a word for 2 years and was broken.

As for "image", it may interest the younger HN reader to know that the very
meme of "Shah the brutal dictator" started in the early 70s in the West, with
the (finally) now fully established role played by "human rights"
organizations that are fronts for Western intelligence services.

Yes, SAVAK is a dark stain, having been trained by FBI and MOSSAD contrary to
long standing Iranian mores and standards of conduct.

But I can point you to youtube videos of _public_ trials of political
prisoners during the Shah's regime and challenge you to produce ONE for the
multitude of ("brutalized") political prisoners now held in Guantanemo and
other undisclosed locations.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
My feeling is that Iran is a far better natural ally of the United States than
Saudi Arabia. The average Iranian is probably far more amenable to western
liberal values than the average person from Saudi Arabia.

~~~
hguant
Iran was THE ally of the United States until the Revolution. We didn't trust
the Israelis, who made it very clear they were in it for themselves, the
Saudis in the 60's and 70's were not very amenable to US interests - Iran was
a stable, regional power with a westernized populace and enough power to
counterbalance Soviet influence and Middle Eastern stubbornness. They were
such an important ally that when they elected a moderately socialist president
who didn't want to play the Cold War game, the US and UK freaked out and
installed a monarch.

~~~
eternalban
> The US and UK freaked out and installed a monarch.

This propaganda story of the West needs to die. (They never forgave the Shah
for being critical of them in the 70s and to this date their media lists this
poor man as one of the "worst tyrants of 20th century". Same century that gave
us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, PolPot, .... The man was a saint compared to most
world leaders, then and now.)

No one installed a monarch in Iran. The late Shah of Iran, who very much cared
for Iran, was indeed permitted to succeed his father, Reza Shah ("the great"),
by the occupying Alied powers (who had invaded the neutral Iran). This
'transition' to nominal power 'permitted' by external powers that occupied the
entirety of Iran is a fact of Iranian history. (In fact, before accepting
CIA/NYTimes account of '53 and the Shah of Iran, you may want to read up on
the history of Iran from 1850 to 1950.)

From that date, until the _counter-coup_ of 1953 in which US and UK
participated alongside quite a substantial subset of Iranian society, Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi stayed well within the limits of Iranian constitution's limits on
royal power. One noteworthy aspect of being the Shah of Iran under the
constitutional regime was the ability to appoint and dismiss the Prime
Minister.

Dr. Mossadegh, a member of the Majlis (people's assembly) was indeed put
forward by that body as the Prime Minister and the Shah did formally appoint
him. After the good Dr. managed to alienate most of his internal allies -- the
Mullahs and the Communist Party of Iran -- he assumed dictatorial powers. He
even ran an election with "99%" yes vote for his assuming such powers. That is
the famous "election" the propaganda organs of the West keep mentioning.

The Shah dismissed the Dr. from his office. The Dr. refused to accept this,
contrary to the constitution of Iran. The Shah feared for his life, and fled.
And meanwhile back in Iran, elements of Iranian military, landed gentry,
Mullahs, etc. who no longer supported the (dismissed) Prime Minister organized
a counter coup. So, New York Times notwithstanding, little Kermit Roosevelt
did not all by his lonesome and a suitcase full of dollar bills create a coup
to "install" the legal, standing, Shah of Iran.

What happend to the Shah after '53, was that he had decided to push for
stability in Iran and began to overstep the constitutional limits. It was
during this period that Iran went from helpless victim of the insatiable greed
of the British and ambitions of the Russians to a healthy state. It was only
then that Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi accepted coronation.

And the apparently alarming development of Iran actually got to the point that
Iran began to loom as a strategic threat to Western hegemony in the Persian
Gulf, having taken over the security role of British in the Persian Gulf with
America's blessing and material support; establishing OPEC as a power player;
and having publicly announced in '73 that "in 1979" when the oil contracts
forced on a bankrupt Iran in '53 reached their term, that Iran would no longer
accede to the aggregious demands of the Western Oil Cartel (the famous "seven
sisters"). Surprisingly enough, it was precisely in 1979 that "revolution"
broke out in Iran and BBC Persian service kindly began announcing the
Ayatollah's messages and demonstration schedule. (Fact.)

No one installed our King. Good and bad, warts and all, he was OUR King, our
Shahanshah, and we Iranians accept full responsibility for the matter.

~~~
pawadu
What a load of crap! Seems like this poor king of yours didn't do much wrong.
I wonder why wikipedia claims the whole country united to get rid of him:

 _On March 30 and 31 (Farvardin 10, 11) a referendum was held over whether to
replace the monarchy with an "Islamic Republic" – a term not defined on the
ballot. Khomeini called for a massive turnout[193] and only the National
Democratic Front, Fadayan, and several Kurdish parties opposed the vote.[193]
It was announced that 98.2% had voted in favor.[193]_

~~~
fit2rule
History is written by the winners. Perhaps the OP you're responding to,
actually lived through these events and have their own opinion on the matter,
not derived from a dubious collective source but rather through personal
observation.

~~~
pawadu
_edit:_ here is the wikipedia article about the coup, see how bad it aligns
with eternalban's view of the events
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh)

~~~
eternalban
Part 4 [4] of this series directly discusses the propaganda regarding these
events. Unlike pawadu, I do not consider wikipedia to be a definitive source,
but the talk page [5] should provide some insight regarding the tug of war
that this page must have gone through! ;)

[1]: [http://iranian.com/main/2010/jul/all-shahs-
men-0.html](http://iranian.com/main/2010/jul/all-shahs-men-0.html)

[2]: [http://iranian.com/main/2010/aug/all-shahs-
men-2.html](http://iranian.com/main/2010/aug/all-shahs-men-2.html)

[3]: [http://iranian.com/main/2010/aug/all-shahs-
men-3.html](http://iranian.com/main/2010/aug/all-shahs-men-3.html)

[4]: [http://iranian.com/main/2010/aug/all-shahs-men-
part-4-1.html](http://iranian.com/main/2010/aug/all-shahs-men-part-4-1.html)

[5]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh)

------
joezydeco
In my travels to Europe post-2001 it became pretty clear to me that the
citizens there could separate the American citizen from the American
government.

They knew, as they did before 9/11, that the American people were generally
peaceful and generous, which was in direct contradiction to the actions of the
US Government.

~~~
allendoerfer
And yet, look what kind of candidate is still in the race to become president.
The American government is voted into office. At least parts of the American
people are also partially responsible. I am not saying, they could have known
entirely, but the US is involved in the Middle East making it worse and worse
since the early nineties, well before 9/11.

Edit: Actually since after WW2, but the Iraq wars started in the nineties.

~~~
ekianjo
Candidates are selected in primaries which represent only a tiny bit of total
american voters. So thats it.

~~~
allendoerfer
Properly done opinion polls represent the American voters, for example this
one [0] which states that 41% of American voters think that it would be a good
idea to elect Trump. That is more than a tiny minority.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-holds-
lead-o...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-holds-lead-over-
trump-in-new-poll-but-warning-signs-
emerge/2016/09/10/800dee0c-76c8-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html)

~~~
pessimizer
Trump is a vote for American white nationalism, not the kind of overseas
aggressiveness that normally angers other nations about US foreign policy.

~~~
FireBeyond
Huh, what??

Have you listened to Trump? He has stated, in as many words, that we should go
into Iraq and "take the oil". He's advocated our involvement in other issues.
He's repeatedly suggested the use of nuclear weapons to deal with current
conflicts.

How is this not a textbook example of "overseas aggressiveness that ... angers
other nations"?

------
forgotpwtomain
Iran is also _far_ better on Human rights than say Saudi Arabia, that the
media, important political figures and companies [0] consistently tie 'enemy'
and 'ally' labels is such a complete farce.

Edit (example):

[0] [https://www.palantir.com/2010/05/iranian-
influences/](https://www.palantir.com/2010/05/iranian-influences/)

~~~
ars
If Iran would just stop verbally attacking Israel and Jews, and stop putting
on holocaust denial shows it would be a lot easier to change the labels.

~~~
coldtea
Well, if Israel also stops claiming its surrounding land.

~~~
at-fates-hands
You're not very familiar with history are you?

 _The whole idea was to establish the model for two states living peacefully
and productively side by side. No one seems to remember that simultaneous with
the Gaza withdrawal, Israel dismantled four smaller settlements in the
northern West Bank as a clear signal of Israel 's desire to leave the West
Bank too and thus achieve an amicable two-state solution._

 _And how did the Gaza Palestinians react to being granted by the Israelis
what no previous ruler, neither Egyptian, nor British, nor Turkish, had ever
given them – an independent territory? First, they demolished the greenhouses.
Then they elected Hamas. Then, instead of building a state with its attendant
political and economic institutions, they spent the better part of a decade
turning Gaza into a massive military base, brimming with terror weapons, to
make ceaseless war on Israel._

 _Where are the roads and rail, the industry and infrastructure of the new
Palestinian state? Nowhere. Instead, they built mile upon mile of underground
tunnels to hide their weapons and, when the going gets tough, their military
commanders. They spent millions importing and producing rockets, launchers,
mortars, small arms, even drones. They deliberately placed them in schools,
hospitals, mosques and private homes to better expose their own civilians. And
from which they fire rockets at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv._

source: [http://www.aish.com/jw/me/The-Truth-about-
Gaza.html](http://www.aish.com/jw/me/The-Truth-about-Gaza.html)

To me it's pretty obvious the Jews just want to live in peace and have made
concessions for years to do so, but Hamas wants nothing but an endless war.
It's kind of hard to make peace, when the only thing your opponent is
interested in is your total elimination.

Like the Israeli prime minister said:

"'Here's the difference between us," explains the Israeli prime minister.
'We're using missile defense to protect our civilians and they're using their
civilians to protect their missiles.""

~~~
nyolfen
>To me it's pretty obvious the Jews just want to live in peace and have made
concessions for years to do so

[http://www.thehypertexts.com/images/israel-
palestine_map.jpg](http://www.thehypertexts.com/images/israel-
palestine_map.jpg)

>"'Here's the difference between us," explains the Israeli prime minister.
'We're using missile defense to protect our civilians and they're using their
civilians to protect their missiles.""

the former is perhaps more tenable when one doesn't live in the world's
largest and densest open-air prison

~~~
dogma1138
>the former is perhaps more tenable when one doesn't live in the world's
largest and densest open-air prison

The open air prison is more of a reaction to an already bad situation.

Hamas doesn't want a 2 state solution, actually no Palestinian faction wants a
2 state solution.

The PA wants a Palestinian state clear of all Jews, not Israelis but Jews.

And another state where all of the Palestinian refugees which were not allowed
to gain refugee status by the Arab League (hence UNRWA and not the UNHCR)
would have the right of return.

Effectively the 2 state solution as it's currently envisioned would mean
either a true Aparthide state or no more Jewish state.

You can call Gaza an open air prison, but you also need to remember that about
100,000 rockets and mortars have been fired from it at the Israeli civilian
population.

When Egypt and Jordan controlled Gaza and the WB the Palestinian liberation
agenda was focused on the territory Israel controlled, now it's shifted
towards the territory that have been lost to Israel but by all accounts the
end goal has never changed.

Blaming Israel for this entire situation is satirical, they are too blame but
their core offense is their existence not any specific action or policy.

If there to be peace it needs to start with normalization of relations, the
Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon have to be given rights under the UN
charter for refugees and assimilated, after 10 years of quiet it would be
considerably easier to come to an agreement.

However there will be no quite the 2nd intifada started because there was a
good chance for peace, 150,000 Palestinians worked in Israel, Israelies
conducted business daily in the PA territories, and the Palestinian economy
was one of the fastest growing in the world.

This was good for the Palestinians but pretty bad for their leaders like
Yaaser Arafat who wasn't even a Palestinian her was an Egytpian of Libyan
decent born before Israel has even existed and never set food in Palestine or
Israel before 1947.

So Arafat blew the camp David accords in which he was offered more than he was
actually expecting and even demanding including Jerusalem to be put on the
table and kicked off the entire mess.

For all his flaws Abbas is the first Palestinian leader who was actually born
in Palestine.

But for the most part history will remember him as one with Arafat, especially
after he said no to even a better offer than the original Camp David one.

------
london888
And the US & Coalition fell right into the trap by invading Iraq. Probably
quite a few people still think Iraq was behind 911.

~~~
toomanybeersies
Apparently 69% of Americans in 2003 believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11:
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-po...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-
iraq_x.htm)

In 2011, this belief persisted, with 38% believing that "the US has found
clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda"
and 21% believing Iraq gave support to Al Qaeda:
[http://themoderatevoice.com/ten-years-later-belief-in-
iraq-c...](http://themoderatevoice.com/ten-years-later-belief-in-iraq-
connection-with-911-attack-persists/)

------
dominotw
the queer compassion of the poor for the relatively well-off is quite an
amusing thing. You can see many examples of this in everyday life too.

------
tn13
If USA can have Saudi Arabia as an ally white house can even call Devil their
ally.

I never understood Iran-USA hatred for each other. Iran is not worse than
Saudi Arabia or Pakistan from any angle.

~~~
hessammehr
The 1953 coup [1] probably has something to do with that, followed by the
hostage crisis in 1979 [2], and the downing of an Iranian passenger airplane
by the US [3].

1\.
[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\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis)
3\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655)

~~~
adventured
Along with Iran supporting the killing of US troops in Iraq via proxy war
during the occupation and the Khobar Towers bombing.

~~~
tn13
Japan killed thousands of Americans so did Germany and China. USA has been
humiliated pretty often by many other countries but USA has (correctly) not
held the kind of grudge it has against Iran.

------
wyldfire
> [nice vignette] ...

> [another nice story] ...

> “Last week, for the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution, there were
> no chants of ‘death to America’ at weekly Friday prayers around the
> country[…]

Wow. The folks who think "bad things should happen to those people in the US"
take a break from saying that when bad things happen? This is less of a "nice
story" \-- more like "Y'know, we shouldn't say 'Death to America' this week
because as much as we seem to enjoy the results, we don't want to get the
blame."

------
neves
These kind of post helps us to remember our common humanity. The world isn't a
simplistic us vs them.

------
bobsil1
Surely some part of this is from Shi'a rivalry with Sunni AQ?

------
user982
And then they up and joined the Axis of Evil.

Meta: Too subtle?

~~~
zaroth
Meta: No, too cute.

------
ars
Is this really so surprising? The enemy (US) of my enemy (Saudi Arabia) is my
friend.

This has nothing to do with the US, and everything to do with SA.

~~~
aikah
What ? KSA is hardly US government's enemy, on the contrary. KSA is US biggest
ally in the middle east after Israel. KSA is not on the list of terrorist
states in US and Saudi princes enjoy a wide access to politicians like the
Bush family or the Clinton family which they actively finance. But it is
interesting one would ever think it isn't the case.

~~~
yannickt
I think the GP was saying KSA is Iran's enemy.

Edit: brain failure on my part.

~~~
ojbyrne
He seems to also be saying that the US is an enemy of Saudi Arabia. Otherwise
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't make sense.

~~~
ars
Yes, I was saying that. But from the POV of Iran, not US.

As far as Iran is concerned SA attacked the US, Bin Ladin is from there, as
were most of the attackers.

At a high level the US and SA governments are not enemies, but at a lower
level (the people) it's not so simple.

~~~
ameen
No Saudi citizen I know hates America, heck they've embraced the American
culture with awe and are the 4th largest student population in the US.
American Fast food, American cars, etc are cherished and many American
companies have flourished because of their establishments in Saudi Arabia.

Assumptions are harmful. Iranians on the other hand have a genuine reason to
hate the US. Iran funds Hezbollah which have attached American interests in
the past. It was Iranian-aligned militia that wrecked the American army in
many battles in Iraq.

------
tominous
It's sad that it is seen as "exceptional" to mourn (and not celebrate) the
deaths of innocent people.

~~~
AsyncAwait
I don't think that was what was meant, rather it was "exceptional" given the
past relationship of the two nations. Also, is the only other option of not
mourning to celebrate?

~~~
tominous
True on both points. Thanks.

------
mahranch
That's nice and all, but I vividly remember people dancing in the streets of
Iran celebrating the attack. I will never have that image removed from my
mind.

While I'm sure there are people who were upset at the attacks, there was a
sizeable chunk of people who weren't. They were in fact happy. Enough to form
crowds dancing in the streets holding signs and chanting. I'm old enough to
remember that stuff pretty vividly (I was 22 years old on 9/11) so historical
revisionism isn't going to work on me...

~~~
Spooky23
You have no idea what you saw -- clips like that are often propaganda or just
crap. Big news sites like Drudge would post fringe nonsense for cheap hits.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the NY Times was running stories about babies being
tossed from incubators directly lifted from WWI accounts of the Hun.

I was working in a network operations center at the time, listening to radio
and seeing CNN 18 hours a day for weeks post 9/11\. There were all sorts of
bullshit stories, from foiled plots against facilities to whatever else that
made it broadcast. People were jumpy and craving information.

~~~
mahranch
Listen up kid, (I'm calling you kid because you're acting like one; telling me
"I don't know what I saw". Who the hell do you think you are?) I'm not some
naive nobody who was being swayed by paranoia, the media or anything else. I'm
also not going to fall for any 9/11 conspiracy nuttery.

I looked up what I saw and you can see the videos yourself, right now, with a
quick google search.

> I was working in a network operations center at the time

I simply don't believe you. I don't believe you are over the age of 25 in
fact. More importantly, _everyone_ was glued to their TV back then. And yes,
there was this thing called "the internet" back then too, where people could
validate and check information. They could also get their news from sources
_outside_ the U.S. Many of us were doing just that.

