
How the CIA Used a Fake Sci-Fi Flick to Rescue Americans From Tehran (2007)  - JumpCrisscross
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2007/04/feat_cia/
======
jdietrich
This piece is blatant anti-Iranian propaganda, because it fails to give any
context for the events of 1979. It entirely omits any reason why Americans
became unwelcome in Iran. The islamic revolution occurred in Iran as a direct
result of the hostile actions of the CIA, who in 1953 overthrew the
democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah as an absolute
monarch, with full authorisation from Eisenhower and Churchill. It is an
entirely uncontroversial matter of historical record that the British and
American government acted to prevent the establishment of democratic rule in
Iran, in order to secure supplies of cheap oil.

Without providing this context, the piece portrays American diplomats in Iran
as hapless victims; In fact, they were active participants in the machinery
used to oppress the Iranian people. Most Americans remain completely unaware
of the events of the 1953 coup; This makes any mention of the '79 revolution
without the context of the '53 coup propaganda, plain and simple. It is the
direct moral equivalent of telling people that you were beaten up by some guy,
while omitting the fact that you had raped his wife and shot his dog. The
omission is as deceptive as any lie.

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

~~~
InclinedPlane
Despite coups, despite wars, etc. the embassy has been held as being above all
that. Civilized societies do not invade embassies, they do not hold diplomats
as hostages, they do not kill or threaten to kill diplomats, period. This is
true even in a time of war.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with a sneak attack the US did not storm
the Japanese embassy, they did not hold Japanese diplomats hostage. They did
not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies. Etc. That sort of
boorish behavior is not and should not ever be tolerated. If you cannot
tolerate the continued presence of a country's diplomats in your country then
you eject them, you do not hold them hostage. Period.

~~~
fleitz
Why? Why should diplomats be treated any differently than any other person? My
estimation would be that if these rights are essential for diplomats they are
just as essential for everyone else.

If they are not provided to everyone else then why would diplomats expect
these privileges? What is the philosophical framework that elevates diplomats
above others?

If the people are subject to internment, why not the diplomats?

If the people may be killed by drones, why not the diplomats?

If the people may be held without trial, why not the diplomats?

~~~
wololo
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity> \-- "Diplomatic immunity as
an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations,
including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When
receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of
state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively
carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a
reciprocal basis. Originally, these privileges and immunities were granted on
a bilateral, ad hoc basis, which led to misunderstandings and conflict,
pressure on weaker states, and an inability for other states to judge which
party was at fault."

------
jedberg
I have to hand it to the Hollywood marketing machine here.

This article was written in 2007 and tells a story I had never heard.

Today I read the article and thought "wow, what an interesting story. Might
even make a good movie".

Then I came here and read the comments and found out it _was_ made into a
movie that was released last week.

Tomatometer gives it a 95% -- I'm probably going to see it now.

------
joelrunyon
Single page article is here -->
<http://www.wired.com/magazine/2007/04/feat_cia/all/>

------
nsns
...translated to the Hollywood formula and released a week ago as "Argo".

~~~
davej
Definitely worth a watch by the way. Starring Bryan Cranston of Breaking Bad
fame.

~~~
nnnnni
Oh, you mean Hal from Malcolm in the Middle?

~~~
Evbn
Oh wow. Hal has been staring at me for years and I never noticed. Nice range
for Bryan.

------
dhughes
As a Canadian I have to say this movie is disappointing.

Are people in the US unaware of what really happened?

~~~
fatbird
Yup. Read elteto's comment above: "It is about how one CIA operative mounted a
brilliant operation to rescue a group of people from a hostile environment. It
is all about facts, which is what journalism should really be about."

Just shake your head and move along.

------
cubancigar11
I am tired of this Anti-Iran propaganda in the news.

~~~
kevingadd
Are you saying the events described didn't happen?

~~~
cubancigar11
No. Just that every where I look these days there is an article about Iran.
Every next day there is some new article about Iran doing something. And when
it isn't then there are articles like these - dug up from the history to fill
some new Iran related news. I am scared if this is a precursor to a new war.
It looks awfully similar to the last time.

(Btw, I am an Indian in India who has got nothing to do with USA and Iran.)

~~~
kghose
Actually, having lived in India for a while in the 90s I can tell you that (if
you lived in India at that time) you are likely to be more biased against the
US (and other NATO powers) and more biased towards Russia and the Arab states.

India was "non-aligned" during the cold war but was fairly tilted towards the
USSR (cheap munitions, convenient ideology) and this was conveyed through the
strongly controlled media.

Due to the size and volatility of the Muslim population in India there were
many moves to appear (and push people to appear) allied with the Arab states
and against Israel.

I wonder what, in general, the modern viewpoint is. Young people in India now
are more into consumer goods and I think less political than they were 20
years ago, but I only get brief snapshots now.

~~~
jebblue
>> Actually, having lived in India for a while in the 90s I can tell you that
(if you lived in India at that time) you are likely to be more biased against
the US (and other NATO powers) and more biased towards Russia and the Arab
states.

Then can someone tell the hordes of Indians getting into the US since the 90's
they were/are somehow confused and need to change direction towards Russia and
India. Thanks!

~~~
kghose
There was a program where people in certain sectors went to the USSR to get
educated. It wasn't very big. Also, I have found, people are fairly pragmatic
politics is politics and business is business. Indians come to the US because
they have an infrastructure here (established Indians) and job opportunities,
neither of which exist in scale in the USSR.

------
mokash
This article was written in 2007. It is a great read though. Wired always do
great articles like this.

