Utah author finds Iran to be ever-evolving

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
Thank you for admitting that the people of Iran do engage in pot-stirring. I remember someone saying earlier that pot-stirring got you killed.

But Timster is right. Iranians have an insatiable appetite for Western culture. That is unavoidable and there is nothing mullahs can do about it.

You will also notice how the GC controls everything he does because he was a partner of Khomeini and has a real voice.  They only let him out of prison when his health was failing, even now restrict any ability he has to get his message across to a widespread audience.  This is the same sort of thing that would happen to that female author if she started to get any sort of large scale following, I'm willing to bet.

[Babar]

Scut:

1. Pseudonyms are still not an indicator of oppression.
2. Why are you applying Khomeini to the present-day situation? We are talking about the advancements of Iranian society, not long-dead rulers. And besides, you do know that Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini used to be President Khameini, right?
3. Your "oil revenue" post is absolutely meaningless unless you are trying to claim some form of grand conspiracy is happening. Moving along...
4. Grandfather, not uncle, went back to Iran. You'd have to get a Fari interpreter to talk to him.
5. Culture is not politics. Culture can affect politics. Politics can rarely affect culture. Just look at my posts and Sina's posts. We are both Iranian. You are not. We have a better understanding of the situation there.

quote:
Iran is moving towards a more open society because their government doesn't have a choice.

Even you admit there that culture is not politics. If your statement that culture IS politics is indeed true, then the government would have a choice in whether or not society became more open.

quote:
Obviously, the difference is Iran's never known a government like that

That is blatantly incorrect. Iran used to have a democratically elected Prime Minister. (I am sure you can extrapolate from "Prime Minister" that Iran had a Parliament.) Mohammed Mosaddegh was elected by Iranian parliament to be Prime Minister in 1951. The Iranian Parliament at that time voted to nationalize the country's oil industry. This led the CIA to overthrow Mosaddegh and install Shah Pahlavi, who proved to be VERY unpopular among Iranians. Why do you think Khomeini was so popular when he returned from exile?

"Never known a government like that" my ass. More like the United States didn't allow a government like that because it went against their interest in cheap oil.

Really, Scut, read up on some Iranian history, please, before you try to formulate some arguments as to how evil Iran is.

[Babar]

quote:
My guess is that either the US will invade Iran and cause another revolution (downside: will probably be messy), or the young population will do it themselves eventually (a better route in my opinion). One way or another things will change for the better.

Sina knows what he's talking about. Note he said "cause ANOTHER revolution." Yeah, we did a bang up job with Mosaddegh.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
Scut:

1. Pseudonyms are still not an indicator of oppression.

No, not always, but frequently, yes they are.

quote:
2. Why are you applying Khomeini to the present-day situation? We are talking about the advancements of Iranian society, not long-dead rulers. And besides, you do know that Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini used to be President Khameini, right?

I simply said, all it would take to destroy the progress the Iran people have forced on the GC would be a strong leader like Khomenei to come into power and rule with an iron fist.  Iran was hardly the same place before and after Khomenei.  Am I wrong about that?

quote:
3. Your "oil revenue" post is absolutely meaningless unless you are trying to claim some form of grand conspiracy is happening. Moving along...

There's no conspiracy there at all.  I think the GC fears and hates capitalism because of the damage it believes it would do to Islam and it's power base.

quote:
4. Grandfather, not uncle, went back to Iran. You'd have to get a Fari interpreter to talk to him.

An interpreter?  So what.

quote:
5. Culture is not politics. Culture can affect politics. Politics can rarely affect culture. Just look at my posts and Sina's posts. We are both Iranian. You are not. We have a better understanding of the situation there.

quote:
Iran is moving towards a more open society because their government doesn't have a choice.

Even you admit there that culture is not politics. If your statement that culture IS politics is indeed true, then the government would have a choice in whether or not society became more open.

Actually, no they wouldn't and this is my point, but I think I'm doing a poor job of explaining how I'm using the word Politics in this frame of reference.  Politics is the systems in which people rule themselves.  I'm not allowing that dictatorships are actual political systems because one person enforces his/her will upon the masses.  In this context, do you see why I would say culture is politics?  The GC has to bend to the will of the people against it's wishes because the will of the people can topple them.

Also, if you think a person has to be of that nation to actually understand how people are, then nobody has any business discussing politics about other countries ever again.  Moreover, your point of view damns organizations like the UN into irrelevency simply because they're an artificial body of member nations without a true identity trying to foist their unknowable ignorance upon the world.  

Also, you and sina can stop saying you know what the US will do and projecting your Iranian biases on us since you're such good Iranians.  See how insulting that sounds?  If you don't want me to do that to you (and I have no desire to squelch your opinions on the US), then stop doing it to me.

quote:
That is blatantly incorrect. Iran used to have a democratically elected Prime Minister. (I am sure you can extrapolate from "Prime Minister" that Iran had a Parliament.) Mohammed Mosaddegh was elected by Iranian parliament to be Prime Minister in 1951. The Iranian Parliament at that time voted to nationalize the country's oil industry. This led the CIA to overthrow Mosaddegh and install Shah Pahlavi, who proved to be VERY unpopular among Iranians. Why do you think Khomeini was so popular when he returned from exile?

"Never known a government like that" my ass. More like the United States didn't allow a government like that because it went against their interest in cheap oil.

Oh stop being so thin skinned and condescending.  How long was that government in place?  How many generations was it given to flourish and take hold?  How long was it given to become a part of the Iranian culture?  I suspect not nearly long enough.  Again I use other traditional democracies as an example.  Can you imagine what would happen if a foreign country were to try to foist a dictatorship (that's all the Shah really was) on someplace like England or France?  

quote:
Really, Scut, read up on some Iranian history, please, before you try to formulate some arguments as to how evil Iran is.

Point out exactly where I said Iran was evil please.  I'd like to see it.  You seem to think my portrayal of governments in one way or another extends down to every single citizen of that country, when frequently I feel the exact opposite.  I feel governments are frequently only a reflection of a minority of their people.  I can't help but feel that way when Bush 2004 was the first time an American president had won with more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988 (and just barely at 51% to 48%).  Even in Democracies, a country's position is rarely a reflection of a majority of the people, much less all of them.  What's ironic is the NeoCon's are actually counting on the people to feel differently than their government feels.  They're counting on the idea that people would prefer to live free if they were given the choice regardless of how that freedom comes to them and I don't necesarily agree because I believe for many people, their pride is more important than freedom and you seem to agree with that.  "Live free or die" is not a mantra everyone can get behind.

[Babar]

Scut,

What is your take on Iran's Parliament voting (independently of the GC) to mandate the government to continue refinement of nuclear material?

[ScutMonkey]

Babar + Sina,

Just did some reading on Mosaddegh, Iran's parliament, and it's political structure.  You failed to mention that even though Iran had a PM and Paliament, they were still a Constitutional monarchy for most the Parliament's existance.  Until Reza Khan died in 1941, the Parliament had no real power in the country so the Parliament really only had true democratic abilities from 1941 until 1953.

You also failed to mention that the coup was largely the UK's desire to see this done and that Truman not only rejected any proposals to be involved, but also supported Mosaddegh's positions in front of the Hague to terminate the UK's stranglehold on Iranian oil.  

Unfortunately, a bunch of things (and I'm sure I'm leaving out a few as well) came to a head at roughly the same time to change the US's position on Iran and it's oil independence.  

1.  Emboldened by his victory over the UK regarding their control of the country's oil, Mosaddegh then demanded publicly that the UK reimburse Iran for past oil profits.
2.  The Soviets detonated their first nuclear weapon in late 1949 and intensified their sabre rattling in the UN.
3.  The Korean War broke out in 1950.
4.  Eisenhower was elected in 1952.

Was the US concerned about Iranian oil?  Oh god yes.  However, it was not because the US was money grubbing.  We were concerned because the armies of the Soviet Union and the US both are powered largely by petroleum and the Middle East was of vast importance to both countries strategicly because of it's reserves.  The Cold War thinking of the time dictated the US try to install as many pro-West regimes in the region as possible to ensure a supply of oil in order to firm up it's national security.  Iran was part of a much, much larger global situation in which the US was feeling increasingly isolated and pressed by communism all over the globe.  Mosaddegh's strident independance from the West surely scared the hell out of the various NATO countries who were fighting to keep hold of the rest of Europe after the Iron curtain fell after WW2.  

What we all have to remember is that the US was about to enter the Red Scare and saw the Communist boogeyman in everything (largely with good reason).  We've since learned McCarthy really was right and there really were Communist spies working in the State Department and in various influential places throughout the US.  Mosaddegh's demands on the UK to repay oil revenues and his strong sense of nationalism along with Iran's shared border with the Soviets put them right in the crosshairs of Cold War jockeying.  

But the Iranian people aren't going to want to hear this and I completely understand why.  They were victims of scared Cold War thinking and we will have to live with the fallout from that for a long time.  I can imagine how hard it is for them to see the situation in Iraq as so fundamentally different than their own in 1953, even though it is.  Instead of installing a sympathetic dictator and destroying a burgeoning democracy as we did in 1953, we're doing the opposite by removing a dictator (who we supported strongly during the cold war - more unfortunate irony) and helping to install a democratic government in Iraq.  It's sad, because the US would probably welcome with open arms the kind of government Iran had in place back in 1953 and now we have to reap what we have sown.

However, none of this eliminates the fact of what kind of government Iran has now.  It only shows why the Iranian people simply aren't going to be sympathetic to more US intervention, rather they will be rather hostile to it.  It's simple for the US to say, "we've changed!" but it's even easier for Iran to point to Iraq and ask, "how?"  People are going to believe what they want to believe, and Iran's state controlled media isn't about to do us any favors.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
Scut,

What is your take on Iran's Parliament voting (independently of the GC) to mandate the government to continue refinement of nuclear material?

It scares the hell out of me just as the fact that the Soviet's arsenal not being fully accounted for scares the hell out of me or Pakistan's military dictatorship or India's ever evolving government.  All it takes is one loose canon and an irresponsible control on a nuclear weapon for a zealot who believes "the will of God" told him to blow up some city to see a catastrophe larger than any we've ever know to hit someplace in the world.  

Alot of this is placing your faith and trust in known quantities and I freely admit that.  There have been several situations in our past where we could have used nuclear weapons to end conflicts or make points and our Presidents have shown restraint.  The most obvious was when McArthur advocated using them on China during the Korean war and was fired as a result.  I've also seen the lenghts to which the US monitors and protects it's own arsenals.  I don't have similar faith in other governments.  I've seen what McVeigh could do with a truck full of fertilizer and I've seen what bin Laden and Co could do with a couple of stolen planes.  I don't want to find out what the next loose canon could do with a nuclear weapon.  3000+ dead in NY is a drop in the bucket compared to the 10 million or more which would die from a nuclear weapon.

Question for you Babar.  Do you feel the Parliament really has the autonomy to defy the GC on an important issue like nukes even if it want to (which I doubt it does)?

[ScutMonkey]

By the way, I read several articles on this, but there is a NY Times outline from CIA papers of our envolvement with the whole affair which is very fascinating:

NY Time Iran Coup Article

You will note the strong fears that Mosaddegh's coalition was falling apart and the Communist Tudeh party was growing in popularity.  For the US, Communism was the motivation for the coup.  Oil may have made Iran a higher priority, but the US intervened in Korean, Vietnam, and other countries without oil, so I don't think Iran would have been spared if they hadn't had oil reserves.  Oil really is largely a red herring in the 1953 coup just as it's largely irrelevent to the nuclear discussions going on today.

[Babar]

Scut, I really am glad you are taking the time to research this issue as thoroughly as you have been. That is more than most others have done. Much of what you say is pretty accurate, but let me address a few things:

quote:
Until Reza Khan died in 1941, the Parliament had no real power in the country so the Parliament really only had true democratic abilities from 1941 until 1953.

Granted, but why precisely was Iran not entitled to democratic ability? Because it wanted to nationalize the country's oil industry? I shudder at the thought of the "right" of countries to have a democratic government being conditional only on its making decisions in the interest of the US and UK economies.

quote:
Emboldened by his victory over the UK regarding their control of the country's oil, Mosaddegh then demanded publicly that the UK reimburse Iran for past oil profits.

As you know, the UK doesn't have the best track record when it comes to imperialism. They controlled India and most of Iran. You saw how hard India had to work to kick the British out and you saw what they did to the people who followed Gandhi to the ocean to make their own salt. Basically the UK was just "punishing" Iran because Iran did not "graciously" let the UK rape its natural resources.

quote:
Iran was part of a much, much larger global situation in which the US was feeling increasingly isolated and pressed by communism all over the globe.

Well, yes, this statement is unbelievably true. Iran was not only a victim of this, but also Guatemala, unfortunately. There are numerous examples of Eisenhower Administration covert and not-so-covert attempts at taking down "communist" governments. It was actually the Eisenhower Adminstration who drafted the Bay of Pigs strategy and then passed it along to the Kennedy Administration. The whole situation in one word: pathetic. In two word: unfounded paranoia.

quote:
We've since learned McCarthy really was right and there really were Communist spies working in the State Department and in various influential places throughout the US

OK, but the CIA had many agents working in Soviet government, as well--it was not an unilateral thing on the part of the Soviet Union. And as to Joseph McCarthy, the list he claimed to have of communists working in the State Department never did in actuality exist, and he was never able to convict even one of his supposed communists. Edward Murrow exposed him on See It Now and McCarthy went to the bottle and died soon after.

quote:
They were victims of scared Cold War thinking and we will have to live with the fallout from that for a long time. I can imagine how hard it is for them to see the situation in Iraq as so fundamentally different than their own in 1953

I am glad you can at least see where Iran's bitterness and suspicion comes from. We have not done anything in the 50 years following to regain their trust; why should they trust our intentions now? Why do you think they are attempting to bolster their defenses?

quote:
It's sad, because the US would probably welcome with open arms the kind of government Iran had in place back in 1953 and now we have to reap what we have sown.

I agree with that statement.

quote:
All it takes is one loose canon and an irresponsible control on a nuclear weapon for a zealot who believes "the will of God" told him to blow up some city to see a catastrophe larger than any we've ever know to hit someplace in the world.

Except Nikita Khrushchev didn't plant missiles in Cuba because the "will of God" told him to, so let me qualify your statement by saying that religion isn't necessarily always a motivator in cases like this.

quote:
Do you feel the Parliament really has the autonomy to defy the GC on an important issue like nukes even if it want to (which I doubt it does)?

Parliament's authority is not so much statutory or constitutional as it is tied into the angst of the Iranian public. The GC finds itself on precarious ground if it blatantly overrules Parliamentary decisions supported by the vast majority of the populace. Hence the whole reason why the Guardian Council treads lightly. Exception being their prevention of many liberal candidates from standing for Parliament seats.

quote:
You will note the strong fears that Mosaddegh's coalition was falling apart and the Communist Tudeh party was growing in popularity. For the US, Communism was the motivation for the coup.

But you will also note that the Communist Tudeh party would have been a parliamentary party, and thus would still have governed Iran under democratic ability. The Shah was just a dictator which led to another (Khomeini).

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
Granted, but why precisely was Iran not entitled to democratic ability? Because it wanted to nationalize the country's oil industry? I shudder at the thought of the "right" of countries to have a democratic government being conditional only on its making decisions in the interest of the US and UK economies.

Leave the US out of that pre 1952.  We were not involved in the taking of Iran's oil reserves in any way except as a consumer for the end product.  Turman supported Iran's oil autonomy, not the UK's continued ownership.  You can also blame the Khan as well.  At any time he could have stood up to the UK but did not, for whatever reason.  

quote:
As you know, the UK doesn't have the best track record when it comes to imperialism. They controlled India and most of Iran. You saw how hard India had to work to kick the British out and you saw what they did to the people who followed Gandhi to the ocean to make their own salt. Basically the UK was just "punishing" Iran because Iran did not "graciously" let the UK rape its natural resources.

I'm not saying Mossadeh didn't have every right to make that demand.  I'm only putting his demands in context with a quickly deteriorating (in the eyes of the West) world situation where Communism was taking over governments left and right.  The fact that Mossadeh had support from the communist Tudeh party surely scared the US in to rethinking it's position.

quote:
Well, yes, this statement is unbelievably true. Iran was not only a victim of this, but also Guatemala, unfortunately. There are numerous examples of Eisenhower Administration covert and not-so-covert attempts at taking down "communist" governments. It was actually the Eisenhower Adminstration who drafted the Bay of Pigs strategy and then passed it along to the Kennedy Administration. The whole situation in one word: pathetic. In two word: unfounded paranoia.

But it wasn't unfounded.  It was quite legitimate and it got worse before it got better.  After Mossadeh was toppled, Cuba went communist, Vietnam went communist, Hungary was rolled over by the Soviets, Che Guevara traipsed through Central America setting up death squads, etc...

It's easy for us to look back now and think the US' fears were unfounded, but we need to put this in perspective.  Eisenhower was a product of WW2.  He was there when our troops found the concentration camps.  He'd met with Stalin and knew the man.  He'd seen what dictatorships were like, and now Stalin and Mao were setting them up all over the globe while at the same time liquidating huge chunks of their own populations.  

quote:
OK, but the CIA had many agents working in Soviet government, as well--it was not an unilateral thing on the part of the Soviet Union. And as to Joseph McCarthy, the list he claimed to have of communists working in the State Department never did in actuality exist, and he was never able to convict even one of his supposed communists. Edward Murrow exposed him on See It Now and McCarthy went to the bottle and died soon after.

Oh, I'm not about to excuse McCarthy's methods one bit.  He seems a horrible human being.  However, that doesn't mean he wasn't right about the Soviet's placement.  Just today I was ready an article about how Alger Hiss influenced FDR at Yalta and Alger Hiss is a known Communist spy.  What nobody talks about with Yalta is not only did we hand Eastern Europe over to the Soviets, but we also forced hundreds of thousands of Soviets who escaped the gulags BACK to the Soviet Union as agreed to in Yalta and they were subsequently killed.  When you combine that horrible truth with the fact that Hiss was whispering in the ear of FDR you see the kind of damage we were faced with.  

I also know we had spies in the Soviet Union.  The Venona tapes are a direct result of the wiretaps we were able to secure through our spying efforts in the Soviet Union.  The same tapes which prove Hiss was a spy and McCarthy was right.  But you know what?  I don't care.  I still believe in right and wrong, and I still believe the West's political structure is the correct one.  I want Democracy to win.

quote:
I am glad you can at least see where Iran's bitterness and suspicion comes from. We have not done anything in the 50 years following to regain their trust; why should they trust our intentions now? Why do you think they are attempting to bolster their defenses?

I'm not saying they should necessarily trust us, but it seems to me, the people of Iran place too much faith in the bad promises of their own government.  Moreover, the state controlled media exacerbates and exaggerates reality and the truth.

quote:
Except Nikita Khrushchev didn't plant missiles in Cuba because the "will of God" told him to, so let me qualify your statement by saying that religion isn't necessarily always a motivator in cases like this.

No, and Timothy McViegh wasn't a Jesus freak either.  However, Iran funds Hezbollah and other terrorist groups directly.  I don't know why that wouldn't scare anyone.

quote:
Parliament's authority is not so much statutory or constitutional as it is tied into the angst of the Iranian public. The GC finds itself on precarious ground if it blatantly overrules Parliamentary decisions supported by the vast majority of the populace. Hence the whole reason why the Guardian Council treads lightly. Exception being their prevention of many liberal candidates from standing for Parliament seats.

And since the people want protection from the west, the GC will get their way.  You cannot deny that the constant smear campaigns by the GC's state controlled media make the Iranian people less open to the West and the US than they might be if they were given a fair accounting of what is really happening in the world.

Of course, our own lying press isn't helping at all.  You have to love Newsweek's latest bombshell of unsubstantiation and how that's going to play in the Muslim media.  Now that it's out Newsweek's retractions are going to look like GWB has squelched the media the way their own leaders would and forced them to rescind the story.

quote:
But you will also note that the Communist Tudeh party would have been a parliamentary party, and thus would still have governed Iran under democratic ability. The Shah was just a dictator which led to another (Khomeini).

The Politburo of the Soviet Union was a sham democratic institution.  So were all the Eastern European governments.  They had fake legislative bodies and an elected head similar to a PM or President.  They played to Democracy, but didn't really believe in it.  The fact that Mossadeh dissolved the Parliament and called for new elections when things weren't going his way is exactly how those communist countries worked.  I'm not saying Mossadeh was necessarily like them, but the way he appeared to the US can easily be explained by his own actions.

[Babar]

quote:
The fact that Mossadeh dissolved the Parliament and called for new elections when things weren't going his way is exactly how those communist countries worked.

Except that's the way parliaments work. The British PM can call on the Queen to dissolve Parliament at any time and call for new elections. It has been a popular tactic amongst Prime Ministers who want a quick vote while their popularity is still on the up and up, in order to secure another term in power.

British PMs will also ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and have elections held if a party is experiencing unusual popularity, because that party can then increase their majority in the elections. It's not unheard of in Britain, and John Major (PM after Thatcher) used that tactic in 1992. Unfortunately he misjudged the electorate's enthusiasm for the Conservatives and lost badly. But that doesn't mean he was without ulterior motive in asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament.

Just recently, last month, Tony Blair asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament and set up new elections, and that's what happened! But this doesn't mean that Britain works "exactly how those communist countries" work" because that's not the case. Unlike the US, Britain doesn't have elections every x amount of years. They have term limits, but the PM can ask for Parliament to be dissolved anytime within those x years, at his prerogative. The Queen never says no.

I have to go to work, but just wanted to point out this one thing.

[ScutMonkey]

Oh I know it's a valid Parliamentary tactic, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't make the US nervous because unlike what Major did, Mossadeh did it when parliament wasn't swinging his way and voting for what he wanted.  "Let's shake it up and get the people I want in so I can get my stuff done right."

[Babar]

Again, but that's normal behavior in Parliaments. Is this case only special because it made the US nervous?

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
Again, but that's normal behavior in Parliaments. Is this case only special because it made the US nervous?

It's special because of who was backing him (communist party) and what else was going on in the world (countries falling to communism).

[Babar]

I wasn't aware democracatic systems are good but only if they do what you want them to do...

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
I wasn't aware democracatic systems are good but only if they do what you want them to do...

There is much debate about this even today, but again, remember the context of the times.  Eisenhower fought his war against a dictator from Germany who was Democratically elected.  Just because a country is Democratic, it doesn't mean they'll stay that way.  And no, I don't think Mossadeh was going to be a genocidal lunatic.  However, I'm not going to discount the possibilities of a dictatorship regardless of what Mossadeh claimed.  Power hungry politicians will say all sorts of things.

[ric]

This is a rather surprising result

[Babar]

Ric--I agree, that is very surprising.

[ScutMonkey]

It shouldn't be.  If you have kind of will it takes to leave some of these repressive countries, it demonstrates two things:

1.  You have the will and drive to succeed.
2.  You have your eyes on a "better" life economically.

People don't leave these countries because they hate them.  They leave them because they usually (but not always) can't afford to stay.  

It always bothers me that people just don't understand a simple truth about the US.  If you work your ass off in this country, you will typically be rewarded.  You probably won't be Bill Gates, but you will be able to live well.  There are always a few exceptions to this truth, but it's almost completely universal.

***EDIT***

PS.  I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions about why.  He's overlooking many of the reasons and motivations for Arab immigration to Europe and the US, which are often quite different.  An example is Germany, where a large number of the Arab immigrants are Turkish and are brought to that country by German corporations as cheap labor.  Turkey is secular and isn't repressively ruled like many of it's neighbors.  The motivations are similar for leaving Turkey, but the hurdles are not.