Posted by Kamangir
Author's email address: arash@kamangir.net | All posts by Kamangir
Previous Post: Connection Graph of the Persian Blogosphere
Next Post: Claim: Iranian Tankers adopt Foreign Flag
Welcome to Kamangir. This is the personal blog of Arash Abadpour (Abad Pour), an Iranian student in Canada (more)
Contact: arash@kamangir.net
Other places around here: Persian Blog, Academic Background, Photography Blog,
Photoblog, and Azadeh (My Wife)
• Video of the Day: Persepolis 2 - Safeguard the Innocent |
• “I regret the fact that a woman led Iran’s Team in the Olympics Opening” |
• “Close off the Whole Country!” |
|
|
|
|
It makes me wonder.
Well. Archer. It was very short and very sweet.
Mossadeq did not supported communism, that is true. He was fiercely anti-british and that was the main reason he tried to nationalize Iranian oil
It is true that British with the help of CIA and some mullahs managed the coup and removed Mossadeq.
But also it is true that at the time of Mosadeq many in iran had a comunist sympaties, in fact a lot of Iranians wanted communist rule.
To give you an idea what happened at that time in Europe - people were dissapearing in large numbers all over Eastern Europe, communist regimes there repressed everybody killing, and puting people into prisons, It was a few short years after communists coups in all Eastern Europe.and six years after the end of Word War II.. South America started to have communist sympaties, the same started to happen in some countries in the ME. .
.
So no wonder that US thought Mossadeq was pro-communist, particularly with call for nationalization of oil Mosadeq was a Prime Minister during Stalin rule and many of his slogans were similar to the ones Stalin proclaimed.
It was complicated situation and it is easy to say now that it was a mistake
It is true that there have been potential for Iran to become democratic country.
But potential not realised is a potential which has not been realised, the same potential existed in many other countries in the ME and nothing come out of it. I might even speculate that if Mossadeq was not removed Iran would became similar to Egipt or Turkey - majority of people would want Islamic rule because they never got Islamic rule and they would have believed that it would be the answer to their present problems. After all it was Iranians and not anybody else who cheered for Khomeini.. They could have decided not to follow Khomeini, but majority did even if minority wanted democracy.
Therefore we can only speculate about what might have happen, no-one can be sure.
Coming to Ronald Reagan and the statement that USA violated non-interference in Iranian affairs.
Ronald Reagan presidency lasted from 1981 to 1989. Khomeini became supreme leader in 1979, and the siege of american embassy lasted till 1981. But in 1983 members of Al Dawa (Iranians) were imprisoned in Kuwait, Hezbullah took 30 american hostages and demanded freeing Iranians. Hezbullah spiritual leader was Khomeini.
It seems that people who were talking about non-interference in Iranian affairs forget about non-interference by Iran (or the groups supported by Iran) in American affairs. It is also not suprising that in the war Iraq-Iran american supported Iraq, as did the majority of arab countries
I don’t know when that clip was made, but no-one wants to invade and occupy Iran. Perhaps attack Iran if Iran will get nuclear weapon, but then Ahmadinejad is saying that Israel is like a cancer and should be irradiated like a cancer.
As for strategic interests - US have many strategic interests, if Khamenei did not support international politics of Ahmadinejad these common interests could flourish, but the reality is different.
As for China - China wants oil and will do anything to get oil including objection to calling actions of Sudanese government in Darfur genocide. China has also ideological similarities with Iran, they both don’t like “imperialists”, China never had a border and/or strategic interests in Iran in the past therefore never went to war with Iran. Both countries want to be a future superpowers, Iran in the ME and Chinese elsewhere - US and Europe are an obstacles to these wishes.
Yes, good clip but also quite a good propaganda.
What these “useful idiots” appearing as experts on these programs forget, is that those who were the benefeciaries and supporters of the 1953 events were the Ayatollahs and they are in power now. They hate Mossadiq and his name is hardly ever mentioned. Those who were the victims, are mostly in exile now, and mainly living in USA comfortably.
It sickens me when I hear these “useful idiots” justify the Islamic regime’s behaviour by going back to events half a century ago. Get over it, just like the majority of young Iranians have got over it.
Most of the people (In America, at least) who are making noise about us invading Iran are on the Left. I am a Conservative, and frequent the conservative blogs and radio shows. The talk for years now has been that while attacking should not be off the table, it would in all likelyhood be a bad idea.
I tend to agree for a number of reasons. Attacking Iran at this point in history would simply give the leadership a rallying cry, at a time when the people appear to be against them. Except for the hard religious crowd, I believe that the Persian people are an independant one, and a natural ally of ours, without the current leadership.