I had an opportunity to chat with an Iranian acquaintance of mine this week. She claims that the unrest in Iran is about more than a rigged election. According to her, below the surface there is also a power struggle for control of the country under way among the theocratic factions who actually dominate Iran.

Anecdotal to be sure, but perhaps another way to interpret what we are hearing and reading.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:

quote:

Originally posted by horseback:
Everything is W's fault; athlete's foot, global warmi-oops, I meant climate change- morning mouth, and entropy can all be laid at his feet, according to the wretched scribes and talking head info-dudes and -babes on TV.

The mess in Persia is also his fault; without the inspiration of the popular version of Florida 2000, the mullahs would never have come up with fixing the vote, much less offering solely 'approved' candidates only to find that EVERYONE apparently chose the one perceived as less rigid and not as firmly in the ayetollah's pocket.

For us in the West, the real difference between Musavi and Ahmedinejad is about the same as that between Kruschov and Brezhnev, which is to say, not much. The issue is not Iran's choice for president, but the repudiation of those who are actually in power.

Hopefully, the people of Iran can pry those people out of power without a major bloodbath. Responsible people will consider how they and their governments (if they will respond) can best support the Iranian people getting in charge of their own destiny without that bloodbath.

cheers

horseback

Although not Bushes, this is actually the USA's and GBR's fault. A little ironic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...ranian_coup_d%27etat

"Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president, of The Future of Freedom Foundation, said, "U.S. officials, not surprisingly, considered the operation one of their greatest foreign policy successes — until, that is, the enormous convulsion that rocked Iranian society with the violent ouster of the Shah and the installation of a virulently anti-American Islamic regime in 1979".[75] According to him, "the coup, in essence, paved the way for the rise to power of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and all the rest that's happened right up to 9/11 and beyond".[75]"

Gutted.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oghc8k8mlY

..... Google this -

Iran and the Shah: what really happened

- for an interesting allegation that the US actually intervened more than once in Iranian internal politics.

You probably know more about this than I do, any truth to these Blutarski?

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:

quote:

Originally posted by horseback:
Everything is W's fault; athlete's foot, global warmi-oops, I meant climate change- morning mouth, and entropy can all be laid at his feet, according to the wretched scribes and talking head info-dudes and -babes on TV.

The mess in Persia is also his fault; without the inspiration of the popular version of Florida 2000, the mullahs would never have come up with fixing the vote, much less offering solely 'approved' candidates only to find that EVERYONE apparently chose the one perceived as less rigid and not as firmly in the ayetollah's pocket.

For us in the West, the real difference between Musavi and Ahmedinejad is about the same as that between Kruschov and Brezhnev, which is to say, not much. The issue is not Iran's choice for president, but the repudiation of those who are actually in power.

Hopefully, the people of Iran can pry those people out of power without a major bloodbath. Responsible people will consider how they and their governments (if they will respond) can best support the Iranian people getting in charge of their own destiny without that bloodbath.

cheers

horseback

Although not Bushes, this is actually the USA's and GBR's fault. A little ironic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...ranian_coup_d%27etat

"Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president, of The Future of Freedom Foundation, said, "U.S. officials, not surprisingly, considered the operation one of their greatest foreign policy successes — until, that is, the enormous convulsion that rocked Iranian society with the violent ouster of the Shah and the installation of a virulently anti-American Islamic regime in 1979".[75] According to him, "the coup, in essence, paved the way for the rise to power of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and all the rest that's happened right up to 9/11 and beyond".[75]"

Gutted.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oghc8k8mlY

..... Google this -

Iran and the Shah: what really happened

- for an interesting allegation that the US actually intervened more than once in Iranian internal politics.

You probably know more about this than I do, any truth to these Blutarski?

Nothing new there. There have been reasons for the terrorist activities for a long time. The US has been involved in more then one coup around the world, busting democraticly elected governments whenever they threatend US business. South America has some more examples of this handy.

Unluckkily I did not find the objective article cato.org had, so this rather emotional article I found instead has to do. I do not agree to a lot in it, but it gives an overview at least. Take it for the facts, not the judgement.

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/...atorship-since-wwii/

edit:

found a short version of the original article after all

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Google this -

Iran and the Shah: what really happened

- for an interesting allegation that the US actually intervened more than once in Iranian internal politics.

You probably know more about this than I do, any truth to these Blutarski?

..... I honestly don't know, Aimail. I found the entire 1979 Iranian Revolution a most curious affair. I believe that the original destabilization of the Shah's government in 1979 was a function of Khomeini supported by the USSR and domestic Iranian communist elements [ultimately betrayed and liquidated by Khomeini] who wanted to use Khomeini as convenient political cover. But I find the US response totally inexplicable, especially from the point of view of US foreign policy interests. Iran was a VITALLY important US ally in the Mideast, yet Carter not only refused to lift a finger to support the Shah, but also tacitly enabled the return of Khomeini and his minions from French exile back to Iran at a critical juncture. Why? Diplomatic incompetence? Mysterious ulterior motives? Only God really knows. My personal opinion is that Carter was a man of comprehensive and gargantuan incompetence. But, as the great western mystic Yogi Berra is famous for saying: "you don't know what you don't know."

I offer one other comment on a separate but related note. A great deal is made of American intrusions and interference into the internal political affairs of other nations. It is true that this happened, and sometimes for less than lofty motives. But I would suggest that the Soviet Union made the US look like absolute neophytes in this respect and much US activity can be perceived as defense being played against prior Soviet moves in said nations. The US/British orchestrated overthrow of Iran's Mossadegh government in 1953 was in part selfishly motivated [Mossadegh had decided to tear up Iran's contract with British Petroleum and nationalize its oil operations], but was also a reaction to the sub-rosa support and destabilization activities of the USSR which had succeeded in installing Mossadegh and the Iranian communist Tudeh party into power in the first place. It is very informative to investigate the state of relations and the events that transpired between Iran and the USSR in the years immediately following WW2.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

I offer one other comment on a separate but related note. A great deal is made of American intrusions and interference into the internal political affairs of other nations. It is true that this happened, and sometimes for less than lofty motives. But I would suggest that the Soviet Union made the US look like absolute neophytes in this respect and much US activity can be perceived as defense being played against prior Soviet moves in said nations. The US/British orchestrated overthrow of Iran's Mossadegh government in 1953 was in part selfishly motivated [Mossadegh had decided to tear up Iran's contract with British Petroleum and nationalize its oil operations], but was also a reaction to the sub-rosa support and destabilization activities of the USSR which had succeeded in installing Mossadegh and the Iranian communist Tudeh party into power in the first place. It is very informative to investigate the state of relations and the events that transpired between Iran and the USSR in the years immediately following WW2.

Very true, Blutarksi, the SU was not in any way better, in many ways worse then the US. Unluckily that does not much of a difference for the inhabitents of these countries that got a victim of the cold war struggle. Look at the world like an old fashioned class system. The peasants will revolt eventually after the kings and princes stepped on their toes for too long a time.

Btw, I didnt forget our little PM discussion, just didn't find the time to answer yet in detail. The week end should solve that inconvinience.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

I offer one other comment on a separate but related note. A great deal is made of American intrusions and interference into the internal political affairs of other nations. It is true that this happened, and sometimes for less than lofty motives. But I would suggest that the Soviet Union made the US look like absolute neophytes in this respect and much US activity can be perceived as defense being played against prior Soviet moves in said nations. The US/British orchestrated overthrow of Iran's Mossadegh government in 1953 was in part selfishly motivated [Mossadegh had decided to tear up Iran's contract with British Petroleum and nationalize its oil operations], but was also a reaction to the sub-rosa support and destabilization activities of the USSR which had succeeded in installing Mossadegh and the Iranian communist Tudeh party into power in the first place. It is very informative to investigate the state of relations and the events that transpired between Iran and the USSR in the years immediately following WW2.

Not quite sure just how far you could sustain the "they were much worse than us" argument if you look over the post war period as a whole.

Although 'our' motives were undoubtedly loftier than the Soviets, as Gammelpreusse points out, the little people would usually take a malleting
from whichever regime was 'sponsored' into power.

Was the cold war a demonstration of cultural differences? I mean the US would seem to have preferred a strong man (he's an sob but he's our sob) over a movement whereas the Soviets always went for the movement (or state) over the individual.

Unless of course your name was Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et all

If we consider that the United States went from an isolated backwater, world-power wise, in 1939 to the pre-eminent military/economic mover and shaker in the West by 1945, it is hardly a surprise that men like Truman or Marshall had a hard time adjusting to playing the Great Game at its darker levels.

This is particularly true when US politicians had spent the last 150 years denouncing the interferences of the European powers to their approving electorate.

The Soviets gravitated to movements specifically because their 'business model' was the hijacking of legitimate democratic movements and revolutions; this has the dual virtue of disguising their presence and appearing to come 'from the people'.

The US was caught in a damned if you do, damned if you don't cycle. If they supported the local strongman, the Soviets' cat's paws could accuse them of helping the 'dictator's' regime (and not all of these so-called dictators were remotely as bad as they were portrayed); if they tried to assist a 'popular' democratic movement, they were interfering in a sovereign nation's internal affairs.

Given that the US lacked the foreign intelligence infrastructure that even the British or French had, and that they did not share the same specific goals, most of their dealings in the Third World were inept to some degree.

But things were pretty dire, and there was no other option but to try and fumble through. They screwed it up a lot of times and places, and even where they did not, they managed to evade the twin burdens of gratitude and credit.

Hindsight is not only 20/20, it's an extremely selective, unforgiving, ball-busting b!tch.

cheers

horseback

quote:

Originally posted by horseback:

But things were pretty dire, and there was no other option but to try and fumble through. They screwed it up a lot of times and places, and even where they did not, they managed to evade the twin burdens of gratitude and credit.

Hindsight is not only 20/20, it's an extremely selective, unforgiving, ball-busting b!tch.

cheers

horseback

Hindsight 20/20 indeed. And in this we can also see that the US has a tendency to often act "over the top" due to nationwide parania in face of a percieved thread. Most situations were not as dire (or fueled by SU agresion)as they appeared in the decades after Stalin's death.

Also, it can actually be said that most of the SUs actions and agressions, when they appeared, were more motivated by fear of an impending US attack then by their own ambitions in general. The SU was proably even more paranoid then the US. Which makes sense when listening to the US rethorics at that time, and considering the West already has been involved in war with the SU after the 1917 revolution in the years 1920/21, a fact often ignored by western history. Add to that the german surprise attack in 1941 ét voila....major psychological complex achieved.

Btw, american companies have been involved around the world long before even the second world war. The US also had their own political gambles in the Americas, the Spanish-American (this one is especially interesting for the darker sides in power politics)and the Mexican–American War war, heck, the US Navy has even been active against the Barbary States in the Mediterranean, not to forget WWI. I really do not buy the naive newcomer role you make the US appear to be after world war 2.

quote:

and not all of these so-called dictators were remotely as bad as they were portrayed

*cough* Pinochet *cough*

quote:

Originally posted by arthursmedley:
Not quite sure just how far you could sustain the "they were much worse than us" argument if you look over the post war period as a whole.

Although 'our' motives were undoubtedly loftier than the Soviets, as Gammelpreusse points out, the little people would usually take a malleting from whichever regime was 'sponsored' into power.

Was the cold war a demonstration of cultural differences? I mean the US would seem to have preferred a strong man (he's an sob but he's our sob) over a movement whereas the Soviets always went for the movement (or state) over the individual.

Unless of course your name was Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et all

..... I take your point, Arthur. As ideologically oriented as we might think the diplomatic chess played during the "Cold War" [arguably actually starting around 1920 or so from the Soviet perspective] was, issues of national economic self interest certainly had a role as well. The US presence in the Mideast, for example, is principally a matter of economics. But when I stand back and look, a couple of things strike me about the overall result of the US's activities. Are the people of South Korea better off than their Northern relatives? Is Thailand better off than Laos and Cambodia? Malaysia? Did the people of Greece fare better than their neighbors in Albania? Do the people of central and eastern Europe yearn for a return to communism and police state?

I'm not saying that the US got everything right, but on balance it seems that a lot of people did benefit from US intervention over the long run. My opinion, of course.

As for African diplomatic adventures, I look at what has transpired since the mantle of colonialism was withdrawn after WW2 and it appears to me that irregardless of which cold war contestant held sway in a given African state, the native head of state almost always turned out to be a dictatorial strongman. I wonder if that is simply the nature of African social culture.

Shia Islam has been around for hundreds of years, you can't blame the 1979 revolution or the current unrest entirely on Western nations. The role of the US has mainly been as a convenient scapegoat along with Israel for the Iranian ruling class to blame for all of its problems while they mismanaged their economy and pushed the Iranian people around. Well, that and supporting Saddam in the 80's.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I had an opportunity to chat with an Iranian acquaintance of mine this week. She claims that the unrest in Iran is about more than a rigged election. According to her, below the surface there is also a power struggle for control of the country under way among the theocratic factions who actually dominate Iran.

The Norwegian National Broadcasting is among the few networks still having journalists in Teheran. They are saying the same thing, so I guess your acquaintance know what she's talking about. It's probably a bit of this and a bit of that.

The Iranian leadership is trying to blame the West in general and USA in particular for the current unrest, but this time it seems the US is doing all the right things. It will be very interesting to see how it turns out.

quote:

Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Hindsight 20/20 indeed. And in this we can also see that the US has a tendency to often act "over the top" due to nationwide parania in face of a percieved thread. Most situations were not as dire (or fueled by SU agresion)as they appeared in the decades after Stalin's death.

Also, it can actually be said that most of the SUs actions and agressions, when they appeared, were more motivated by fear of an impending US attack then by their own ambitions in general. The SU was proably even more paranoid then the US. Which makes sense when listening to the US rethorics at that time, and considering the West already has been involved in war with the SU after the 1917 revolution in the years 1920/21, a fact often ignored by western history. Add to that the german surprise attack in 1941 ét voila....major psychological complex achieved.

Btw, american companies have been involved around the world long before even the second world war. The US also had their own political gambles in the Americas, the Spanish-American (this one is especially interesting for the darker sides in power politics)and the Mexican–American War war, heck, the US Navy has even been active against the Barbary States in the Mediterranean, not to forget WWI. I really do not buy the naive newcomer role you make the US appear to be after world war 2.

..... With all due respect, Russia/USSR has historically been an expansionist power. Imperial Russia militarily successively seized a string of islamic states along its southern borders in the 19th century and even actively contested with the British for Afghanistan. At the turn of the 20th century it had penetrated into Manchuria and Korea. In 1920 it invaded Poland. In 1939 it invaded Poland again. In 1940, it seized Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and invaded Finland. After WW2 it turned East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria into Soviet-controlled puppet states and held them for 45 years. In 1948 it backed a communist attempt to seize Greece by armed force. In 1979 it invaded Afghanistan. This account omits all the sub-rosa activities of the USSR supporting overthrow of established government by armed revolution across the the globe [it always amazed me how, from the Soviet point of view, so many governments around the world were guilty of intolerable oppression of their people].

I'm not sure that all this can be described simply as a function of paranoia.

quote:

Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Unluckily that does not much of a difference for the inhabitents of these countries that got a victim of the cold war struggle. Look at the world like an old fashioned class system. The peasants will revolt eventually after the kings and princes stepped on their toes for too long a time.

..... No question that when the elephants fight, the grass is trampled.

quote:

Btw, I didnt forget our little PM discussion, just didn't find the time to answer yet in detail. The week end should solve that inconvinience.

..... Excellent.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

quote:

Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Hindsight 20/20 indeed. And in this we can also see that the US has a tendency to often act "over the top" due to nationwide parania in face of a percieved thread. Most situations were not as dire (or fueled by SU agresion)as they appeared in the decades after Stalin's death.

Also, it can actually be said that most of the SUs actions and agressions, when they appeared, were more motivated by fear of an impending US attack then by their own ambitions in general. The SU was proably even more paranoid then the US. Which makes sense when listening to the US rethorics at that time, and considering the West already has been involved in war with the SU after the 1917 revolution in the years 1920/21, a fact often ignored by western history. Add to that the german surprise attack in 1941 ét voila....major psychological complex achieved.

Btw, american companies have been involved around the world long before even the second world war. The US also had their own political gambles in the Americas, the Spanish-American (this one is especially interesting for the darker sides in power politics)and the Mexican–American War war, heck, the US Navy has even been active against the Barbary States in the Mediterranean, not to forget WWI. I really do not buy the naive newcomer role you make the US appear to be after world war 2.

..... With all due respect, Russia/USSR has historically been an expansionist power. Imperial Russia militarily successively seized a string of islamic states along its southern borders in the 19th century and even actively contested with the British for Afghanistan. At the turn of the 20th century it had penetrated into Manchuria and Korea. In 1920 it invaded Poland. In 1939 it invaded Poland again. In 1940, it seized Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and invaded Finland. After WW2 it turned East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria into Soviet-controlled puppet states and held them for 45 years. In 1948 it backed a communist attempt to seize Greece by armed force. In 1979 it invaded Afghanistan. This account omits all the sub-rosa activities of the USSR supporting overthrow of established government by armed revolution across the the globe [it always amazed me how, from the Soviet point of view, so many governments around the world were guilty of intolerable oppression of their people].

I'm not sure that all this be described simply as a function of paranoia.

No, you are certainly right, Russia is no angel, not at all. That's one reason why I said "after Stalin's death". After this time period, however, there was not so much difference in US and SU power politics around the globe.

I should add, on a purely personal level, I am mighty glad the US "won" despite all the (and more often rightful then not) critique thrown at it nowadays.