If Americans Knew What We Did to Iran, Would We Still Talk About Using Force?

Hands on buzzers, for 500 points: this democratic leader was overthrown in 1953 by a US-organized coup in retaliation for nationalizing oil resources previously controlled by the British.

Who is Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh?

If you're a little rusty on the history of U.S.-Iran relations, here's a 6-minute video review:

If more Americans knew about this history, could our leaders blather on about supporting freedom and democracy in the Middle East they way they do? Would news media take them seriously if they did so? Would American pundits be so cavalier about the idea of bombing Iran, in flagrant violation of international law? Could people make fun of Senator Barack Obama for supporting real diplomacy with Iran and get away with it?

I don't claim that it would be impossible for U.S. politicians to talk about bombing Iran if "every schoolboy knew" what the United States did in Iran in 1953. But surely it would be more difficult.

Spread the video.

Ask Congress to support the Lee bill, which would appoint a high-level U.S. representative to Iran for the purpose of reducing tensions and establishing normal diplomatic relations.

Comments

[JAMES GORMAN]

THE ONLY ONE NOBILITY in John McCain was his strong
anti-torture ideal derived from his own suffering--that
only makes his betrayal now all the more disgraceful.
He has indeed sold out his soul to the demands of the
Bush Hawk Machine--C­heney+Co.-­-and with the kind of
double-talk that would make Bill Clinton falter.
It is a marvelous betrayal just in time for the campaign so McCain can run clearly as the war candidate, not the war hero, and we are on our way to
George III--and remember what an earlier George III
TRIED to do with us: we were to be subservient to the
lords and ladies of England's new-found wealth--and
with this George III term, history repeats itself. Gorman 12

[Purple Girl]

This is th ekind of shit that caused 9/11-Political, multi National and other foreign 'leaders' pLying games in countries or thir own benefits without regard to the effects on any people of any country
MILITARY INDUSTIAL COMPLEX...­CORPORATIO­NISTS HAVE BROUGHT US (AND THE REST OF THE WORLD)TO THIS POINT IN TIME! CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, FOR THEIR PROFIT MARGIN.
I am outraged everytime i hear a Corp sponsored 'candidate' say if we pullout of the ME our soldiers will have died in vain- they set them up to die in vain, the minute we stepped into the region- all those decades ago.
We need to not only throw out an dcnvict 'public servants' past & present, but also the Corp CEO's who have been lining theri pockets- past & present. Try themeven if they've died so their names go down in history as criminals and retribution from their decendants... Start with JP Morgan, Rockefeller and work your way to the present- TRAITORS

[nefertiti]

Thank you Robert for reminding some people out there who forgot or did not know about this part in History.

[Moshe]

Americans are on the whole a great and decent people, and our government is a great form of government.

That said, bad people still get in the system, and the lust for power and money still corrupts the system, far too often.

But everytime this happens, there is hell to pay for all of us.

The U.S. needs to stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. There is a persistent history of doing this, and then it blowing up in our faces big time, in Iraq, Iran, and countless other places that the American People allowed their government to be used for selfish interests by greedy, evil people.

Democracy requires that the People pay attention to what is happening and learn from the lessons of history.

The People have to demand that their government serve the interests of the People, not allow those we elect to serve us to serve only themselves and their rich friends at our expense.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

[fumes]

congressman dr ron paul brought this to light already and was ignored. and he's the only candidate to have done so.

[messy]

Actually, they weren't. After all, they got the resources by BUYING them. Buying them. Many people think that buying something from a person of color is the same as stealing it, but that isn't actually so.

When they talk about 1953 they also should talk about 1941, when the Shah's father was overthrown. All he wanted to do was...ally himself with HITLER!!!! Should we have let them do that?

Also, the Shah was the lawful head of state at the time and was our friend. Look what happens when we hurt our friends and support our enemies? How much has Iran suffered for overthrowing the Shah? Tens of thousands of innocent people have been murdered by the Mullahs. Did they deserve it? I think not.

[RibEye]

Some of the comments here display absurd views of Iran and its history.
Mossaddeq was NO communist, he was a Nationalist and a Constitutionalist. The British were robbing Iran's oil. Anyone who sees it otherwise needs to do actual research.
People need to have a memmory longer than two weeks. Getting in bed with saddam when he invaded Iran DID help the islamic faction in Iran, it strengthed them. WAKE UP people, don't forget about that OBL guy that the CIA supported. If you refuse to aknowledge the actions in the past then the future is meaningless. This coups created the route for the islamic fundementalists. Throughout the entire red-scare islamic radicals wre supported because they were seen as another threat to Communism. Anyone who claims to want to protect us but makes excuses for our mistakes is a threat. A threat to our freedom, our integrity, our safety and the direction of this country. Otherwise you mind as well close your eyes and hand the leash around your neck to your master.
If we use force against Iran it would be the faundementalists' best wish. Because the people that hate them now have to support them.

[Elderito]

We took over from the French and British who had pretty much messed up large portions of the wolrd through their colonialism, but instead of following the desires for FDR and helping the peoples of the world toward self determination, we meddled, corrupted, and installed "our guys" all in an effort to contain communism.
Our pathological anti-communism lead us to isolate Cuba, install Pinochet, mess with most of Central American (viva Costa Rica), install the Shah, spy on Martin Luther King, bomb Hanoi, aid the Taliban, (I've missed a few I'm sure).
So what will our overreaction to Islamic Fundamentalists bring us?

[messy]

Actually, ou made some mistakes. We INSTALLED Castro, tried to isolate Pinochet, get rid of the Shah (in 1979) bomb the Taliban aid Hanoi...the only thing you got right was "viva Costa Rica."

[Scurvybro]

It was about 20 years ago when I first learned about the United States helping to overthrow Mossadegh and install the Shah. I opened this post just to see if there were any comments defending this outrage just because it was perpetrated by the United States.

Surprise, surprise. As usual, there's no shortage of jingoistic, nonsensical nitwits who cling to the view that America is unassailably moral and honorable, and that any action it takes is beyond reproach. And to suggest otherwise, of course, is merely a reflection of treason.

The equation goes something like this: Mossadegh was democratically elected. He wasn't friendly enough toward America, so we were entitled to overthrow him in favor of someone more to our liking.

Hey, it's not our fault those misguided Iranians misused their democracy. It's up to us to set them on the right path.

[OlongapoEd]

Hey, being God's Holy Nation means never having to say you're sorry.

[Socalps]

Its not that America is not entitled to protect herself from these "threats" but if you are never conscious that the steps you are taking to protect yourself is because of some other step that you took to "protect" yourself then you will be forever chasing your tail, fighting the same battles over and over again to "protect" Yourself. We talk alot about our moral standings and convictions but one look at our short history will tell you that the vast majority of our actions on the world stage are based on our narrow self interest. We are not particulary in favor of democracy, if it does not serve our interests, and freedom of choice, self-determination, etc. are reserved for us Americans. we can't deny that we have a very sharp double standard when it comes to the rest of the world, in particular the developing world. Whats good for the goose is definately not good for the gander in our eyes.

[schmuckwithearlaps]

Now I know why Ann Coulter talks about treason.
This post makes Ann look pretty damn good (her views that is). Why the fuck does anything matter other than protecting American from terrorism? Oh, no, we can't protect American from Iranian car bombs and suicide bombers because we were very naughty in 1953. Andrew Jackson was bad to Native Americans in the early nineteenth century. Is that another reason why American can't defend herself today?
I hate to see so many writers on this site live in a dream world in which their wonder boy in Iran is totally powerless no matter what he says or does, and if the mean old clerics blow us up, we deserve it anyway according to the great American left. No wonder mainstream patriotic politicians like Hillary are hated so much on this site. In November, the majority of Americans will speak loud and clear, and it will not be for surrender to terrorism.

[klmebane]

we have not been attacked or threatened by iran. the dream world is the one where the u.s. can continue using aggressive pre-emptive action and expect nothing to happen. if we keep behaving the way we have been we give people more of a reason to hate us and terrorize us. true diplomacy should always be tried first. war should be a last resort not the first thing that comes to mind!

[OlongapoEd]

But...but...but you don't understand that "terrorism" is any policy or action that the Ideologically Sound/Theologically Correct/Truly Patriotic don't like!

[pvernier]

schmuckwithearlaps,

I'll bet you are in favor of nuking the whole Middle East. Then maybe you would not be so afraid. Using your divisional speech, why is the Left so brave and the Right so afraid.

Oh wait, I am a little afraid of the Right.

[pvernier]

Wow, it would be much easier to just know nothing of history. Works for most people.

[research]

Schmuck: you are a COWARD!

You are willing to give up everything our country and our constitution stand for, as well as a good will in the world, just to make you feel a little safer!

I believe we can be safer by following our constitution and what it stands for. By doing so, we will get back the world's good will, we will even reduce the number of people the fanatics can brainwash into hating us.

You brutish and cowardly way, will actually help recruit terrorist, and thus is treasonous aid and comfort to the enemy.

Lastly, you are a fool, to give up you morals and your liberties for such false security.

Benjamin Franklin was way smarter, wiser and more successful than you and here's what he said:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[UrbanInterloper]

Thanks for the sorely-needed dose of honest historical facts, Mr. Naiman. I don't mean to be greedy, but can we have some regarding Israel and Palestine, too?

Thanks.

[Darwinman]

Let’s not make a saint of these people. In the United States the third in line to become president, the speaker of the house, is a women. The most power member of Bush’s cabinet is not only a woman, but possibly a lesbian, there is a 1/3 chance that a woman will next the president. It is naïve to suggest that women are completely equal in our society; it is idiotic to suggest that women in the US are no more equal then women in Iran. Women are not forced to cover from head to toe, or killed for being raped, or seen as mere property. These views are held by the government of Iran. In addition, it is the official policy of Iranian government to execute homosexuals; this is again a far cry from an individual murdering a homosexual. Finally, the existence of this website is proof that Americans enjoy freedom of speech; it is perhaps one of the most anti-American sites on the internet. As for the claim that protesters are “routinely” rounded up, where is the proof? In such cases said protesters where arrested for being violent, or infringing other people’s rights, again a far cry from Iran Now does any of the aforementioned warrant a war? No, the world is a different place then it was in 1950’s, and maybe the world needs to witness a genocide or human rights atrocity a million times that of the holocaust before the world acts, and before progressive liberals understand that the U.S. is not the world’s evil and that title belongs to Ayatollah, the Janjaweed, and to Hugo Chavez, until then the world will do nothing and consequently the US should do nothing as well, unfortunately the radical and so-called “progressive” forces in America will force us to wait until the 12th hour to act on the greatest threats to America (Global Warming and Islamic Terrorism) despite the ironic fact that they can both be solved with the same solution.

[klmebane]

i don't know of any progressives who are blocking legislation to help control carbon output. could you name them for me?

[blueshift]

Would the media take them seriously? Sigh. I'm afraid so.

[jbstonesfan]

It was necessary to remove Sadaam...he was a tyrant who killed many Arabs/Muslims which many who post here seem so concerned about (as long as it is Israel who kills them). The mistake was not leaving and letting them clean up the mess.

[MsLiz]

How were we supposed to get Iraq's oil if we left? Would Saddam had killed more Iraquis than we have if we left him in power?

[resonate]

No our mistake was going in with force in the first place. We could have energised the people but Sadam actually had the country running better than we do now. At least people had running water, electricity, food, etc when he was there now there is just half built or crappy built stuff we installed lying around and being picked apart. If people bothered to take history into consideration they wouldn't be hostile towards Iran. But that would require reading things and caring about humans/the world not just them selves... :o(

[OlongapoEd]

See here! What more could the Iraqis want besides the oppoprtunity to praise America and do whatever America wants?

[HDR]

And what about the rest of the tyrannies in the Middle East? Why have we not sanctioned and bombed Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Qatar, etc.? Or even Paskistan for that matter?

Besides, what does Saddam have to do with the overthrow of Iran's gov't. in '53?

[TakeSake]

Quite a bit. Both were CIA deals.

[alohaboxer]

Off point. The story is about Iran, not Iraq. Oddly enough though, it was Iran and Shiites who Saddam used bio agents on because he was afraid of their "radical islamic ideals". Kind of ironic.

[yowza1]

doubt it, jbstonesfan

[SaintZak]

I often mention this little bit of history to people and I'm always greeted by blank stares. But say, "They hate us because we love freedom" and everyone gets that.