In December 1977, between 6 and 9 million Iranians with a wide array of grievances took to the streets of Iran to protest the rule of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The average Iranian had become accustomed to the extravagant spending of the Shah and the fortunate few who made up his inner circle, while the rest of the country struggled to secure basic necessities. By 1979, the Iranian protests became a revolution that dethroned the unpopular American-backed Shah and ended the Pahlavi dynasty. As with many political revolutions, however, the most organized of the opposition took power; in the case of Iran, it was a group of Shiite Muslim clerics allied around a new supreme leader -- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Relations between Iran and the United States have never recovered. Minorities and secular groups within Iran who fought for enhanced freedoms became entangled in another repressive regime.
Most Americans believe it was the Revolution that initiated the mutual suspicion between the people of Iran and the United States, but this is simply not true. The U.S. played a significant role in orchestrating the 1953 coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. As acknowledged by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000, "it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
The Mosaddegh coup and years of active support for the former Shah are mere examples of a long history of failed quasi-imperialist policy. The U.S. and her western allies have for decades actively intervened in the internal affairs of foreign governments and worked to form or aid regimes that are sympathetic to our interests and in which we maintain a steady influence. But the consequence, within the very nations whose politics we manipulate, is an atmosphere of mistrust for the U.S. and the leaders whose rule we impose or support. To many Iranians, the U.S. is culpable for subduing the voice of the people within Iran not once but twice -- first through CIA involvement in the 1953 coup and then through restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty, which paralyzed all other political factions and prevented them from organizing to oppose the clerics' bid for power in 1979. These two incidents, along with the USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air flight 655 in 1988 over the Persian Gulf, which left 290 dead, have given the clerics of Iran plenty of valuable ammunition for propaganda against the United States.
Since the rise of clerical rule in Iran, the U.S. and her allies have tinkered with supporting domestic insurgencies and hostile neighbors of Iran, including Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. This was followed in the 1990s by U.S. and Israeli adoption of Martin Indyk's "Dual Containment" policy against Iran and Iraq. The policy, which called for an increase of American troops in Saudi Arabia and other revered Muslim lands, was an utter failure. It united Iran and Iraq, once sworn enemies, against the United States. The troops it placed in the Arabian Peninsula were one of Osama Bin Laden's stated reasons for the September 11th attacks. The policy was a detriment to peace and led Neoconservatives to push for an escalation in the region that eventually culminated with the invasion of Iraq and a war that is just concluding.
Politicians and clerics in Iran have become emboldened in their steadfast condemnation of the West. It was not always so. In 1997, Mohammed Khatami, by all accounts an Iranian moderate, was stunningly elected president. Mr. Khatami called for a "dialogue among cultures and civilizations," and persuaded his own antagonistic government to participate in diplomatic talks with the United States. As the Swiss ambassador to Iran informed U.S. officials in 2003, Iranian leaders at the highest level -- including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Khatami, and Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi -- approved a proposal for comprehensive discussions with the United States. But the offer was not pursued.
The United States and her allies are running out of viable options to deal with Iran. Sanctions, even when effective, are a slow process. And the isolation of Iran has only sent the regime courting strange bed fellows, including Venezuela. We cannot allow our hubris to lead us into another war in the Middle East. If Nixon could open talks with China, and Reagan with the Soviets, then why not Obama with Iran? Is it that he will not or that he cannot? And if not, why? We know the GOP will attack the president if he extends an olive branch to Iran; but they will attack him regardless, so he may as well do something of significance for the greater good of our entire civilization. Last week we commemorated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, let us remember his memorable words:
"Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies -- or else? The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."
It is time for this president to show us he has an ability to make tough decisions and be the ambassador of peace we have all expected him to be, and which he promised to be.
“A retired CIA officer and daily briefer to President George H. W. Bush, Ray McGovern, has been protesting the misrepresentation and misapplication of intelligence information since the 2003 War on Iraq. During Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show on May 4, 2006, McGovern articulated the basic rationale behind American foreign policy using a simple three letter word: O, for oil; I, for Israel; and L, for logistics. In the aftermath of the campaign in Iraq, it was apparent that these three considerations did indeed establish a false pretext for the invasion of Iraq. And now, when the U.S. is involved in a "debate" over Iran and the most effective ways to halt its "ambitions," McGovern's warnings regarding the tripartite interests of elite policymakers, at the expense of this nation and its people, ring true -- yet again. It would be judicious of the American public to consider the facts and determine whether a war against Iran, allegedly in our names, is justified.”
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/chain-reaction-how-the-media-has-misread-the-iaeas-report-iran
Also I think either all countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, or none. To try to say some can and some can't is simply hypocritical. Especially since the United States is the only country to use nuclear weapons on another country (twice)! Personally I believe in a nuclear free world.
As for the 1953 coup, a disgraceful act on our part, but you give the CIA too much credit. We could not have dislodged Mosaddegh and placed Pahlavi on the throne all by ourselves. We had help from the same Mullahs who later threw out the Shah. They were working with the CIA to get rid of Mosaddegh whom they saw as too secular and liberal (they were right). We wanted to get rid of Mosaddegh because he had thrown out British Petroleum (the Brits suckered us into thinking that Mosaddegh was a Soviet sympathizer). The Shiite Mullahs had other reasons for wanting to get rid of him.
They played us well and won in the end. They have no interest in working with us now. They feel that belligerence against the US keeps them in power.
IMO, on "Iranians", they are not what you are portraying them as, that's a very dark portryal. And also, your claim which I quoted is historically incorrect.
On the outsretched arm which immediately disappeared, Yes serious and direct negotiations without pre-conditions were promised, slogans such as "change we believe in" and specific comments towards Iran (you see, most people everywhere don't want w*rs)., and Khamenie publicly replied to that initial promise and offer in a serious and positive manner.
But right after being in office, other than a Noe-Rooz new year message directed to the Iranian people, in deeds and actions nothing changed and the sanctions and tensions has continued, andit has even increased and not decreased, ever since.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the unwise and those with personal interests, try to push people and countries into foolish and inhuman w*rs.
The million-dollar question for the author, Mr. Yousef Abukhdair, to answer is thus, how come that this Reign of Theocracy with an ideology and savage behavior derived from the medieval era, is all of the sudden interested in one of the latest technology achievements of mankind (nuclear technology) and at the same time, they seem to ignore all other scientific achievements of modern time (regardless of field be it science, social, or economy).
Also, remember that Obama extended an olive branch to Iran followed by three secret letters direct to the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. It was and is the Iranian clergy who responded and are responding with a fist.
When people post lies, they don't advance their argument.
The bombing of AL Khobar tower and killing US soldiers, bombing Lebanon prime minister, hijacking Kuwait air flight, the bombings happening now every day in Iraq, who wants to close strait of hormuz.
Iran government is pure evil, and if Obama does not take harsh actions, then the US will be making a big mistake for the second time, the first when invaded Iraq, and now will be negotiating with Iran and give them time to complete their Nuclear evil plan.
Hezbollah does get finance from Iran but that's about it, the same way that the US finances Israel. Otherwise, it's just a war between Israel and Lebanon.
Makkah was never bombed, I don't know where you pulled that out of, but it must not be a pleasant area.
The Khobar Tower bombings were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda and Saudi Shi'ites were framed for it.
The bombings in Iraq are happening because of Al-Qaeda, not Iran.
Fifth Iran’s Quds Force, Gen. Qasem Soleimani has said that Iran controls Iraq,
So pull you hand from down there, and sell Iran propaganda somewhere else not all Americans are morons.
Today, Mr. Zibgniew Brzezinski said on Morning Joe that the most important thing the US needs to do is educate it population. This is the most important factor in obtaining a strong, peaceful USA.
Nothing could be more true. It is our ignorance that enables tye neocons, the MIC and the powerful to embark on these illadvised, illbegotten, illegal wars and the creation of Frankensteins that come back to haunt us.
Iran, like every other nation that is signatory to the NPT, is entitled to enrich uranium to both 5% and 20%. To demand Iran stop enriching uranium, as a precondition to talks smacks of hypocrisy(in light of the fact Israel, Pakistan and India all actually have nuclear weapons) and shows that the US and EU are more committed to sanctions (with the underlying goal of regime change), than actually resolving the impasse.
The White House needs to start listening to the Yousef Abukhdair's of this world, if it really wants to be the champion of democracy and peace, rather than double standards and war.
I could not agree more with your observations. However, I fear the need for thoughtfull leadership is more dire. According to an analysis by New York analysts Rhodium Group using November International Energy Agency data, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has unused production capacity of approximately 3.9 bpd, but any sudden shortfall would have to be met by members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates - which have spare capacity of about 2.5 million bpd. This is almost exactly equal to Iran's current average daily exports, estimated at 2.2-2.5 million bpd. However, if all the 1.2 million bpd of Iranian crude currently shipped to Europe, Japan and Korea is replaced by increased GCC production, spare capacity would drop to 1.0 to 1.5 million bpd, historically very low levels, and well within the range where shocks or increased demand would dramatically increase the spot price. This sinario places every economy at great risk, expecally EU memebers. Apart from balancing out the regions influances, the military contracts the US has recently made with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in stopping their citizens from the pursuite of freedom. This counter balance ignores the voices of the cititzens on the streets of the gulf, and could give the US and her allies an even greater threat to their security and gobal economic stability.