If you have any questions or problems regarding enrollment, please let us know!
You have all been added to the listserve for the class: irandecal@lists.berkeley.edu
If you want to get in contact with us regarding enrollment or the listserve, the class email is: irandecal@gmail.com
Here are the readings for Week 1, please read the short mandatory reading, and at least one of the optional articles, then respond in one paragraph (3-4 sentences):
MANDATORY:
History of Iran: Qajar Dynasty
The Qajar Class Structure
Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution
Optional:
A view inside Iran
Op-Ed: Don't Do It Bibi
IMPORTANT: Remember, no summarizing, we want to read your thoughts and opinions. And feel free to respond to another classmate's comment!
Optional:
A view inside Iran
Op-Ed: Don't Do It Bibi
IMPORTANT: Remember, no summarizing, we want to read your thoughts and opinions. And feel free to respond to another classmate's comment!
As see in “History of Iran”, the more recent Iranian history was deeply marred by the intrusion and bullying of Western powers that tried to take control of Iran and take advantage of its resources. This deep desire from the Iranians to be independent and strong against Western aggression was a big reason that the Shah was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The new Iranian government after 1979 partially built its legitimacy by claiming the independence of Iran from Western control, and the U.S. government’s lack of understanding of the Iranians’ needs to be independent was a big contributor to the U.S.’s final loss of control in Iran. As seen in the article “Not Time to Attack Iran”, this lack of understanding and lack of care to understand Iran that presented in 1970s still exists today, as many U.S. politicians thought that the U.S. could force the Iranian government to back down from its nuclear program through intimidation and the threat of war, not knowing that the act of backing down is going to be the worst thing that the Iranian government can do as it undermines their most crucial legitimacy. The poor Iranian economy, plus the corrupted Iranian presidential election a few years back and the brutal government suppression of protestors during that time, had severely damaged the Iranian government’s legitimacy. Yet, as of now, the Iranian leaders can still claim a powerful legitimacy: they protected Iran’s sovereignty. This claim would be lost if the Iranian government is forced to back down. Therefore, although I do not agree with Ron Paul’s idea that we shouldn’t do anything, I do not think overt aggression from the U.S.’s part can help this situation either. Instead, we should empathize with the Iranian leaders, to give them a way to still claim the glory and not have to look like that they are weak while persuade them to abandon their nuclear programs. The Iranian regime right now is in big trouble because the people’s dissatisfaction with the government is growing. The Iranian leaders right now would really want to find a scapegoat to unite the country with, let’s not be that scapegoat.
ReplyDelete----Wenjia Xing
I think it's important to note the past history of the ruling system in Iran as seen in the article "History of Iran". It sheds light on the volatile ruling system that set the stage for the modern ruling system. I think with such a rough start it is almost expected that the government today would also contain traces of this unstable past. Thus being said I think the current government of this time holds a lot of power and by actually going to war they run the risk of an overthrow. If war is in fact declared I think Israel will be the main instigator, their negative feelings toward Iran can clearly be seen in the article “Don’t do it Bibi”. The American people have seen the failure of the war in Iraq which has made them less eager to jump into another one in the same manner.
ReplyDeleteBianca Safai
Kahl’s critique of Kroenig’s “Time to Attack Iran” is very thorough and clearly explained. While I agree with Kahl, I found that he didn’t emphasize enough the ridiculousness of Kroenig’s statement that the United States could “make clear that it is interested only in destroying Iran’s nuclear program, not in overthrowing the government” (7). Kahl merely scratched the surface of such a loaded allegation. Kroenig is assuming that the Iranian government will play by the rules set forth by a country that would in essence be starting an uncalled-for war based on a timeline that has been highly disputed. Kroenig may be referring to an attack on Iran as “preventative," essentially glorifying an unprovoked war, assuming that an already highly-sanctioned Iran will gladly accept the United States’ reasons for an impulsive attack.
ReplyDelete-Ava Vahdat
It was very interesting to learn about the pre-Pahlavi monarchy, the Qajars, and to learn about the achievements that came out of that era. It is also interesting to learn how Iranian history repeats itself with the coup d'etat that replaced Ahmad Shah with the Pahlavi dynasty. In addition, I enjoyed reading about the class structure and the dynamics of the Qajar era, The modern issues were very relevant and the "Christmastime" article was very relevant to me since I was in Tehran this past winter break. I was able to notice some of the things mentioned in the article and it helped me make sense of some of the experiences I had during the trip.
ReplyDelete-Samira Damavandi
In response to the more historical readings, I was really surprised by the affect both Britain and Russia had on Iran's early history. I always assumed Iran dictated their own history form Day 1, and I was totally wrong. I can't believe how much the decisions in the country were shaped by outsiders. In response to the article, "No Time to Attack Iran" I was surprised as to just how "messy" such a war, between Iran and the USA, would be. When I hear about a possible conflict between the two countries on the news I never think of the ramifications, which were essentially spilled out in the article. After reading this article I think we should seriously try and avoid conflict unless attacked first.
ReplyDeleteI think the rhetoric explaining that attacking Iran is "the only viable option" is somewhat ridiculous especially in light of recent history (cough, Iraq). If I were Iran I would WANT nuclear weapons BECAUSE the U.S.'s military logic is so scary. Pre-emptive defense neither deters war nor promotes peace. We have had nuclear capablility for almost 70 years and technology has not been at a standstill. Our weapons are stronger, better and more numerous than Iran's will ever be and they know that and equating the possession of nuclear power with attacking other countries is nothing more than fear-mongering distortion. Iran has never attacked another country in the past (unlike Israel who we allow to have nuclear weapons) and by taking aggressive measures to stop them from acquiring nuclear capability will only increase anti-American feelings and promote violence in the region.
ReplyDeleteThus, spending American tax dollars to stop Iran from getting nukes (objective being safety and peace) will do the exact opposite.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam. It seems counter-productive that America considers taking military action against Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. I feel like it should be every state's right to be able to defend themselves with the most up-to-date technology. Also, who is America to tell other countries what to do? Isn't the U.S. the only country to use nuclear weapons? I think that one of the problems Iran has with the U.S. is this mentality that the U.S. has the right to act as the world police. If we view the situation at the Iranian government's perspective, it makes sense not to comply with America's sanctions. Finally, I agree with the author's point that "Iran would face powerful incentives to escalate" in the event of a war with the America. The U.S. should really consider all the consequences of such a war before jumping into anything.
ReplyDeleteI was really surprised to hear that people in Iran these days are not as focused on changing the government anymore and than people living outside of iran give it more attention. In fact, that people inside of iran think that those who have left who seem to care so much about changing a country they no longer live in should just fix it themselves rather than call on iranians inside of iran to do it. Much like many other countries, the people are not so happy with the government but they remain inactive in changing it.
ReplyDeleteWar should be a last resort. No good can come of war. Valuable resources and lives will be lost on both sides if a war breaks out. Even if it gains the capability, Iran full well knows the danger of using nuclear weapons. If it uses its nuclear weapons, the retaliation by other nations will be absolutely brutal. The same is true of cutting off access through the Strait of Hormuz. It is more likely than not that the Iranians are using nukes and the Strait as bargaining chips in international negotiations, and all the pro-war rhetoric is disconcerting.
ReplyDeleteThe late 19th and early 20th centuries of Iranian history remind me of Japan and China during the same time. They are all trying to keep stablity while trying fend off imperialism.
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting to see the conditions to which the people decide to revolt in Iran. Looking back, it seems that the same siuations of extravagance from royalty and ignoring the needs of Iranians occured both under Naser o-Din Shah and again 1979. I money does that to people.
As for the US, I dont understand their problems with Iran. I hardly consider Iran a nuclear threat and maybe if the US would just piss off, Iran wouldnt make such a big deal. Or Why doesnt the US just teach them how to use nuclear energy and run the plants,then in return Iran wont get nuclear weapons. Then both parties are happy and we dont need to cast a war shadow on Iran as the we did in Iraq.
I guess money* (My Bad)
DeleteI wish my high school and middle school would have taught better lessons regarding world history because I learned almost nothing about Iran's history in those world history classes. I'm glad that now I was able to learn about the various time periods in Iran and the different dynasties that were in power in Iran.
ReplyDeleteI think it's stupid how some Americans think that the US should go to war with Iran because Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons; there are countries, like Israel, that already have them and have just as an unstable government as Iran does, and yet there are not talks of war with those countries. It just irritates me.
The article about the Christmas time in Iran made me wonder how the people of Iran must be facing all these outer conflicts. I feel bad for them because I know that at some point the economic pressures from the sanctions are going to have a rough impact on them.