Hello Everyone!
Here are the readings that are due for week 2:
Blum, William. Killing Hope. PAGES 63-72 ONLY (Bottom of 63).
“Mossadegh Saved the Shah"
And OPTIONAL: Iran in the News:
Iran's Oil Gambit
Remember, we don't need summaries, we want to hear your thoughts and opinions (You can keep it as short as 2-3 sentences, or go longer if you want!)
What surprised you? What interested you? What made you angry?
See you in class! If you have questions, email us: irandecal@gmail.com
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Overthrowing an elected (and popular) prime minister by lying isn't good. I think in order to understand US-Iranian relations in today's world, it is important to recognize that this is at the roots of Iranian's perception of America. When Santorum is talking about Iran in the GOP debates this is not something that most Americans consider.
ReplyDeleteI have a question about "Killing Hope," which is that whether if the U.S.'s involvement was caused more by oil or more by Red Scare. This is because during that time the U.S. government and society had serious concerns regarding the threat of the spread of communism, and that Eisenhower would rather not be blamed for losing Iran like Truman was for losing China. The fact that the Nationalist Chinese army never 'owned' China was never relevant, which means if Eisenhower ever 'lose' Iran, whether it was his fault or not would also not be relevant. This, coupled with the heightening of McCarthyism around that time would contribute to the U.S. government's overreaction against any threats such threats. Vietnam was one: the fact that the Vietnamese history made it unable to be the pawns of China or Russia never mattered when the U.S. got involved. All the U.S. saw in Vietnam, and I think in Iran, was that there is communism, and communism has to be eliminated. Therefore, although Roosevelt and American oil companies did get benefits from taking over Iran, I wonder whether the U.S.'s motive was more focused on the oil or more on the threat of communism. Either way, what the U.S. did, as described by this article, was not right.
ReplyDelete---Wenjia Xing
My question is similar to Wenjia's. It is unclear weather U.S. motives were for preventing communism or benefit in the oil industry. It seems that the original intent was for helping the British keep their oil, however then coincidentally realized that they could prevent communism if they were there. The argument of anti-communist defense may have been an effort to cover motives of financial benefits for the oil industry. Even IF the U.S.'s main motive was to defend against communism, they were allies with the new leader, Zahedi, who had cooperated with Nazis! Preventing communism by allying with a dictator's helper does not make sense!
ReplyDeleteThe reading lacked the British response from their loss of the industry. They had originally sought help from the States and in result the U.S. gained most of the industry's benefits. How did they feel about this? Iran, now, instead of profiting with the British, were just doing business with the U.S.
--Christina Edsall
I really liked the piece from "Killing Hope." I am not ignorant and know my country sticks its hands in the business of others around the world but I was shocked to the extreme at which they do so. Staging mock protests, writing fake letters, and giving under the table money all to protect your interest in the region and to aid the government and big business in the United States (Standard Oil, and Chase, etc.) was extreme. They definitely did not think about the problems that would be taken on by others down the road i.e. the Iranian people, and even the United States government today. This operation and other meddling in Iranian affairs some 50 years ago makes the poor view of the United States in the eyes of the Iranian people seem somewhat rational. While the United States was able to gain an advantageous position in the Cold War the people of Iran suffered as a result, and how could they like a country today that has done that to them in the past? HOWEVER... I must say in context, at that time, I feel I would have been in support of the exact same thing. It is easy to look at events in the hindsight and attack them as crazy but the threat of Communism to the USA and the West was a big, big deal. If you have a country with a tremendous amount of oil and power that shares a border with the Soviets, why not try and swing them in your favor through any means necessary? What if the USA and Great Britain had done nothing? What if the Soviets truly had the potential to bring Iran into their Communist empire? While the Iranian people would get what they wanted, perhaps the United States would not be around today if the Soviets controlled the oil fields of Iran and escalated their nuclear program, and spread there influence, and came close to the United States... close even where they could launch nuclear weapons, and then.... You get the point. The threat of Communism at the time was too great in my opinion, great enough to ignore the people of Iranian, and great enough to ignore human rights. So if I were in Roosevelt's position I would have done the exact same thing. This is the same reason why I can't blame Bush for Iraq. With the information on his desk and the feelings surrounding the time, the threat was too great.
ReplyDeleteWhile I admire Hoveyda's attempt to give the power back to the Iranian people for the return of the Shah and the fall of Mossadegh, I find it to be a bit of a stretch. Hoveyda's neglects to correctly weigh the interests of the U.S. and the British. The British clearly wanted to reclaim their firm grip on Iran's oil production. Also, the idea that a story about an Iranian superhero, probably told to Mossadegh as a child, had that great of an affect on him during such a huge national crisis. Politics played a greater role than an old folklore.
ReplyDeleteAva Vahdat
On reading the Man of The Year article -- It's ridiculous to feel that if printed in the present, the view and perception of the Middle East/Iran of the West/US would be nearly exactly the same. I felt the article did a good job outlining what politicians and scholars even now fail to recognize -- that Iran, as well as Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, as well as other middle eastern countries they are involved in, do not need money, goods, or a quantity of democratized politicians and brute safety by military. What is needed instead is a relationship where the US does not falsely claim on behalf of the whole world that Iran is an inferior where an intervention is "necessary". But to be honest, it's difficult when Iran's government is so ant-west, but that does not validate at all the suffocating of the Iranian government and people by means of economic sanctions, where the result will be the same crippled government at the hands of nationalized oil, this time not by the Iran's own choice.
ReplyDeleteAs for the NPR Article: It's sooooo contradictory to be opposed to the very criticism of Iran had by the Eurasia Group -- I will never understand WHY it's so frowned upon that Iran decides to protect it's sovereignty by responding to an EMBARGO on it's OWN oil?! The Article from Eurasia Group's perspective, in my opinion says, "Iran should not retaliate by closing off it's oil supplies until Europe and other countries are ready to stop buying their oil so that their economy will suffer while ours do not." Really?
-Mahdi
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the piece about Mosaddegh. I didnt know very much about the situation before, and had only heard that it was the CIA's doing, so reading an article from a different perspective was really interesting. If what was stated in the article is really the case, then it seems to be such a shame that Mosaddegh, a man who had such good intentions, was then thought of as an enemy rather than a friend to the Shah. I also found it incredibly interesting that Mossadegh chose to remain silent, and naturally respect tradition, rather than trying to capture power. I think it takes a strong person to resist taking power. That is not to say that stepping up and taking power of a situation is always a bad thing, because of course there are many times where it is needed and for the better. However, I feel as though it is a show of character to resist the ability to become such a powerful figure, especially for a person in politics, and who was practically being handed a nation by the people.
ReplyDeleteSarah
I found it really nice in that warm, cuddly feeling kind of way when I read about Mossdaegh not wanting to replace the Shah because to him, the Shah's regime was divinely appointed. Some people may denounce this method of thinking as deliberately shying away from change for the sake of needless tradition, but if you consider the logic of a nation scratching out a living under the Shah versus a nation divided by popular leaders vying for power, one can see the wisdom in Mossdaegh's decision.
ReplyDeleteIt's also important to try to distance ourselves from a naive, idealistic way of viewing the world, and thinking about why the United States made the decisions it did to install and remove certain leaders. We all know that there have been a lot of times when what we did came back to bite us in the a** -- Osama, for one example -- but we should make an effort to set aside our opinions and instead consider the decisions from the perspective of our national leaders.
The article “Mossadegh saved the Shah” brought up an interesting view point when looking at Mossadegh’s role in the re-emergence of the Shah. I found it especially interesting when the author of the article mentioned the "Rostam Syndrome" and used this to explain Mossadegh’s passive approach. I think often times people forget that culture and psychology does in fact play an important role in politics. In this Case, Mossadegh viewed the Shah as an authoritarian father and thus had no desire to overthrow him. It’s interesting to note that the author states that there were no alterior political motives, simply an idea fashioned by the Iranian culture. In response to the NPR article I think that Iran has every right to cut off those countries that threaten them with an embargo. If any other country was in the same situation I’m sure they would retaliate in much the same way to protect their own economy.
ReplyDeleteBianca Safai
I have not heard the perspective regarding Mossadegh's involvement in the coups. I dont really have enough knowledge to have an opinion on what really happened, but it seems like there were so many complicated factors involved in the revolution. The fact that Mossadegh kept to himself throughout much of the action was also interesting and actually, I find it venerable in that he seems to have thought of a bigger picture as things were happening. But maybe my understanding of that situation is limited.
ReplyDeleteThe excerpt from "Killing Hope" brought up many interesting points. It highlights how the British exploited the Iranian people. They imposed an economic blockade to get what they wanted and this reminds me of what the US is doing with the sanctions on Iran today. It was interesting to read about Mossadegh because I had never really understood the context of the situation. In addition, it really bothers me how much the international community, specifically the United States, has had an influence on Iranian politics. In the article " Mossadegh Saved the Shah", I was surprised to learn how Mossadegh did not want to ruin the Shah's legitimacy. Lastly, in regards to the NPR article, I think if Iran cuts off its oil to Europe it will mainly just be hurting its own economy and its own people in addition to ruining the international economy.
ReplyDeleteIt annoys me how much the US gets involved with Iran's business. After reading "Killing Hope," it doesn't surprise me that the Iranian government continues to ignore the US's sanctions in the present day. I'm also really glad I read this article because it helps to put the 1979 revolution, up to present day Iran, into context. I think a lot of people don't realize the role that the US and Britain played in shaping Iran, and these articles really highlight how they've meddled with Iran in the past. Also, I was shocked to read that the CIA was paying Iranian religious leaders $400 million a year! At the end of the day, I find it difficult to keep up with these politics, especially since there's probably a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.
ReplyDeleteI dont know if I should consider Mossadegh awful for not taking on a leadership role and seizing political power when he had a chance or if he's amazing because he was tempted with the opportunity so gain much power but didn't give in. Either way, that author is very emotional about the credit going to the CIA. He or she needs to relax because at the end of the day a foreign power was still bullying Iran's leaders.
ReplyDeleteIt bothers me how the US and some European countries had so much influence on the domestic and internal aspects of government in Iran. Why can't they just mind their own business? I mean I know why but I still ask the question. It also bothers me how the Shah would let people in Iran suffer from poverty and torture those who protested while he let people from other countries take advantage of the resources of Iran, like oil. Also, the part that talked about SAVAK and how the it was placed under the guidelines of US AND ISRAEL really pissed me off. Like why is how a county regulates its laws and punishes its people any of YOUR business?
ReplyDelete