Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderConstruction
So they overthrew a guy that the US and British had originally installed in office? In doing so, they deposed a guy who was popular among the people, but we thought it was strategically more attractive to put our own guy in there. I wonder why in the fuck they would be wary of the US after we've treated them so nice and never meddled in their national affairs. Of course it took the CIA two attempts since the first one was botched and the future Shah had to leave the country like a pussy and wait around until we could get shit right for the second attempt. Why in the world would they ever trust us or do anything we say? If the shoe were on the other foot, we would tell them to go fuck themselves and we would be right in doing so.
|
Your narrative is more myth than fact, undercunt:
The history of the
U.S. role in Iran’s 1953 coup may be “well known,” as the president declared in his speech, but it is not well founded. On the contrary, it
rests heavily on two related myths: that machinations by the CIA were the most important factor in Mosaddeq’s downfall and that Iran’s brief democratic interlude was spoiled primarily by American and British meddling. For decades, historians, journalists, and pundits have promoted these myths, injecting them not just into the political discourse but also into popular culture: most recently, Argo, a Hollywood thriller that won the 2013 Academy Award for Best Picture, suggested that Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution was a belated response to an injustice perpetrated by the United States a quarter century earlier. That version of events has also been promoted by Iran’s theocratic leaders, who have exploited it to stoke anti-Americanism and to obscure the fact that the clergy itself played a major role in toppling Mosaddeq.
In reality, the CIA’s impact on the events of 1953 was ultimately insignificant. Regardless of anything the United States did or did not do, Mosaddeq was bound to fall and the shah was bound to retain his throne and expand his power. Yet the
narrative of American culpability has become so entrenched that it now shapes how many Americans understand the history of U.S.-Iranian relations and influences how American leaders think about Iran. In reaching out to the Islamic Republic, the United States has cast itself as a sinner expiating its previous transgressions. This
has allowed the Iranian theocracy, which has abused history in a thousand ways, to claim the moral high ground, giving it an unearned advantage over Washington and the West, even in situations that have nothing to do with 1953 and in which Iran’s behavior is the sole cause of the conflict, such as the negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...ppened-in-iran
.
What is Iran to us?
