War with the US & Israel

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
As to sponsoring terror…the question is not so much has the US sponsored terror, but when did it stop? You can go back to the turn of the previous century, when Mark Twain railed against the terror the US visited upon the Filipino nationalists, having conveniently forgotten a promise of freedom and sovereignty. We have just recently seen revealed accounts of the massacre of thousands of S Korean leftists, with the tacit complicity of the US.

These names are largely forgotten…Trujillo, Batista, Pinochet, Uguarte. They waded in the blood of the innocent, with our consent. But, of course, they were anti-Communist, so perhaps the charge of terror is misplaced for men so nobly motivated. Yes, that must be it, terror is only when it upsets an agreeable status quo. Insurgents and rebels use terrorism, it doesn’t apply to men who seek…law and order.

The Iranians see the terrorist they support as freedom fighters, and they have a point, they have the same point we had when we supported the Contras against the Sandanistas. One mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. These things are never so cut and dried as we would like to pretend, but we pretend anyway. And we are stunned that others will not pretend with us, how can it be that we are not seen to be as noble as we know that we are? Have we not always stood for freedom and justice, have we not always stood for the fearful and the oppressed against tyranny?

Perhaps the simpler question is: have we ever?
[/QUOTE]

Probably not outside of the Revolutionary War (it’s in our history and revered, dammit, why is revolution only good for us?), the war of 1812 and WWII.
You have a good point, though, and it does bear out Der Trihs’ line of thinking in that we have always been a conquestiong nation that has “conveniently forgotten” treaties, agreements and such. American Indians, Chinese, Irish, African Americans, other non-whites or conformists all bore the brunt of the rise of our nation.

So as you say, it’s no surprise that the Iranians act in turn nationalistic, or that they would view us with suspicion and fear, as we view them.

I suppose that since the fact that guerrilla warfare has proven to be a valid method against superior-sized and equipped militaries gets coupled with the modern era of biological/chemical/nuclear weapons that the stakes are so much higher now for so many more people and countries, hence the worry and desire for pre-emption. And in light of 9/11 and 7/7 and all.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Ah, yes, just like we wouldn’t attack Iraq unless we had real evidence for WMDs.
[/QUOTE]

I know it was easy to miss and all, but there was that little matter of the invasion of Kuwait, defeat of their army in the field, cease fire terms and all those UN resolution thingies, not to mention the whole no-fly-zone stuff. Other than all that, yeah…Iran is exactly like Iraq. Guess we just flipped a coin, ehe?

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Don’t be silly. Bush was follwing the plans of his PNAC neocons, and the conquest of Iran was part of those plans. Nor do we need a reason, any more than we needed a reason to invade Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

Guess I’m just in my silly phase.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, but imposing the Shah on them was.
[/QUOTE]

We didn’t impose the Shah on Iran, we supported him during a fairly complex situation. Was it the right thing to do? It’s debatable. But it wasn’t an attack by any stretch of the imagination.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
My, I’m sure all the people he killed with our money and our poison gas would find it comforting that he didn’t officially do it for us.
[/QUOTE]

As I said, it’s not like he wouldn’t have launched his war anyway. And the bulk of the deaths on both sides came from the static nature that the war devolved into…almost like a WWI static battlefield that dragged on for years.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Of course they are attacking us. We are their enemies, and have relentlessly persecuted them, and will continue to do so until they get nukes they can use to get us to back down. Do you expect them to just sit there and take it ?
[/QUOTE]

I expect them to join the international community of nations and not be an outlaw state. Their own actions predicate the response they get from the US…oh, and the rest of the international community as well. It’s not like the US is the one lone voice decrying Iran’s actions.

BTW, do you find it ironic that you are cool with them attacking us, but that you decry the converse, even by proxy? If you don’t, I’ll tell you Der…I do.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
As for Israel, that’s not our problem
[/QUOTE]

They are an ally. To a certain extent, as with NATO and many other countries (say, like South Korea where we actually have stationed troops for over 50 years), their problems are ours as well.

-XT

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I know it was easy to miss and all, but there was that little matter of the invasion of Kuwait, defeat of their army in the field, cease fire terms and all those UN resolution thingies, not to mention the whole no-fly-zone stuff. Other than all that, yeah…Iran is exactly like Iraq. Guess we just flipped a coin, ehe?
[/quote]
No; that happened before Bush and his neocon puppets got into power.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
We didn’t impose the Shah on Iran, we supported him during a fairly complex situation. Was it the right thing to do? It’s debatable. But it wasn’t an attack by any stretch of the imagination.
[/quote]
Most of of the people we’ve oppressed, tortured and killed with our puppets and proxies don’t care about such distinctions.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I expect them to join the international community of nations and not be an outlaw state. Their own actions predicate the response they get from the US…oh, and the rest of the international community as well. It’s not like the US is the one lone voice decrying Iran’s actions.
[/quote]
Yeah, sure. They should act like good little victims so we can mass murder them like we did the Iraqis.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
BTW, do you find it ironic that you are cool with them attacking us, but that you decry the converse, even by proxy?
[/quote]
Not really. We are the ones who won’t stop screwing around with the lives of millions. We are the ones who started our feud with them.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
They are an ally. To a certain extent, as with NATO and many other countries (say, like South Korea where we actually have stationed troops for over 50 years), their problems are ours as well.
[/QUOTE]
Israel can look out for itself.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I know it was easy to miss and all, but there was that little matter of the invasion of Kuwait, defeat of their army in the field, cease fire terms and all those UN resolution thingies, not to mention the whole no-fly-zone stuff. Other than all that, yeah…Iran is exactly like Iraq. Guess we just flipped a coin, ehe?

Guess I’m just in my silly phase.

We didn’t impose the Shah on Iran, we supported him during a fairly complex situation. Was it the right thing to do? It’s debatable. But it wasn’t an attack by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said, it’s not like he wouldn’t have launched his war anyway. And the bulk of the deaths on both sides came from the static nature that the war devolved into…almost like a WWI static battlefield that dragged on for years.

I expect them to join the international community of nations and not be an outlaw state. Their own actions predicate the response they get from the US…oh, and the rest of the international community as well. It’s not like the US is the one lone voice decrying Iran’s actions.

BTW, do you find it ironic that you are cool with them attacking us, but that you decry the converse, even by proxy? If you don’t, I’ll tell you Der…I do.

They are an ally. To a certain extent, as with NATO and many other countries (say, like South Korea where we actually have stationed troops for over 50 years), their problems are ours as well.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Nice post, XT. Thanks for managing to sum up pretty much how I feel on this matter in a way that didn’t require my worthy of contempt, clarity-lacking style.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No; that happened before Bush and his neocon puppets got into power.
[/QUOTE]

History happened before Bush and his ‘neocon puppets got into power’? I fail to see whatever point you were trying to make with this. Could you elaborate?

In case you didn’t get my point, the reason we invaded Iraq is because of our history with Iraq. The war in Kuwait. The cease fire agreements. UN resolutions. No-fly-zones. Inspections. Saddam. All that jazz. We did not have a similar history with Iran. Invasion of Iran was never in the cards except for left wing CTers. Hell, invasion of Iraq was probably not in the cards, at least not during Bush II’s administration, but for the 9/11 attacks that gave him a window of opportunity to do so.

Yeah…I know already. You don’t agree. We would have invaded Iraq come hell or high water, regardless of Bush being a non-entity domestic policy president…correction, a WEAK non-entity domestic policy president.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Most of of the people we’ve oppressed, tortured and killed with our puppets and proxies don’t care about such distinctions.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, they probably don’t at that. I imagine none of the millions of people oppressed, tortured, etc etc throughout the last century by the various world powers were jumping for joy either. At a guess, the folks killed by Iranian proxies probably aren’t to happy either.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yeah, sure. They should act like good little victims so we can mass murder them like we did the Iraqis.
[/QUOTE]

No point in trying to reach you on this, but just for drill…if we haven’t killed any of them when they are acting badly on the world stage, why in the name of the gods would we kill them if they straightened up and started flying right?? Your assertion is ludicrous…but then, you probably knew that already.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not really. We are the ones who won’t stop screwing around with the lives of millions. We are the ones who started our feud with them.
[/QUOTE]

I know…all the worlds evil can be laid directly at our feet. The US…mostest evilahist nation evah!

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Israel can look out for itself.
[/QUOTE]

So can South Korea, NATO, Japan, etc etc. What’s your point? That because they can look out for themselves we should not honor our treaty obligations to them? Let em sink or swim on their own? Is this just for Israel or for those others too?

-XT

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No; that happened before Bush and his neocon puppets got into power.
[/QUOTE]

This is a monster of a handwave, here. So they are allowed to remember history and we aren’t?
:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Israel can look out for itself.
[/QUOTE]

That I can get behind to a degree. We funnel so many arms and money into Israel due to political/religious/shining democracy-on-the-hill reasons that nothing short of a serious threat to their existence should trigger a major response on our part.

Not that I’m anti-Israel. They have an equal amount of right to exist as any other nation on Earth, but they are certainly in a unique situation geographically and history-wise.

Not to mention that they should be badass enough to take care of Iran in the event of hostilities on their own, without our direct intervention. They have the tools, we sold them to them, and they’ve developed many tactical, intelligence and technological advancements to what we do militarily.

I hope Israel doesn’t panic and attack Iran, unless there is CLEAR evidence that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons and doesn’t bend under international pressure to abscond of them (how long does diplomacy take, anyway? What’s the going rate for countries to wait before they attack?).

Iran is clearly a threat to Israel. Iran clearly perceives Israel as a threat to them, but whether or not that perception is solely comprised of an Iranian perception that it would be war by proxy with the US is unknown. Maybe they just hate Israel that much and can’t bear it’s existence and control over holy Islamic sites, as well as the Palestinian angle.

Edit: Ah, noticed Xtisme beat me on the "our history with Iraq vis a vis Iran thingie.
Let’s hope that diplomacy wins the day on this one. I am sick of war.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

'cept with groundhogs of course. Groundhogs got it coming.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
History happened before Bush and his ‘neocon puppets got into power’? I fail to see whatever point you were trying to make with this. Could you elaborate?
[/quote]
The Project For A New American Century neocons tried to convince Bush Senior to go along with their plans; he wasn’t dumb enough to try to occupy Iraq. Bush Junior was.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
In case you didn’t get my point, the reason we invaded Iraq is because of our history with Iraq.
[/quote]
No. We invaded because that was part of the PNAC agenda.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Nope, they probably don’t at that. I imagine none of the millions of people oppressed, tortured, etc etc throughout the last century by the various world powers were jumping for joy either.
[/QUOTE]
And, of course, you ignore the whole point that your attempts to wipe our hands free of responsibility for supporting Saddam don’t impress anyone but you and your fellow apologists.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
No point in trying to reach you on this, but just for drill…if we haven’t killed any of them when they are acting badly on the world stage, why in the name of the gods would we kill them if they straightened up and started flying right??
[/quote]
Because we don’t care how they act. This is about American imperialism and our feud with Iran, not how Iran acts. We’ll attack when we can; we’d have invaded under Bush if we hadn’t gotten bogged down in Iraq. What they do doesn’t matter.

And we have killed quite a few of them.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I know…all the worlds evil can be laid directly at our feet. The US…mostest evilahist nation evah!
[/quote]
I never said that, not that I expect you to stop distorting what I say.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
So can South Korea, NATO, Japan, etc etc. What’s your point? That because they can look out for themselves we should not honor our treaty obligations to them? Let em sink or swim on their own? Is this just for Israel or for those others too?
[/QUOTE]
We shouldn’t warp our foreign policy and kill thousands or millions to benefit one small, not very useful ally.

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
This is a monster of a handwave, here. So they are allowed to remember history and we aren’t?
[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with history; we attacked now because people who wanted to attack got into power. Sadism, ambition, greed and ideology motivated us, not history.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

So Der Trihs, you are claiming no prior history of conflict with Iraq? Really?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
So Der Trihs, you are claiming no prior history of conflict with Iraq? Really?
[/QUOTE]
I said no such thing. I said that we didn’t attack because of any such history; anything Iraq did or didn’t do wouldn’t and didn’t affect our intention to attack.

[tagos]

To whichever no-nothing that claimed the US had nothing to do with the Shah, although it is such common knowledge I can’t understand how anyone so unbelievably (or more probably, willfully) ill-informed can have the gall to participate in this thread.

We turned a relatively powerless constitutional monarch in a democratic system into a monster and let him loose on his own people. Just like we did all over the world from Chile to Indonesia (where the CIA named name for the death squads).

Kermit Roosevelt

Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt, Jr. (February 16, 1916 – June 8, 2000), was the grandson of American president Theodore Roosevelt. He was also the mastermind of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Operation Ajax, which orchestrated the coup against Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, to Iran’s Peacock Throne in August 1953.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was persuaded by anti-communist arguments that there was potential for Iran’s Communist Tudeh Party to capitalize on political instability and assume power, aligning Iran and its immense oil resources with the Soviet bloc. Coup plans which had stalled under Truman were revived by an eager intelligence corps, with powerful aid from the brothers John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State) and Allen Welsh Dulles (Director of Central Intelligence), after Eisenhower’s inauguration in 1953.[2]

On June 19, 1953, Roosevelt slipped across the border under his CIA cover as “James Lockridge.” He was put up in the capital, Tehran, in a place rented by British intelligence. As Mr. Lockridge, he became a regular at the Turkish Embassy where he played tennis. No one suspected that “Mr. Lockridge” was the grandson of the 26th US President but he came close to blowing his cover. When playing tennis and making some frustrating mistake he would cry out, “Oh Roosevelt!” Puzzled by this, his friends asked him about this interesting way of expressing his annoyance with his game. He explained that as loyal member of the Republican Party back in the states, that every Republican had nothing but scorn and hatred for Franklin D. Roosevelt and that he despised the man so much that he took to using FDR’s name as a curse.{cite:Roosevelt, Jr. Kermit Countercoup, the Stuggle for Control of Iran McGraw Hill/New York, 1979}

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt Jr., the CIA and British intelligence funded and led a coup d’etat to overthrow Prime Minister with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah through Operation Ajax. [3] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans. Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup initially failed and the Shah fled Iran. After a brief exile in Italy, however, the Shah was brought back again, this time through a second coup which was successful.

In his book All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, The New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer reported[2] that the CIA ordered Roosevelt to leave Iran. Roosevelt ignored the order and, instead organized a second coup, this one successful. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and placed in solitary confinement for three years in military prison, followed by house arrest for life. Zahedi was installed to succeed prime minister Mossadegh.

Operation Ajax

As a condition of restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the U.S. required that the AIOC’s oil monopoly lapse. Five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and French Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were designated to operate in the country alongside AIOC after a successful coup.

In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force in case the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of any chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly “Top Secret” documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.

The leader of Operation Ajax was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA officer, and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. While formal leadership was vested in Kermit Roosevelt, the project was designed and executed by Donald Wilber, a career CIA agent and acclaimed author of books on Iran, Afghanistan and Ceylon.

The CIA operation centered around having the increasingly impotent Shah dismiss the powerful Prime Minister Mosaddeq and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi with the assistance of Colonel Abbas Farzanegan, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans after careful examination for his likeliness to be anti-Soviet.

The BBC spearheaded Britain’s propaganda campaign, broadcasting the code word to start the coup.[1]

Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup d’état briefly faltered, and the Shah fled Iran. After a short exile in Italy, however, the Shah was brought back again, this time through follow-up CIA operations, which were successful. Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mosaddeq. The deposed Mosaddeq was arrested, given what some have alleged to have been a show trial, and condemned to death. The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.

In 2000, The New York Times made partial publication of a leaked CIA document titled, “Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mosaddeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953.” This document describes the planning and execution conducted by the American and British governments. The New York Times published this critical document with the names censored. The New York Times also limited its publication to scanned image (bitmap) format, rather than machine-readable text. This document was eventually published properly – in text form, and fully unexpurgated. The complete CIA document is now web published. The word ‘blowback’ appeared for the very first time in this document.

So yes, the British and the USA, are entirely responsible for what happened in Iran. But those of paying cursory attention to the 20th century knew that. They are entirely responsible for Iranian fundamentalism.

And in other news, Franco still dead and the Nazi’s were responsible for the Holocaust.

Blowback is a bitch and any attempt to claim moral superiority for the West by any measure, particularly body counts, is preposterous.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
2. The Western economy is very weak. Perhaps on the edge of a depression. Our little push could weaken the West out of all proportion of our sacrifice.
[/QUOTE]

The American economy is very weak; Europe, not so much. Our economies are closely tied but not in lockstep. Remember, the Great Depression hit America just as Europe was recovering from it.

[XT]

[QUOTE=tagos]
To whichever no-nothing that claimed the US had nothing to do with the Shah, although it is such common knowledge I can’t understand how anyone so unbelievably (or more probably, willfully) ill-informed can have the gall to participate in this thread.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have a post number for someone supposedly saying this? Because I can’t find it. What I said (as I assume this screed was directed at me) was that we didn’t impose the Shah on Iran…and that it was a fairly complex situation (which frankly I didn’t want to go into in detail at 10pm at night…especially since it seemed a hijack to me). FTR, I’m quite informed about the history of Iran, the Shah, and both Europe’s (specifically the Brits) and the US role in said history. But thanks for the fine Wiki link…though personally I would have used the one on the history of Iran, the sections Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979), World War II, and United States and the Shah. The next section, Prelude to the Islamic Revolution is also quite interesting, though not relevant to the question at hand.

Now, if you are talking about someone else who posted this, then provide the post number. Otherwise, please stop building strawmen, ehe?

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
What I said (as I assume this screed was directed at me) was that we didn’t impose the Shah on Iran…
[/QUOTE]

Not exactly. He inherited the throne, he was a constitutional monarch, and Operation Ajax restored him to absolute power.

[sqweels]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Do you have an independent cite for that? Not that I doubt it, but would like to see some independent conformation.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s the fixed link to the article by Seth Colter Walls:

Is Iran Rational?

Vali Nasr, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The Shia Revival, observes that all these senior figures are “old guys, and you don’t get to be old by being suicidal.” He rejects the idea that Iran’s Shiite theology, which is predicated on the return of a “hidden imam” who will kick-start end times, determines the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy any more than the eschatology of “rapture” Christianity does in America. (When Ahmadinejad recently started invoking the coming of the “hidden imam” to bolster flagging national sentiment due to a poor economy, religious authorities directed him to stop doing so and instead focus on the country’s problems.)
…
Nasr believes the failure of Iran’s moderate conservatives and liberal reformists to get traction with the Bush administration created the opportunity for Ahmadinejad to rise to the presidency in the first place. “In the context of Iranian foreign policy, Ahmadinjead’s election was the consequence of the failure of more moderate or pragmatic factions in Iran to build their cooperation with the U.S. over Afghanistan into anything beyond being rebuffed over talks,”

[XT]

Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq deposed the Shah and was later in tern deposed (in a coup) due to CIA (and British) activity. As I said, it was a complex situation…and messy. Here is Wiki’s take on it (since it seems more discussion is needed on this subject):

Initially there were hopes that post-occupation Iran could become a constitutional monarchy. The new, young Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi initially took a very hands-off role in government, and allowed parliament to hold a lot of power. Some elections were held in the first shaky years, although they remained mired in corruption. Parliament became chronically unstable, and from the 1947 to 1951 period Iran saw the rise and fall of six different prime ministers.

In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq received the vote required from the parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry, in a situation known as the Abadan Crisis. Despite British pressure, including an economic blockade, the nationalization continued. Mossadegh was briefly removed from power in 1952 but was quickly re-appointed by the shah, due to an overwhelming majority in parliament supporting him, and he, in turn, forced the Shah into a brief exile in August 1953. A military coup headed by his former minister of the Interior and retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, with the active support of the intelligence services of the British (MI6) and US (CIA) governments - including mass propaganda leaflet dropping (slogans such as; “Up with Communism, Down with Ala” and “Down with Islam, up with Communism” – designed specifically to turn the population against Mossadegh, as well as the agents of CIA and MI6 (dressed as Mossadegh supporters) spurting machine guns into crowds[citation needed] (known as Operation Ajax), forced Mossadegh from office on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested and tried for treason by an un-official military tribunal, (Mossadegh was imprisoned and his foreign minister, Hossein Fatemi, executed) while Zahedi succeeded him as prime minister, and suppressed opposition to the Shah, specifically the National Front and Communist Tudeh Party.

n return for the US support the Shah agreed, in 1954, to allow an international consortium of British (40% of shares), American (40%), French (6%), and Dutch (14%) companies to run the Iranian oil facilities for the next 25 years. The international consortium agreed to a fifty-fifty split of profits with Iran but would not allow Iran to audit their accounts to confirm the consortium was reporting profits properly, nor would they allow Iran to have members on their board of directors. There was a return to stability in the late 1950s and the 1960s. In 1957 martial law was ended after 16 years and Iran became closer to the West, joining the Baghdad Pact and receiving military and economic aid from the US. The Iranian government began a broad program of reforms to modernize the country, notably changing the quasi-feudal land system.

We (i.e. the US) didn’t ‘impose’ the Shah on Iran…it’s unclear at that time exactly who should have been in charge, with both sides (well, more than two actually) grabbing for power. If anyone ‘imposed’ the Shah (dynasty) on Iran it was the Europeans, specifically the British…though in fact the dynasty was founded in a coup from the older ruling family (Qajar). Again from Wiki:

In 1921, Reza Khan, an officer in Iran’s only military force, the Persian Cossack Brigade, used his troops to support a successful coup against the government of the Qajar dynasty. Within four years he had established himself as the most powerful person in the country by suppressing rebellions and establishing order. In 1925, a specially convened assembly deposed Ahmad Shah Qajar, the last ruler of the Qajar dynasty, and named Reza Khan, who earlier had adopted the surname Pahlavi, as the new shah.

Reza Shah had ambitious plans for modernizing Iran. These plans included developing large-scale industries, implementing major infrastructure projects, building a cross-country railroad system, establishing a national public education system, reforming the judiciary, and improving health care. He believed a strong, centralized government managed by educated personnel could carry out his plans.
Persia on the eve of Reza Khan’s coup
Persia on the eve of Reza Khan’s coup

He sent hundreds of Iranians, including his son, to Europe for training. During 16 years from 1925 to 1941, Reza Shah’s numerous development projects transformed Iran into an urbanized country. Public education progressed rapidly, and new social classes were formed. A professional middle class and an industrial working class had emerged.

By the mid-1930s Reza Shah’s dictatorial style of rule caused dissatisfaction among some groups, particularly the clergy, which was opposed to his reforms. In 1935 Reza Pahlavi issued a decree asking foreign delegates to use the term Iran in formal correspondence, in accordance with the fact that “Persia” was a term used by Western peoples for the country called “Iran” in Persian. After some scholars protested, his successor, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, announced in 1959 that both Persia and Iran were acceptable and could be used interchangeably.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi replaced his father on the throne on September 16, 1941. He wanted to continue the reform policies of his father, but a contest for control of the government soon erupted between the shah and an older professional politician, the nationalistic Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Despite his vow to act as a constitutional monarch who would defer to the power of the parliamentary government, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi increasingly involved himself in governmental affairs. He concentrated on reviving the army and ensuring that it would remain under royal control as the monarchy’s main power base. In 1949 an assassination attempt on the Shah, attributed to the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, resulted in the banning of that party and the expansion of the Shah’s constitutional powers.

In 1951, the Majlis named Mohammad Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12, who shortly after nationalized the British-owned oil industry (see Abadan Crisis). Mossadegh was opposed by the Shah who feared a resulting oil embargo imposed by the west would leave Iran in economical ruin. The Shah fled Iran but returned when the United Kingdom and United States staged a coup against Mossadegh in August 1953 (see Operation Ajax). Mossadegh was then arrested by pro-Shah army forces.

-XT

[sqweels]

Here’s the Wikipedia article analyzing Ahmadinejad’s “wipe Israel from the map” speech: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia

“..it is hard to argue that, from Israel’s point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.”

The same idiom in his speech on December 13, 2006 was translated as “wiped out” by Reuters:
“Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.”

Shiraz Dossa, an Ugandan-born professor of Political Science at St. Francis University in Nova Scotia, Canada who presented a paper at a conference in Iran, defended Ahmadinejad:
“Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—“wipe Israel off the map”—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.”

President Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted. “There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want.”

Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you… there won’t be any war in the future,” both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.

And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn’t mean that there are objections against the Jewish”. He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country’s parliament.

[XT]

Well…that’s good, ehe? He is just wishing that Israel was gone, or is confident that they will collapse on their own. Nothing wrong with either of those (ETA: From HIS perspective of course).

I am curious though…why be evasive about their nuclear program? There seems plenty of incentive for them to open up their programs to full international inspections to further allay everyone’s (unfounded) fears.

Also…why develop (proscribed) missile technology that happens to have the range to reach Israel? And why demonstrate this capability in such an open, though not to say threatening (it’s a wish after all) way? Essentially those missiles are worthless without some kind of area of effect payload (like, say a nuke, or maybe chemical or biological payload)…they are simply to inaccurate to hit anything smaller than a city. And range wise (2000km IIRC), they seem to be made with a very specific purpose in mind.

Sure, one could say that they are to protect themselves from Israel (wouldn’t be much good protecting themselves from the evil US)…but that seems like a catch 22 situation. Israel is only a threat to Iran because of Iran’s (misunderstood) actions…such as the evasiveness about their nuclear program, development of their missile technology (and that whole Hamas thing). Chicken and the egg…which came first, the threat or the ‘defense’?

Anyway, since I don’t personally speak Farsi (I assume it was in Farsi…I don’t even know that much), I’ll take Wiki’s word for the mis-translation. Thanks for the cite there…I had not heard that interpretation of his speech before and it does give an interesting light to things.

-XT

[Jackmannii]

[QUOTE=Frank]
Despite the best efforts of Ahmadinejad to make it appear so, they’re not all complete idiots in Teheran.
[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. Bluff, threats and evasion are a smart policy for any Mideast country vis-a-vis the U.S. and Israel.

It’s been proven successful time and again, as Saddam could tell you if he wasn’t busy decomposing.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
No, not at all. Bluff, threats and evasion are a smart policy for any Mideast country vis-a-vis the U.S. and Israel.

It’s been proven successful time and again, as Saddam could tell you if he wasn’t busy decomposing.
[/QUOTE]
There wasn’t any strategy that could’ve kept Iraq from being laid waste. The only thing that would’ve stopped us is Iraq suddenly acquiring nukes, and he didn’t have the ability.