Nice thank you! Just finished my current read. Going to order it now actually.
Iran v US confrontation
- Thread starter 4bars
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
In my eyes the fundamental mistake here is a certain way of seperating religion and power - to assume that as soon as something is about power, it can't be truly about religion anymore. I think that assumption is false. In reality, religion and power have always intermingled, and Islamist rule no different in that regard.
Regarding the branch of Islamists that run the Khomeinist regime, I think it's quite clear that they're both genuine religious fanatics and well-schooled pragmatists - like probably all fundamentalists in history who established and maintained political power. Instrumental reason and a batshit crazy ideology (religious or secular) can go hand in hand, examples come to mind easily.
Out of necessity, the priority is of course always on day-to-day politics, but that doesn't mean theology isn't the overarching ideological guideline. If you browse Khamenei's website, or Nasrallah's public statements, they always take care to interpret these daily happenings in the light of religious teachings, as fundamentalists do. It connects the quarrels and inconsistencies of the "profane" everyday struggles to the larger picture of their interpretation of Islam.
As for the rest of your post: The actions of Western powers have of course played a massive, massive role in what has become the modern Middle East, and actions of all local actors are impossible to understand without their relationship to this reality. But in your depiction of the Islamic Revolution I also see the reductive reading of local developments through the lens of Western actions which I find quite typical for anti-imperialist interpretations. I'd like to answer that Middle Eastern societies are societies in their own right, and have always been, despite the political dominance of powerful outside influences. So when it comes to Iran, that means to also see the rise of Shia fundamentalism as a homegrown response to modernity (which is not identical with Western nation states or their foreign policy).
Finally the issue of the Iranian regime's anti-Americanism; why I think they can ideologically seperate the "American regime" from the "American nation". The post is long enough so I keep it brief - no, I don't think that seperation functions in a good way. In terms of Western equivalents, think of Evangelical religious culture conservatism meeting Soros paranoia; American elites & Zionism globally destroying family values to undermine human civilisation and suchlike. Other important aspects might be their interpretations of Islamic universalism and anti-imperialism allow for a certain flexibility towards their enemies - the separation between population and evil government/Zionist elites.)
As always, it's just my reasoning based on my certainly limited knowledge - have a go at it.
They're mutually exclusive.
Feck, I thought everyone had forgotten about that fatwa.
Good deal.
Let me know what you think. I had to read it in a political science class and it affected a lot of my views on things presidential.
Hey, hey, hey! Reagan armed the Iranians too!
My reply wasn't focused on that particular slogan. It was about the assertion that all there is to the hate towards America is the oppositon to a "particular administration". Much of what I'd answer is in the final two larger paragraphs of my post above.
There's undoubtly lots of propaganda and identitarian rallying over this issue. But you're too making the mistake of reducing the view of Iran to a negative of Western hostility. Your standpoint (at least in this post) is exclusively based on certain Western views on Iran, the rest is deduction. I can understand that as a first impulse, but it can't stop there.
I also don't say "the Iranian nation is evil". That's the kind of essentialist terminology that obscures any realistic view on the issue. I'm talking about a very real theocratic dictatorship. Iranian society is deeply divided over this issue, to say the least.
Tis true!
I think they're clearly not, but my argument would mostly be a repeat of the part you already quoted.
As for book recommendations, I started All the Shah's Men, which is mostly about 1953 and Islamic Revolution events.
Now that sounds like a good one as well
I think you are just as guilty as playing up the view of Iran as negative to the West. It just isn't like that. My girlfriend is Iranian, 90% of my social circle are Iranian or Canadian born with Iranian parents, I have these conversations with my girlfriends Iranian mother who is contemplating moving back to Tehran, and they speak regularly with their family who still live in Iran about the sentiment back home. Though the state controlled media display propaganda all round, it's simply not the case that the people despise America/Americans. You can even look to online communities where Iranians are posting from Tehran saying 'we love Americans, we are enamored with Americans and their culture here, we do not hate you it's just your government pisses us off and so we vocalise it'.
Distrusting the words of the Iranian government is fair game, but it doesn't stretch to the people and their views of the West.
Will get back to you when I've digested it. Thanks.
But I didn't say "the Iranian people" despise America or Americans. In one of the posts above I have explicitly rejected such generalizing talk:
So to be clear: I don't hold that view, and I have never expressed it on this forum. My exact argument was: There is more to hate against America than just opposition to a particular government - which is what the post I replied to claimed. The context in which I put this from the beginning was Khomeinist ideology. So I'm aiming at what "America" represents for that ideology and its followers.
And believe me, I've been enough around Iranians myself to not fall into any hysterics. The main problem seems to be that the discussion is fixated on that false premise: either you are for or against "the Iranian people". It doesn't make sense to me. In general, and even more so on an issue as complicated and contradictory as Iranian politics.
Does it matter? just like many other things, the western media would paint things as they see fit, subtly at first but over the time it create a very false propaganda. Forget Iran, they could fool half the country with their bias news (I'm looking at you Fox), imagine what they can do if they have a common enemy like Iran
But the Iranian people are the ones who shout death to America and you questioned the extend of the meaning behind it.
It's unbelievable and morbidly fascinating how a person so transparent can fool so many.
Well this is a goddamn terrifying read..
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020...ke-Iranian-General-Soleimani?detail=emaildkre
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020...ke-Iranian-General-Soleimani?detail=emaildkre
Trump is not a Politician, that's the point I am making, he doesn't see things that way!
He did get KJS to 'wind his neck in', if he comes back again to Trump's overtures then he knows NK want a deal, if they go straight to threats he knows they don't and can respond.
Yes, of course they have numerous soft targets, but that is a 'kick-back' response, what Iran really wants is to get out from under US led sanctions that is disrupting their economy, that will only happen when a) its done on Trumps terms, or b) When Trump leaves office, either by impeachment or via next election
Israel becomes the US buffer in the region. Israel with resource support from the US is quite capable of defending itself, it doesn't need US 'boots on the ground.' In the future it is likely any US presence in the region would be either via Saudi or Gulf States, again a limited commitment required from the US , certainly no 'boots on the ground', that scenario has got the US into all sorts of trouble in the past and Trump has vowed to avoid it.
Its called choosing your battles, the ones you can win! How much trouble has the US been in in the latter part of the 20th/early part of 21st century, by getting engaged in situations where it cannot win, either because there isn't the public support (home or abroad) or it is unable to use its massive military power to its full potential, because of massive 'overkill' dimensions.
Last edited:
Always something with Trump. Thought Soleimani was a Kurd.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017563777
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017563777
So Pompeo is the Abu Mahdi/Soleimani of USA.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What a start to 2020, it has only been a week FFS.
Sorry, but you're the one who's generalizing here. There is no homogeneous "Iranian people" who all do the same out of the same reasons.
There will be followers of Khomeinist state ideology among those who participate, and others who aren't and have all other kinds of reasons to do so. I'm also fairly sure there are those who reject the "Death to America" routines on government-aligned events out of their opposition to the regime. Which doesn't mean they can't be critical of the US themselves. And so on.
That kind of angle is the only reasonable basis for a discussion in my eyes.
And here I was thinking 2020 would be a chance for relative stability.
Thanks, btw.
Dunno if someone already posted this but
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I mean Kurds share a common ancestry with Iranians, including the same ancient religions, and the Kurdish language is very similar to Farsi. Soleimani is also the name of Iraqi Kurdistan’s second largest city. Trump is obviously more culturally woke than the rest of us.
There's been a civil war on my instagram in aftermath of this.
Friends from back in high school in Iran 15 odd years ago, blocking and unfollowing each other because of people's reaction. You have 3 types:
- Super pro-regime people who are of course mourning this
- Anti-regime people who believe Soleimani was solely responsible for keeping Iran safe and didn't have much role in internal suppression, they aren't mourning, but sad
- Anti-regime people who know he was the second most powerful person of the regime, Khamenei's right hand man, and orchester of how to suppress dissent (He made a joke about it 2 months ago that Iraqis don't know how to deal with protestors)....Delighted at the assassination.
Soleimani's whole life purpose was to serve the "Regime"...or as we say in Farsi "Nezam". He saw himself a soldier to Velayate-Faqih and the Revolution. It's all about "Iran-e-Eslami"...and not Iran. In this clip he himself says: "It's all about Velayate-Faqih, It's all about Islamic Republic, It's all about Islamic Regime....this is what we'll protect with our lives if someone intends to harm it...the most important thing is keeping the regime and Supreme Leader"....as you can see, he doesn't even mention the word IRAN.
Also re: Shah being a Puppet, absolute BS.... He was very much harshly criticizing UK and fractions of US in his later years...maybe that's why he had to be removed. What's a bigger risk to bigger powers: A sane, patriotic leader that focused on the development and education of his own people? Or a religious extremist that is focused on holding and warring old grudges instead of making progress on his own nation?
Khomeini promised free water, free gas, free energy, a referendum including several choices to get the sheeps of people out in support. Of course all of that was BULLSHIT. Shah was a monarch and strongman dictator (he admits it in the Britain video below when interviewer asks if he's worried people will ask for a more open gov't once their standards of living and prosperity increases), but it's not like the region is filled with Finland-like Liberal Democracies....most important thing was that he was improving the country tenfold, massively improved women's rights (something Khomeini opposed), lots of modernization and our passport was actually worth a damn. Ironically, the military equipment purchased by Shah (which he was criticized a lot for) saved Iran from being conquered by Saddam and Iraq.
Friends from back in high school in Iran 15 odd years ago, blocking and unfollowing each other because of people's reaction. You have 3 types:
- Super pro-regime people who are of course mourning this
- Anti-regime people who believe Soleimani was solely responsible for keeping Iran safe and didn't have much role in internal suppression, they aren't mourning, but sad
- Anti-regime people who know he was the second most powerful person of the regime, Khamenei's right hand man, and orchester of how to suppress dissent (He made a joke about it 2 months ago that Iraqis don't know how to deal with protestors)....Delighted at the assassination.
Soleimani's whole life purpose was to serve the "Regime"...or as we say in Farsi "Nezam". He saw himself a soldier to Velayate-Faqih and the Revolution. It's all about "Iran-e-Eslami"...and not Iran. In this clip he himself says: "It's all about Velayate-Faqih, It's all about Islamic Republic, It's all about Islamic Regime....this is what we'll protect with our lives if someone intends to harm it...the most important thing is keeping the regime and Supreme Leader"....as you can see, he doesn't even mention the word IRAN.
Also re: Shah being a Puppet, absolute BS.... He was very much harshly criticizing UK and fractions of US in his later years...maybe that's why he had to be removed. What's a bigger risk to bigger powers: A sane, patriotic leader that focused on the development and education of his own people? Or a religious extremist that is focused on holding and warring old grudges instead of making progress on his own nation?
Khomeini promised free water, free gas, free energy, a referendum including several choices to get the sheeps of people out in support. Of course all of that was BULLSHIT. Shah was a monarch and strongman dictator (he admits it in the Britain video below when interviewer asks if he's worried people will ask for a more open gov't once their standards of living and prosperity increases), but it's not like the region is filled with Finland-like Liberal Democracies....most important thing was that he was improving the country tenfold, massively improved women's rights (something Khomeini opposed), lots of modernization and our passport was actually worth a damn. Ironically, the military equipment purchased by Shah (which he was criticized a lot for) saved Iran from being conquered by Saddam and Iraq.
That takes me back to the feuds I had with friends and family during the Iraq war. Pretty much the same groups of people too. Those who supported the invasion because they were vehemently anti-Saddam, those who opposed to for opposite reasons, and those in the middle ground who despised Saddam but believed an invasion was bad news (my own personal stance).
What's the context of US involvement in Iran?
What was the reasoning of overthrowing a government?
Exactly.
Maybe another topic, but did Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's son comment anything on the Soleimani incident? I did not hear anything from him?
I often wonder how things would have turned out or have been resolved if certain events did not happen. Had the US and allies not invaded Iraq in 2003, would Saddam still be there? Would there have been an uprising?
In 1953 the direct cause was saving oil companies from nationalization. But Western intervention in Iranian politics dates back to the mid-19th century.
Interesting, but Reza Pahlavi has not spoken yet about it?