A nation’s memory is limited, and too many things have happened in the U.S. since Kennedy’s death. Bolivia is still sore from losing its coast to Chile in 1884, because not much has happened to Bolivians afterwards.
Much indeed, but instead of being varied and fleeting, the events that followed were directly related to 1953 and served to reinforce that memory. The fact that the U.S. has steadily kept ruining the lives of Iran’s neighbors doesn’t help, either.
the events that followed were directly related to 1953
So, the Islamic Revolution was directly related to 1953? As was the Iraq-Iran war?
the U.S. has steadily kept ruining the lives of Iran’s neighbors
Let’s look at Iran’s neighbors. There’s Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which all are doing just fine. There’s Turkey, which is just fine as well. There are some former Russian republics which are a mess, but for that you have to talk to Mr.Putin. There is Afghanistan which has been a mess since the Russian invasion (or, arguably, since the British Empire’s Great Game) and while the US has certainly been involved, I don’t think you can blame it for Afghanistan being what it is. There’s Pakistan which is not the best of countries but is still managing to muddle through and even acquire nuclear weapons in the process.
So I guess all you mean is Iraq. Same Iraq which you agreed was supported by the US in “the bloody war of aggression against Iran”? But yes, you have a valid point in that the Second Iraq war was started on the pretext of preventing Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. Iran certainly took notice and, I suspect, came to the conclusion that a deterrent against a conventional US invasion would be a very useful thing to have.
I think you just undermined your own argument that Iran doesn’t want nukes :-)
So, the Islamic Revolution was directly related to 1953? As was the Iraq-Iran war?
Yes, the whole point of the revolution was to remove the U.S.-appointed monarch and reverse the pro-Western trend he had started. And then Iraq invaded Iran because it was afraid the revolution would spread.
Just one year after the revolution, Jimmy Carter proclaimed that the Persian Gulf was the U.S.’s personal playground, and no one (else) was allowed to mess with it. Bush I and Bush II acted accordingly. Even the continued goodwill toward Saudi Arabia is a cause of worry for Iran, as they’re sectarian rivals. And then there’s Israel, which is viewed as a representative of U.S. interests against Muslim populations.
The Second Iraq war was started on the pretext that Iraq already had WMDs. For Iran, having them isn’t going to stop a U.S. invasion.
That the revolution was to remove the American influence seems to me much weaker, and thus easier to prove, than the claim that it was directly related to 1953.
Why, thank you for such a devastatingly convincing argument. However I wasn’t trying to discuss Iran with you—that seems to be pretty useless—I was just pointing out that your assertion that “anyone acquainted with the facts… should come to the same conclusion” is false.
In fact, such an assertion is very common for people who are not capable of imagining how anyone could possibly hold a different view. On LW such people are called mind-killed.
What discussion is possible if “anyone acquainted with the facts… should come to the same conclusion” and people disagreeing with you “really are in [their] own delusional universe”?
That comment was simply mirroring what you said to polymathwannabe; that they must be in a different universe to disagree with you. You still have only provided lazy snark rather than substance.
A nation’s memory is limited, and too many things have happened in the U.S. since Kennedy’s death. Bolivia is still sore from losing its coast to Chile in 1884, because not much has happened to Bolivians afterwards.
Are you really arguing that not that much happened in Iran since 1953??
Much indeed, but instead of being varied and fleeting, the events that followed were directly related to 1953 and served to reinforce that memory. The fact that the U.S. has steadily kept ruining the lives of Iran’s neighbors doesn’t help, either.
So, the Islamic Revolution was directly related to 1953? As was the Iraq-Iran war?
Let’s look at Iran’s neighbors. There’s Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which all are doing just fine. There’s Turkey, which is just fine as well. There are some former Russian republics which are a mess, but for that you have to talk to Mr.Putin. There is Afghanistan which has been a mess since the Russian invasion (or, arguably, since the British Empire’s Great Game) and while the US has certainly been involved, I don’t think you can blame it for Afghanistan being what it is. There’s Pakistan which is not the best of countries but is still managing to muddle through and even acquire nuclear weapons in the process.
So I guess all you mean is Iraq. Same Iraq which you agreed was supported by the US in “the bloody war of aggression against Iran”? But yes, you have a valid point in that the Second Iraq war was started on the pretext of preventing Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. Iran certainly took notice and, I suspect, came to the conclusion that a deterrent against a conventional US invasion would be a very useful thing to have.
I think you just undermined your own argument that Iran doesn’t want nukes :-)
Yes, the whole point of the revolution was to remove the U.S.-appointed monarch and reverse the pro-Western trend he had started. And then Iraq invaded Iran because it was afraid the revolution would spread.
Just one year after the revolution, Jimmy Carter proclaimed that the Persian Gulf was the U.S.’s personal playground, and no one (else) was allowed to mess with it. Bush I and Bush II acted accordingly. Even the continued goodwill toward Saudi Arabia is a cause of worry for Iran, as they’re sectarian rivals. And then there’s Israel, which is viewed as a representative of U.S. interests against Muslim populations.
The Second Iraq war was started on the pretext that Iraq already had WMDs. For Iran, having them isn’t going to stop a U.S. invasion.
That the revolution was to remove the American influence seems to me much weaker, and thus easier to prove, than the claim that it was directly related to 1953.
Sigh. OK, we live in different universes. I wish you luck in yours.
You really are in your own delusional universe if you think the revolution had nothing to do with removing the foreign-imposed dictator.
Why, thank you for such a devastatingly convincing argument. However I wasn’t trying to discuss Iran with you—that seems to be pretty useless—I was just pointing out that your assertion that “anyone acquainted with the facts… should come to the same conclusion” is false.
In fact, such an assertion is very common for people who are not capable of imagining how anyone could possibly hold a different view. On LW such people are called mind-killed.
You didn’t cite any evidence before declaring that polymathwannabe was wrong. You aren’t actually engaging the discussion at all.
What discussion is possible if “anyone acquainted with the facts… should come to the same conclusion” and people disagreeing with you “really are in [their] own delusional universe”?
That comment was simply mirroring what you said to polymathwannabe; that they must be in a different universe to disagree with you. You still have only provided lazy snark rather than substance.
He needs less luck than you since his contains the President of the United States and most of academia.
I don’t quite see how that implies he needs less luck. If anything, I think he’s more screwed X-)