MSNBC Re-writes History
MSNBC has put together a slide-show offering a brief history of Iran. 
They’ve managed to go back further than 1979 – impressive for a mainstream outlet, whose memories usually begin with the Islamic revolution.
But, amazingly, they’ve contrived to ignore Mohammed Mossadeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran who in 1953 was overthrown in a UK/CIA-backed coup, which installed the brutal and corrupt Shah in his place. The overthrow of Mossadeq is probably, together with the 1979 Islamic revolution, the seminal moment in the history of 20th century Iran, and MSNBC has just wiped it out for political convenience. Mossadeq had dared to nationalise the Iranian oil industry at the expense of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now British Petroleum), and such defiance could obviously not be tolerated by the masters of the world.
The slide-show also makes no mention of the fact that the U.S. supported Iraq in its aggression against Iran, which left up a million people dead on all sides.
The mainstream media has been caught, once again, shamelessly re-writing history in the interests of power. That MSNBC has completely obliterated the U.S.’ history of aggression towards Iran at a time when the Bush administration is trying to drum up militaristic fervour amongst the population with a possible view to another imperialistic war against that country is an utter disgrace.
A more accurate overview of modern Iranian history can be found here.
Filed under: Iran, Media, News and politics | 70 Comments
-
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
In contrast, there is an entire slide devoted to the hostage crisis. The media’s obviously got its priorities straight…
I sent an email to MSNBC:
Hi,
I’m writing to complain about the Iranian history slide-show you featured on your website:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/…
For some reason, you chose not to include the UK/CIA-backed coup of the democratically elected Mossadeq government in 1953. Likewise, you failed to mention U.S. support for Iraqi aggression against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war.
This oversight seems inexcusable, particularly given the current political climate, with the administration demonising Iran with a possible view to a future war. If the American people do not know about the U.S.’ past history of aggression and intervention in Iran, how are they to make a reasoned, balanced judgment about the current political “crisis”?
I would very much like to hear back from you.
Best,
Jamie.
I await a response.
Yeah, it’s easy to get elected on a platform of “let’s steal all the foreigners’ stuff”. Democracy alone is mob-rule, democracy needs to be coupled with liberty and protection of individual rights, including property rights, to create a flourishing society. Oh, and rule of law is important too, which Mossadeq failed to head when he refused to leave office after being fired by the Shah, which the Shah had the power to do according to the Iranian constitution.
So I agree that MSNBC should have covered this important period in Iranian history, but it’s not the black-and-white case of “Iran had a flourishing liberal democracy and the US killed it” that many blame-America-first folks are trying to portray.
I’m glad to read this. I’m Indian myself, but I find the rewriting of these historic events despicable. It makes it easy to paint the whole savages v. civilized, when you leave out the issue of US-backed coups and their effect on a country. Plus, the Islamic revolution really just started out as a Revolution.. that became hijacked by one faction,i.e. the Islamists.
That said, this is not new. I consider the Greek telling of Persian Wars(Herodotos) the original propoganda tool used for the east v west clash.
Conrad: Mossadeq was democratically elected, and the U.S./UK couldn;t tolerate him because of his political defiance. So, they backed a coup to topple him. That’s what;s relevant here.
marylandmacaca: I agree that the re-writing of history is very dangerous. The U.S.’ long history of opposing and toppling democracy has to be suppressed if our current leaders are not be laughed off the stage when they suggest invading a country to “spread democracy”. And it is suppressed – in the mainstream, at least, which is where most people get their news from. As a result, when George Bush declares he wants to invade Iraq to spread democracy or freedom, many people actually take him seriously. It’s a fatal mistake.
Too bad that alternative history suggested by the author is disgustingly biased itself. Apparently USA voting a certain way at the UN is worse than Iran ejecting UN inspectors to pursue its shadowy nuclear ambitions amidst rhetoric about the inevitable destruction of one of its neighbors.
Shooting an Iranian passenger jet out of the sky alone is an incredible tragedy that must still represent a devasting moment for Iran, one that should never be forgotten. Nonetheless, this article merely inverts MSNBC bias by seeming to suggest that Iran is somehow behaving rationally or justifiably, when they’ve brought the world to the brink of war for a moronic stunt. America has yet to hold a contest to see who can best dehumanize Jews, in any case.
Never forget Mossadegh, never forget Allende, but don’t lose sight of how strange and dangerous Iran currently is.
What has the recent British soldiers’ crisis got to do with this? No one’s suggested that Iran has acted well (although I think it’s possible that it has acted rationally) and no one’s trying to whitewash the reactionary, human rights abusing theocracy that is Iran’s leadership.
“Never forget Mossadegh, never forget Allende” – you said it, and that’s all this post was to trying to ensure.
You guys might be interested in this >opera
qbert:
Iran has not come close to bringing the world to war, and it is unfair in the extreme to perpetuate such a propaganda. It is the US and Israel that is solely responsible for any such possibility.
The west is utterly hypocritical. Israel has nukes and not a peep. Israel doesn’t sign the non proliferation treaty and not a peep. Iran allows inspectors, having signed it and the treaty is used as a club to bash Iran. Israel doesn’t allow inspections, kidnaps in Italy a Israeli citizen who even admits the existence of the Israel nukes, he suffers years of solitary, and now “free” remains a prisoner in Israel 20 years later. Hardly a peep on Israels sordid history and nuke threat, not to mention the ”Massada’ insanity of Israeli threats to launch a vindictive nuke attack all around it should it find Israel defeated and hopeless .
It amounts to bigotry to claim Iran can’t responsibly have nukes. It amounts to bigotry, racism, and incredible nerve to think that Iran should just trust the benevolent western powers to treat them fairly while they themselves voluntarily are required to remain comparatively helpless.
Perhaps you can take note of the fact Iran has started NO Wars in its modern history unlike the so called good guys, not to mention the bad guys who have been supported by those “good” guys.
qbert: you must be joking! it’s two weights and two measures for you innit?
focus on the numbers boy, and tell me who’s suffering most! the bible-tumphing, intollerant americans in their cushy SUVs or third world countries trying to get a fair price for their natural resources? if the west is consuming most of the world’s resources, what is it paying back to the ‘resource owners’ ? Go and sip your starbucks in peace
Conrad: the last line is for you as well. Is america (and the rest of nato for that matter) really protecting the fair and equitable distribution of wealth generated in 3rd world countries? I see more of a pillage going on.
I notice that you neglect to mention Haj-Ali Razmara, what happened to him, or the fact that Mossadegh was appointed to his position by the Majlis, and was not democratically elected.
Haj Ali Razmara was a political opponent of Mossadegh who was elected Prime Minister in 1950. He was murdered with impunity by radical Islamists on March 7, 1951 for opposing the policies of Mossadegh, who himself was allied with the Iranian communist party and the mullahs. That the assassins went unpunished served to intimidate the Majlis into appointing Mossadegh. Once Mossadegh was in power, he refused to hold elections as required by the constitution.
Mossadegh also appointed a radical Ayatollah as legislative speaker, collectivized farming and instituted a system of government land ownership.
Irrelevant, surely?
Err…:
You say:
He was murdered by a radical Islamist group. What’s your point?
You say:
Hmm…:
You say:
He extended his emergency powers – after all, there was a very real British/CIA plot to depose him from power.
Good stuff, Jamie. Be interested to hear if you get a response to your email
Conrad – you obviously know a bit about the relevant history.
So you’ll know that the West gained “ownership” of Iran’s oil by doing deals with that country’s autocratic rulers, who effectively acted as Western puppets. You’ll also know that vast profits flowed from those oil reserves to those autocrats and to the West, while the population languished in destitution.
Of course if you think that in this scenario democracy could only exist if the Iranian’s elected representatives ensured “protection” for the West’s “right” to keep taking their oil, and if the autocrat was allowed to dismiss those representatives at a whim or on orders from his foreign masters…….well its an interesting interpretation of democracy, I’ll grant you that.
Property rights and the rule of law are of course fundamental to democracies. They’re fundamental to fascism as well. The difference is that in one you have popular sovereignty, and the other is what you appear to be advocating.
On your final point, Iranian democracy was evolving in 1953 as all democracies do. At that point in history the southern states of the US weren’t exactly an example of flourishing liberal democracy either. Absent foreign interference its likely that Iran would have moved on as the southern states did – painfully, imperfectly but surely – and ended up a happier and more democratic place by now than has in fact turned out to be the case. Quite apart from the last three decades of vicious theocracy, it might also have been spared the savagry of the Shah’s 53-79 reign of terror, which Amnesty described as “beyond belief”.
Identifying the US (and UK) role in the coup that sent Iran down the unhappier path isn’t really “blaming-the-US-first” – a familiar, self-pitying phrase. Its just blaming it for what its responsible for, in the interests of acknowledging the relevant facts. It may not help us feel warm and fuzzy about Western power, but ..well, the facts are like that sometimes.
When the 6th Fleet cruise missiles turn the Iranian reactors into parking lots, don’t come crying to me.
I’ll be celebrating with a beer at the VFW
Roger Thornhill
Hey, great point. I read All the Shah’s Men last year and was amazed after reading it of how little we think about this sad intervention. Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson Kermit helped to oversee the whole affair. So passionate was this CIA officer that he stayed in the trunk of a car driving him through Tehran for fear that showing his face would give away the plan. Certainly our intervention doesn’t justify the hatred of the Iranian leadership, but it does explain EXACTLY why even liberal Iranians will mostly not embrace any type of intervention we may have in their nation’s affairs.
David: Thanks. I hope they reply, too – several people have sent them emails (I cross-posted this at DKos), so hopefully they’ll get round to either changing it or replying, or both. (And an excellent comment, by the way).
btw, for anyone interested in more on the coup I can highly recommend veteren NYT journalist Stephen Kinzer’s “All the Shah’s Men”. Highly readable.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/product-description/0471678783/ref=dp_proddesc_0/026-0235212-8233272?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books
Also, Mark Curtis mines the UK’s declassified records to good effect in the chapter on the coup in his book “Web of Deceit”
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/product-description/0099448394/sr=1-1/qid=1175979029/ref=dp_proddesc_0/026-0235212-8233272?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books&qid=1175979029&sr=1-1
uncutdiamond: Yeah – so many people have recommended that book to me today. I’m definitely going to buy it.
EDIT: as David Wearing’s second comment proves!
In fact, the kind of intervention that’s going on today – the threats, the intimidation and the financing of domestic terror – is positively harming the moderates within Iran and strengthening the extremists.
““Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq (19 May 1882 – 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. He was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and approved by the vote of parliament“. [my emphasis]”
After seeing what happened to Razmara, one is surprised why the vote to appoint Mosaddeq wasn’t unanimous.
“According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with “savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh,” thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community.”
There is no citation for this in the Wikipedia article. If it occurred, it occurred over two years after Mosaddeq had been appointed Prime Minister.
I recommend reading the New York Times’ exhaustive account of the coup, here.
(p.s. does anyone else think Mossadeq looks a bit like an Ent?
After seeing what happened to Razmara, one is surprised why the vote to appoint Mosaddeq wasn’t unanimous.
There is no connection between what happened to Razmara and Moseaddeq, or to the vote of the Parliament of Iran for nationalizing the oil. The Parliament was already opposed to the Supplemental Oil Agreement bill prior to his assignation as were most of the Iranian people.
In any case it is silly to think the terror murder of one man will cause a whole parliament of people to change theirs minds. To cement their views is the most likely outcome of course.
I agree with you that our media is trying to re-write history, be it on the Left or Right side. There are many topics and facts that somehow have now become opinions. Huh? lol.
It is nice to read someone’s writings from another point of view (I’m a conservative) without having to be insulted all the time. I thank you for that. Have a Happy Easter or a fabulous Passover.
Thanks – you too!
“…1979 Islamic revolution, the seminal moment in the history of 20th century Iran…”
The seminal moment in the history of the 20th Century Iran???
Who´s rewriting history now?
And as a side note, I think perhaps the failure of President Carter to back the Shah was a main reason the Islamic Revolution succeeded. The irony is that Carter helped the Islamic Revolution take place in Iran and then the fundamental Islamists turned around and kidnapped the Americans in the embassy which in part led to Carter losing out on a second term as President.
Conrad,
Yeah, it’s easy to get elected on a platform of “let’s steal all the foreigners’ stuff”.
How did all our oil get under their sand, eh?
Robert: I’m not sure what your point is. I told you who’s rewriting history – MSNBC, and they’ve yet to reply to any of the emails sent to them and they’ve yet to change the slide-show. They really do seem to possess an utter contempt for the truth.
David: Wotcha mean “their” sand?
MSNBC doesn’t know shit about Iran.
My adopted father was of royalty in that country. His mother was a princess of the Qajar dynasty. He died in 2000 at the age of 85 and I learned more of that part of the world during the time I knew him than has ever been truthfully reported on television. I have not sought out every written account of that history because a lot of that is false as well. The fact that the UK is responsible for a lot of boundaries in that region has been raised. I learned of Persia and not Iran; there is quite a difference.
Imperialist superpowers aren’t what they used to be.
Great post!
By far the best secondary source on this topic that I’ve read (other than the obligatory Chomsky and Zinn, of course) is by Iranian scholar Mostafa Elm (I believe the title is something to the effect “Oil Power and Principle”). Anyway, nonetheless, it discusses in detail the US and UK involvement in the ousting of Mossadeq and their reasons, so for anybody interested in further reading on this topic, I’d strongly recommend it.
The only thing I’d have to disagree with you on is with regards to whether MSNBC had the worse historical revisionism or not. I recently posted a detailed discussion of the propagandistic coverage of this crisis in the US, UK, Australian and Canadian media and I found that CNN was, in my opinion, even worse than MSNBC. If you’re interested in my discussion, you can access it here:
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/propaganda-in-action-the-release-of-the-british-sailors/
Cheers,
Paul
Thanks for the book recommendation, Paul – I’ll certainly check it out.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that MSNBC was the worst when it comes to historical revisionism – I haven’t the data to make the comparison.
Acoording to EFE the Spanish news organization, Blair apologized to Iran because spying was part of the “routine” war exercise.
Is Iran acting “irrational” for protecting themselves from an avowed enemy that has been part of the invasion to 2 other countries?
Is Iran irrational for not agreeing that Israel should be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, or is Israel irrational for thinking that they should be the only nuclear power in the Middle East? Would it no a nuclear free middle East be the only rational behavior?
Will Israel allow the UN nuclear inspectors to come in and verify that they do not have an arsenal of more than 400 nuclear bombs?
Why is that no journalist ever asks these questions, which I have seen posted in different places in the internet; if I found them and I was not even looking for that info, are these people “unbiased journalists?
The newsmedia is a busines like any other, self enshrined while usurping the only free press, the one I read on the internet, although by now the strategy seems to be to create so may websites that the news business will still have control just by the sheer number. It will be very difficult for people to discern the truth.
Rex,
I can’t believe I actually read these words…
“Iran has not come close to bringing the world to war, and it is unfair in the extreme to perpetuate such a propaganda. It is the US and Israel that is solely responsible for any such possibility.”
Iran is between the same “rock and a hard place” as Iraq was 4 years ago. It wasn’t Israel that wanted to take them out; it was the “Commaniac in Charge” of the US armed forces and his idiot advisors. You may as well drop Israel from your list because they won’t strike until the mainland USa goads them to do so. Israel is and has been our 51st state in the middle east for years. They don’t have Russian aircraft or artillery, it is all from the mainland USA.
It’s oil, people. We want to regulate their oil. We do it with the CIA and other UnIntelligence agencies then threaten them with war if we can’t do it “diplomatically.”
The sad reality is the USA still thinks along the ways of the 19th century when paid buffalo hunters would ride, on trains, out into the plains of this country and slaughter the buffalo to starve the American Indians into submission. When they got out of line, they were killed. What was left of actual tribes was stuck on reservations to starve to death.
Has our country’s mindset changed very much when it comes to oil?
Think of what has happened within our own country in recent years with laws pertaining to eminent domain. If you can be shoved out of your house legally what does that say about our national point of view concerning other countries?
Consider the fact that the USA dictates to other countries of the world whether or not they may possess nuclear weapons. All the while we have submarines cruising about with nuclear warheads as well as aircraft flying overhead with the same at all times.
Right now.
I am a patriot to the republic for which the declaration, constitution and bill of rights of this country stand for. I don’t cater to any partisan bullshit and this is what we are embroiled in.
“When the 6th Fleet cruise missiles turn the Iranian reactors into parking lots, don’t come crying to me.
I’ll be celebrating with a beer at the VFW
Roger Thornhill”
If you really cared about Americans in uniform, you’d be crying — because a US attack on Iran would cause the Shiites to rise up and attack US troops in Iraq.
Think things are bad for the US in Iraq right now? Count your blessings — right now, only the Sunni ex-Baathists are targeting US troops. The Shiites are leaving us alone.
But the second we attack Iran, that changes.
The Shiites will overrun the airport, then the Green Zone. One by one, the bases will fall. Moqtada al-Sadr will be enjoying a nice cup of coffee at the Balad Starbucks less than a month after Iran is attacked, and tens of thousands of US troops will be dead or prisoners of war (and very likely soon to be dead).
And if you really are a Veteran of a Foreign War, as opposed to just a hat-wearer like Ronald Reagan, then this prospect should sober you up. But you’re not. You’re just some little boy playing with Mom’s computer when she’s not around.
Grow up.
tumphing?
It looks like the e-mail address for the slideshow makers is
multimedia (at) msnbc.com
I agree with Michaelhill about MSNBC’s knowldge of Iran.
Stupid slide show it has nothing do do with anything.
I accept your criticism of the MSNBC history of Iran.
I think it is a simple failure of those producing that history, and not a thought-out policy by MSNBC.
Chris Matthews of “Hardball” on MSNBC often mentions the overthrow in 1953 and often mentions American abuses around the world over the years, such as in Chile. Countdown with Keith Olbermann of MSNBC often ridicules American intervention around the world.
MSNBC is definitely not a propaganda tool of the government, but evidently does make mistakes.
Heathlander,
Good work on the MSNBC timeline…There are some quite interesting comments posted here, so I’m glad to see such important debates taking place, because, assuming some of those commenting are American, it proves that not all of us just believe what the media feeds us, as many around the world believe we do (many Europeans think Americans are brainwashed)…
A.
http://nobodywalksinq8.wordpress.com
michaelhill: I agree that if there is an attack on Iran, Israel won’t be leading it and certainly won’t be alone (btw: it seems that Bush offered to take “military action” to help free the sailors, but Blair turned him down).
We’d certainly like, in an ideal world, to be able to control Iranian oil, and we’d have no hesitation about attacking Iran to do that (see Iraq). The question is whether or not, in the real world, it is practical – most of the U.S. military intelligence, together with everyone who has a brain, thinks not. Cheney’s crew appears to think yes. We’ll have to see who wins.
PW: Hear hear!
seneca: The thing is that when the same biases are evident in thew same direction consistently over a period of decades, the “honest mistake” excuse doesn’t cut it any more. It signals to something deeper. Moreover, even simply looking at the structure of media institutions, one can see that it would take a miracle for the mainstream press not to suffer from pro-Establishment bias.
Any search on Wikipedia for Iran and Iraq would similarly give an accurate portrayal of history.
Right – and its in the Library of Congress and on the CIA’s own website. The information really isn’t hard to find, which makes the “ignorance” and “laziness” excuses ring very hollow.
To Allegrasworld:
Americans are not brainwashed. We are unread, unsophisticated, and uninterested in the world beyond our shores. Our President reflects whom we are.
Worse, we are burdened by religion. Our leaders know what is Right and what is the Truth, so are reluctant to compromise. We are quite LIKE every other Crusader nation in history.
Do you realize that Bob Woodward reports a conversation with George Bush that went something like:
Woodward: “Mr. President, your father was an expert diplomat who also waged war on Iraq. Did you ask him for advice before you decided to invade Iraq?”
George Bush: “No, I did not ask him for advice. I did something better. I asked my Heavenly Father.”
George Bush does not take issue with what Woodward reports.
Beware of leaders with vast armies who talk to God!
There is no conspiracy to control what flows through our media. Our media is truly free and wide-open. That does NOT mean the average American watches it or cares.
MSNBC and CNN are wonderful and portray the world as it is, but do reflect the opinions of the host of the show which you are watching.
Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country” is a Republican and is pro-administration. His show reflects that bias.
Chris Matthews of “Hardball” on MSNBC and “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” of MSNBC report on a daily basis (each one-hour shows, five days a week) actual American abuses around the world and both consistently deplore the use of American power.
Wolf Blitzer of CNN is a hard-hitting critic of the Administration.
On the other hand, Fox News wants to attract conservative Republicans, so it sides with the Administration on everything.
Our media is wonderful and varied. It offers anything you want.
The evidence, together with an analysis of the institutional structure of the media, contradicts what you say. Sure, a few exceptions, a few islands of serious criticism in a sea of bland servility, are allowed – the Daily Show, for example, or sometimes Keith Olbermann. But a) they are lightweight partisan criticisms that rarely go deep, and b) they are, as I said, exceptions.
And it’s not about partisan bias, which you seem to be suggesting. It’s about establishment bias.
You say the media offers us everything we want. Well, I’d like you to find me a mainstream outlet that overall doesn’t take the view that the U.S. has the right to run the world in its interests. The New York Times? No. Washington Post? No. FOX News? No. They all accept that basic assumption. So for example, in the “debate” about withdrawal from Iraq, loads of pros and cons about the strategy and tactics of withdrawal are presented – what will be best for the “stability” of the region, etc. etc.
Nowhere can you find the view that the Iraqis want us out, and therefore we must leave, because we don’t have the right to rule the world as we want, whilst ignoring what the world thinks about it.
Or take, say, the Iraqi resistance. Back when the Soviet Union invaded and occupated Afghanistan, it was taken as a truism that the Afghanis had the right to resist, and that the U.S. not only had the right to aid that resistance, but deserved respect and praise for doing so.
Today, it’s taken as a truism that Iraqi resistance to U.S. forces in Iraq is illegitimate, and that anyone who aids that resistance (Iran) has to be dealt with.
It’s this extraordinary capacity for self-deception and hypocrisy about the U.S.’ role in the world that I’m talking about, and it has nothing to do with either Democratic or Republican bias.
I think you fatally underestimate people. How can you say that someone is “uninterested” when they have to work two jobs a week to put food on the table, and so don’t have time to conduct private research projects into what’s really going on? How can you say people are “unsophisticated” when actually, political activism is at very high levels and when more people are becoming political than ever before? The point is that people read the newspapers because they are interested, but what they are getting is a certain view of the world masked as objective factual reporting, and they need to realise that.
We have a disagreement of fact, not opinion.
I get the New York Times. I watch CNN and MSNBC. They report exactly what you say they don’t report. I wonder where you get your information, for I have mine from direct experience.
They DO report that “we don’t have the right to rule the world as we want, whilst ignoring what the world thinks about it”.
They DO report that Iraqis want us out, and that 70% or 80% of Iraqi’s think its okay to kill our soldiers.
I don’t need to search for this stuff. It’s on MSNBC and CNN every night, with contrary views by Joe Scarborough.
To think that American media is a monolith spewing the same line simply means you don’t know America.
As for US support for Saddam during the war against Iran, i would suggest looking at what Daniel Pipes, a key advisor for the Bush administration, wrote back in 1987. In an article published by The New Republic. Check it out here: http://tomjoad.org/pipes.htm
seneca: No – the view that the U.S. has to withdraw because the Iraqis want it to, regardless of anything else, is pretty hard to find in the MSM.
And the underlying assumption that the U.S. has a right to rule the world can be found throughout mainstream commentary.
You’re right – it’s a difference of fact, not opinion. I can recommend very highly two books – ‘Manufacturing Consent’ by Chomsky and Herman, and ‘Demonstration Elections’ by Herman and Brodhead – that give lengthy, detailed accounts of many examples of exactly the kind of establishment bias I’m talking about.
tomjoad: Cheers for the link (nice site!). I can’t say I’m surprised by the news about Daniel Pipes – the man’s truly vile.
Fact 1: Iran was an OCCUPIED country from 1941 to 1948
Fact 2: Iran was a US PROTECTORATE STATE from 1948 to 1968
Fact 3: No senior official in Iran could be assigned during this period without the consent of the US.
Fact 4: No one could become a parliament candidate without the US consent during this period.
Fact 5: No Prime Minister could be assigned without the US consent during this period.
It is a joke to think that Mossadegh was “democratically” elected when majority of Iranians could not even read or write in 1950s and the Parliament was dominated by those who were in reality representatives of foreign powers.
He was democratically elected in the sense that he was a chosen representative of the people. If you’re going to say that no state is a democracy unless it has an informed citizenry, then that rules the U.S. and Britain (among others) right out. Presumably, then, Iran (or anyone else) has the right to swoop in and help depose our government and install a dictator?
It seems strange to say that no parliament member could become a parliament member without U.S. approval, since the parliament elected to power a prime minister the U.S. most definitely did not approve of.
Could you give links for everything that you say, otherwise asserting them as “facts” means nothing.
Maziar: I would be interested in seeing you enlarge on that too.
David: By the way, I put your analysis of the Iran soldiers crisis (where you questioned whether the fact that Iran felt secure enough to capture the soldiers, and the fact that Britain/U.S. didn’t use it as an excuse for war, shows that war is not on the cards) to David Wearing – a political writer and occasional commenter on this blog. He gave what seems to me a reasonable response:
(Also, check out his excellent article reflecting on the Iranian ‘hostage crisis’ here).
I’m not sure about that analysis.
To take similar action with US personnel would have precipitated a crisis that probably could not have been prevented from escalating into armed conflict.
If he agrees that taking US troops would have been so risky it seems odd to conclude that Iran deliberately took the UK troops because it wanted to bust someone’s chops. The UK has already pre-emptively said it wouldn’t be joining any attack on Iran some time ago. And I do not share his view that Iran came off well from all this or somehow warned off the UK. The UK did get the backing of the international community and Iran didn’t so that view’s a bust. I don’t see how you can look at this and see any advantage for the Iranians in terms of making an attack LESS likely only more. To me therefore either the incident was largely an accident or else the Iranians did it DESPITE knowing that it made a war, which presumably they very much want to avoid, more likely.
If Iran had wanted to prove it could raise the cost of a US attack then it would be better off indicating it has some plans for assymetric retaliation. Yes the UK might lose a few soldiers in a war with Iran (though I was surprised that he though a land attack like Lebannon was likely) but obviously Tony doesn’t care about a few dead soldiers. Why should he? If he wants to attack Iran that’s just giving him a huge shot in the arm. Thanks a lot suckers! Thanks for helping with my PR.
Well, exactly. Hence, Iran knew that if it wanted to draw a line in the sand and make clear that it has the ability to respond, British soldiers would be a good target (because Britain wouldn’t want to use that as an excuse to escalate into a full war).
I think there were other, perhaps more significant factors, involved too – Iran wanted to humiliate the West, for example, and its leadership wanted to score some political brownie points at home.
Well, not really though. One would’ve thought, and Britain certainly expected, the UN to issue a much stronger statement than it actually did, and only George Bush strongly came out in support of Britain on the issue.
About asymmetric retaliation – I don’t think Iran needs to make that clear, since everyone assumes that’s what it would do anyway. By “Lebanon” I think he meant the long air campaign.
Blair doesn’t want to attack Iran, and that’s precisely why capturing British soldiers was a good way for Iran to show that it isn’t afraid to retaliate if it feels that the U.S./British military manouvres in the Gulf step over the line and become too threatening.
my ears were burning
DavidByron – to answer some of your points
“If he agrees that taking US troops would have been so risky it seems odd to conclude that Iran deliberately took the UK troops because it wanted to bust someone’s chops.”
My point was that if you take US troops hostage you’re more likely to get a military response than if you take British troops hostage. Seems a fairly uncontroversial statement.
I’m not sure what you mean by “bust someone’s chops”. Makes it sound like wilfull behaviour kind of taken on a whim. Exactly the opposite of what I was saying. I’m saying that Iran took this action for two strategic reasons:
1/ to demonstrate one of the asymmetric retaliatory options available to it in the event of war, and
2/ to demonstrate that there is a right and a wrong way to deal with Iran diplomatically. Running crying to the UN = wrong. Bilateral respect-based diplomacy = right.
btw that’s also the conclusion supported by the analysts Jim Lobe talked to for this Asia Times piece
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID06Ak01.html
“The UK has already pre-emptively said it wouldn’t be joining any attack on Iran some time ago.”
First rule of political analysis, at the most basic level of rationality, is that you don’t take what politicians say at face value. If there’s a war, the UK will support it. Any other response from London is inconceivable. The support will not be of the active military variety, but it will be significant and material. It’ll be of the kind given to Israel last summer – diplomatic, political and military at the logistic & supply level. See my article on Britain’s role in the Lebanon war last summer for more on that
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2006/09/britains-role-in-israeli-hezbollah-war.html
“The UK did get the backing of the international community and Iran didn’t so that view’s a bust.”
The question is rather more complex than who got more states to say they were in the right. What’s relevant is whether Britain got the material support it wanted. It wanted the UN to confirm that the sailors were in Iraqi waters and it wanted the EU to impose economic sanctions. It got neither. Just some harsh language aimed at Tehran. Thing is, Tehran can listen to harsh language all day. In the end Britain only got its sailors back when it stopped telling tales on Iran to the international community and engaged in state-to-state diplomacy-as-equals. As I said in the article, the differences between British rhetoric before during and after Blair’s “new phase” of internationalising the crisis illustrates what happened very well. Whitehall will be looking back on the “new phase” and cringing for years to come, I suspect.
“I don’t see how you can look at this and see any advantage for the Iranians in terms of making an attack LESS likely only more.”
not sure I understand the sentence after that one, but on the point you made here I’d say this:
There will be primarily three active Western components in any attack on Iran and ensuing conflict: US in the lead, Israel dealing with any proxy retaliation in the Levant, and Britian doing more or less what it did last summer. In terms of domestic support Britain is the weak link here. Iran has reminded Britain that any war will cause it severe military losses. In doing so it weakens the coalition by weakening the resolve of one member. Tehran may have concluded that Washington and Jerusalem can’t be deterred directly, only by deterring Britain which will then, it is hoped, deter the others.
and to repeat, Iran has also pointed out that there are easier ways to solve these disputes.
“If Iran had wanted to prove it could raise the cost of a US attack then it would be better off indicating it has some plans for assymetric retaliation.”…
..which is precisely what its done
“Yes the UK might lose a few soldiers in a war with Iran but obviously Tony doesn’t care about a few dead soldiers. Why should he?”
I can’t say how Blair feels about UK soldiers on an emotional level. Politically, troop deaths tend to cost votes and popular support. Fairly common phenomenon
“I was surprised that he though a land attack like Lebannon was likely”
The Lebanon war was seen by some as a test run for any Iran attack. See sources cited in my lebanon article linked to above, plus what Seymour Hersh wrote on the subject. Scott Ritter talks a bit about this as well. They seem to be saying any attack will be mainly air strikes but also a v.small land-based element to take out some strategic targets. But no one’s predicting a mass invasion or occupation a la Iraq.
btw Jamie – on Maziar’s “facts”, all I can say is have a read of the Kinzer book I mentioned.
At this very moment, 10:22 AM Chicago time, April 9, 2007, I am watching on MSNBC a large demonstration in Iraq of people demanding that America leave Iraq.
I have never seen anything in any media which is close to your comment that America has “a right to rule the world” and your allegation that that attitude is found “throughout mainstream commentary”.
You are deeply and terribly mistaken about American media, for I have never seen anywhere what you claim is common.
Seneca – Jamie’s referring, principally, to some very detailed work done by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman. If you’re interested in the argument it’d be worth your while looking up Manufacturing Consent and/or Necessary Illusions on Amazon and having a read.
The basic contention is that the media is controlled by elite interests and generally, as one would expect, conveys the news through various filters that serve those interests.
So just as politics in the UK and the US is fought between two wings of the business party, so the media frames the news in ways that suit elite interests.
That doesn’t mean that there’s no dissent. But the most vigorous dissent is generally within narrow confines. E.g. with Iraq – ‘are we succeeding in establishing democracy or not’, as opposed to ‘do we have the right to invade someone’s country to control their oil reserves’.
You do get a bit of genuine dissent, but those voices are effectively marginalised.
This wasn’t simply a theory that was proposed on the basis of nothing. Herman and Chomsky tested it rigorously and the results strongly supported their conclusions. You ‘ll find that many others support those conclusions on media behaviour even when they ignore or oppose Chomsky because of his politics. For example see this [pdf]
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200310–.pdf
its these studies that Jamie’s referring to. Fair enough if you disagree, but – if you’ll forgive me – to challenge their findings you need more evidence than something you’ve just seen on the telly. And you’ll need to engage with the substance of the theories that Jamie’s talking about. For example, there’s no reason why coverage of the march in Najaf today couldn’t be filtered in the exact way that Chomsky & Herman describe. Its not just about whether it was covered but how it was covered and the context in which it was covered. If you can answer those questions with reference to the C&H Propaganda Model then that would be interesting…
No reader is going to read other books just so they can comment on this blog, especially when your assertions are patently false. Furthermore, whatever book you choose to use as a basis for argument, I can give you a different well-researched book in direct contradiction.
Also, what you state as truth is patently false, causing me to dismiss your case.
The Republicans and Democrats are NOT “two wings of the business party”.
One is the party of business, religion, guns, and anti-abortionism.
The other is the party of blacks, unions, and the little guy.
I also believe that the question “do we have the right to invade someone’s country to control their oil reserves” is a false question. That’s not why we invaded Iraq.
To believe that statement is to be a conspiracy theorist. You are wrong, and why are we not benefiting from Iraq’s oil reserves.
The media is constantly questioning the wrongness of the invasion of Iraq, and that questioning is about the falsehood of intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
You must believe that the reasons given Congress for the invasion of Iraq were made up, and Congress is part of the conspiracy to control Iraq’s oil reserves. A conspiracy as you propose is just too huge to be believed.
We have Rosy O’Donnell claiming that the administration orchestrated the attack on 9/11. Even that BS is widely covered. It is astounding to me that anyone believes that the free-wheeling American media, allowing an infinite range of views to be aired, is anything but open, free, and wonderful.
While not immediately relevant to the issue of U.s. aggressions against Iran, the online sources like the one linked or wiki on Iran mentions that at the time of the first British invasion of Iraq and the subsequent mandate, Britain occupied substantial areas of Iran too.
Kind of cute too that the wiki refers to Britain as a new power during its intervention in Iran post-WWII when it had had institutionalized hegemony over the Persian gulf for over a century.
And the point about the U.S. media and the presumptive right of the U.S. to use force whenever and wherever it is deemed expedient, the media never advance an explicit claim, because they presuppose this right, and their interpretation and advocacy follows from this presupposition. They may debate whether circumstancs qualify as expedient, but they never doubt the right.
oops. That’s do NOT mention the British occupation.
DavidW: Right – Maziar’s “facts” didn’t fit with what I know at all. Btw, sorry your comment didn’t appear straight away – WordPress’ spam filter acts randomly sometimes, and I had to go rescue it.
seneca: I wasn’t claiming that the mainstream press would actually say the words, “the U.S. has the right to rule the world”. I said it’s an underlying assumption that manifests itself throughout mainstream reporting and commentary.
No one’s saying that you have to read a book before commenting – it was just a recommendation, because that book (and there are others – ‘Demonstration Elections’ by Herman and Brodhead being a good example) goes into depth with many examples supporting the hypothesis that mainstream reporting generally suffers from an establishment bias.
The Democrat party represents the same interests as the Republican party. That’s why on a whole range of issues, both parties are well to the right of public opinion. For you to claim that Iraq was not about oil is ridiculous, considering the historical record. It’s almost as ridiculous, in fact, as the “conspiracy theorist” allegation you so freely dispense. Where’s the conspiracy? Why is saying that the government invaded to secure control of Iraqi oil reserves any more of a ‘conspiracy theory’ then saying that it invaded to “spread freedom”? Both would involve a deliberate strategy – but one is extensively supported by the diplomatic and historical record, whilst to believe the other requires an act of faith, believing at face value everything the administration says.
As to Iraq – actually, in the run-up to the invasion, the media performed disgracefully. In Britain, media coverage (to quote one study),
In the U.S., coverage was so bad that at least one mainstream newspaper issued an official apology – the New York Times. Of course, it didn’t analyse why the paper’s coverage was so servile and it certainly didn’t reflect on the paper’s complicity in the war and all the suffering that followed, but it did more than you’re doing, which was to recognise the complete failure of the media in the run-up to the invasion to present any kind of challenge to authority. On the contrary – the media largely played the role of validating and supporting the official propaganda line.
Today, the Iraq war is criticised in the press, but that criticism remains within very narrow limits. So for example, you’ll find criticisms of the strategy, or the tactics, or whether the war was necessary, or sometimes about the fact that there were no WMDs after all. You’ll rarely find criticism on the basis that regardless of whether Saddam had WMD, the U.S. had no right to invade because any such invasion, minus UNSC authorisation, would constitute the “supreme international crime”. You’ll rarely find a detailed analysis of the U.S.’ true designs for the region and what the actual war objectives were. You’ll rarely find an attempt to place the invasion within a historical context (for example, the U.S.’ support for Saddam, its long stated policy of trying to control Middle Eastern energy resources, its obvious lack of concern for nuclear proliferation in principle, etc. etc.). And so on, and so on. Regarding your point about Iraq’s oil reserves – the primary purpose of the invasion was not access to oil, and it was not profit from the oil (although your assertion that U.S. business is not benefiting from Iraqs’ oil reserves is patently false – just check their accounts. All the relevant companies have reported record profits). It was control over the oil, which has long been recognised to give “veto power” over rivals (in the words of George Kennan, former U.S. advisor, diplomat and political analyst). Everyone recognises this. Dick Cheney himself declared that control over a pipeline in Kazakhstan (or somewhere like that) was “a tool of intimidation and control” – he was talking about someone else having control, but the same principle applies to the U.S.
As for the rest of your comment – I’m afraid it’s too silly to bother replying. There’s no “conspiracy” and simply repeating your assertion that the media allows an “infinite” range of views to be heard is really very unconvincing.
Chuckie:
Exactly.
Oh.. This is not such a big surprise.. If Castro can be this great millionarie to be listed in Forbes, then forgetting the democratically elected president is not much of an embarrassment.
Hey All, This next election is too important for us as a country. So I have set up November08.com http://www.november08.com as a digg styled site to submit political news and views. This site is specifically for the 08 election and only news of the 08 election so everything is relevant and no digging through other topics, stories to find relevant issues. Please check it out!
Wow. Just, wow.
I want to thank you for catching this. I have a presentation tomorrow on a paper that I am doing in a U.S.-Middle Eastern Relations class. My topic is the U.S. Press and Iran (1951-1979), and a good deal of my paper is focused on the portrayal of Mossadegh to U.S. audiences. This is just an excellent way to begin the presentation. It’s also a really sad reflection of how so little has changed in fifty years.
You’re welcome, Jessica – thanks for the thanks! My attention was first drawn to the slide-show on the Media Lens messageboard, which is a great place for posting and reading examples of media bias (I also recommend their Media Alerts).
If your paper is/will be published on the net at all, it’d be interesting to have a read of it.