(Page 2 of 4)
From this rich heritage, Iranians have developed a deep-rooted sense of national identity. The pride they take in their achievements, however, is mixed with resentment. Beginning in the 18th century, Persia descended from glorious heights to appalling depths. Weak and corrupt leaders allowed foreign powers to subjugate the nation. Afghan tribesmen overran and looted Isfahan in 1722. During the early 19th century, Russia seized large Persian territories in the Caspian provinces of Georgia, Armenia, Dagestan and Azerbaijan. In 1872, a British company bought a "concession" from the decadent Qajar dynasty that gave it the exclusive right to run Persia's industries, irrigate its farmland, exploit its mineral resources, develop its railway and streetcar lines, establish its national bank and print its currency. The British statesman Lord Curzon would call this "the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has ever been dreamed of, much less accomplished, in history."
Public outrage in Iran led to the withdrawal of the British concession in 1873, but the incident reflected Iran's new status as a vassal state and a pawn in great-power rivalries. For nearly 150 years, Russia and Britain dominated Iran's economy and manipulated its leaders. This history still stings. "Nationalism, the desire for independence, is a fundamental theme," says Shaul Bakhash, who teaches Iranian history at George Mason University in Virginia. "The memory of foreign intervention in Iran runs very deep. It is playing itself out again in today's stand-off with the United States over the nuclear program. Iranians think, ‘Once again the West wants to deny us technology and modernism and independence.' It's a very powerful history. Iran is extraordinarily sensitive to any indication of foreign influence or foreign direction."
A series of uprisings shaped modern Iranian nationalism. The first erupted in 1891, after the British Imperial Tobacco Company took control of Iran's tobacco industry, which reached deep into the national life of a country where many people survived by growing tobacco and many more smoked it. The morally and financially bankrupt Qajar leader, Nasir al-Din Shah, sold the industry to British Imperial for the laughably small sum of £15,000. Under the terms of the deal, Iranian tobacco farmers had to sell their crops at prices set by British Imperial, and every smoker had to buy tobacco from a shop that was part of its retail network. This proved one outrage too many. A national boycott of tobacco, supported by everyone from intellectuals and clerics to Nasir al-Din's own harem women, swept the country. Troops fired upon protesters at a huge demonstration in Tehran. After a series of even larger demonstrations broke out, the concession was canceled. "For a long time Iranians had been watching other people take control of their destiny," says John Woods, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Chicago. "The tobacco revolt was the moment when they stood up and said they'd had enough."
That revolt crystallized the sense of outrage that had been building in Iran for more than a century. It also laid the groundwork for the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, in which reformers chipped away at the power of the dying Qajar dynasty by establishing a parliament and a national electoral system. Over the century that followed, many Iranian elections were rigged and many constitutional provisions were violated. Nonetheless, democracy is not a new idea for Iranians. They have been struggling toward it for more than 100 years. That makes Iran fertile ground for democratic transition in ways that most nearby countries are not.
"The ingredients are all there," says Barbara Slavin, recently a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation. "Iran has an established history of elections that has put people in the habit of going to the polls. Iranians are used to hearing different opinions expressed in parliament and in the press. They turn out to vote in great numbers, and hold elected officials accountable for their actions."
Although the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 weakened the Qajar dynasty, it did not end it. That was fine with the Russians and British, who continued treating Iran like a colony. In 1907, the two nations signed a treaty dividing Iran between them. The British assumed control over southern provinces, guaranteeing them a land route to India, and Russia took over the north, ensuring it control over the region adjoining its southern border. No Iranian representative attended the conference in St. Petersburg at which this extraordinary treaty was signed.
Moscow's interest in Iran waned as Russia was consumed by civil war and then, in 1917, fell under Bolshevik rule. Britain moved to fill the vacuum. In 1919 it assumed control over Iran's army, treasury, transportation system and communications network through imposition of the Anglo-Persian Agreement, ensuring its approval through the simple expedient of bribing the Iranian negotiators. In a memorandum to his British cabinet colleagues, Lord Curzon defended the agreement, arguing that Britain could not permit the frontiers of its Indian Empire to descend into "a hotbed of misrule, enemy intrigue, financial chaos and political disorder." He garnished Britain's traditional rivalry with Russia with fears of Communist conspiracies: "If Persia were to be alone, there is every reason to fear that she would be overrun by Bolshevik influence from the north."
The Anglo-Persian Agreement, which all but ended Iran's status as an independent state, sparked a second uprising in 1921. The Qajar dynasty was removed from power and replaced by a fiercely reformist dictator—an illiterate former stableboy who came to call himself Reza Shah (shah being the Persian word for "king"). In appearance Reza was an intimidating figure, "six foot three in height, with a sullen manner, huge nose, grizzled hair and a brutal jowl," the British chronicler Vita Sackville-West wrote after attending his coronation in 1926. "He looked, in fact, like what he was, a Cossack trooper; but there was no denying he was a kingly presence."
That aptly captured Reza Shah's dual nature. He resorted to brutal tactics to crush bandits, tribal leaders and everyone else he saw as blocking his drive to re-establish Iran as a great power, but he also deserves credit for creating the modern Iranian state. He built the country's first railway, established a national bank and stripped clerics of much of their power. Shockingly, he banned the veil for women. The decree was so radical that many women refused to leave their homes.
Although many Iranians were appalled by Reza Shah, they admired and supported him because they believed a strong central government was needed to fight back against foreign domination. It was during this period that the modern idea of what it meant to be Iranian began to take shape. "Before the beginning of the 20th century, if you asked a villager where he was from, he would say he was from such-and-such village," says Janet Afary, a professor of history at Purdue University who has written extensively about the Constitutional Revolution. "If you pressed him about his identity, he would say he was a Muslim. National identification, in the sense of everyone in the country calling themselves Iranian, started with the intellectuals of the Constitutional Revolution and was institutionalized under Reza Shah."
The Iranian government developed close economic and political ties with Germany, the European rival to Iran's traditional enemies, Britain and Russia. That relationship prompted the Allies to invade Iran in 1941. They crushed Iran's pitiful army in a campaign that lasted less than a month. This showed Iranians that despite all Reza Shah had accomplished, Iran was still too weak to resist foreign powers. It was yet another national humiliation, and led to Reza Shah's forced abdication in September 1941. His 21-year-old son, Mohammad Reza, took his place.
Comments
Thank you for a much needed comprehensive article on a topic that will feature in the first presidential debate tonight. The last section seems to ignore Iran's efforts at detent during Khatami’s presidency, and proposing comprehensive settlement of all issues with USA, helping US rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, only to be labeled "axis of evil", and libeled "wipe off the map". If implacable hostility begets hostility, perhaps there is a chance that reason will beget reason. Will there be a brave soul to act on that hypothesis? http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/
Posted by BiBiJon on September 26,2008 | 12:30PM
Another great history lesson from a different perspective
Posted by Ed on September 29,2008 | 07:31AM
"But the Persians turned even this defeat into a kind of victory by adopting their own form of Islam, Shiism, which allowed them to maintain the distinct identity they have always cherished" The Persians were Sunni's until the Mongol invasions following which the majority Persian population was decimated and Persia repopulated by Arab Ithna Asharii carpet-baggers brought in from the Baalbek valley in Lebanon by the Mongols. These were the same invasions which forced for instance Mevlana Rumi the Sunni Persian composer of the Mathnawi to flee Persia for Turkey. The ruling Ayatollah's in Iran are not Persians and neither is for instance Ahmadinejad who is from the Adzeri north-west of the country. Revisionist history is to be expected from a closet Ayatollah sympathizer like Vali Nasr not from the Smithsonian
Posted by Reza Shah on September 30,2008 | 01:52AM
Thank you for bringing this up. From what i can see Americans refuse to believe that they can be anything other than the good guys. The US ferments coups and supports dictators around the world: shah of iran, marcos, pinochet ... the list is very very long. Everytime a political leader emerged in the third world who might introduce policies that would shift wealth from richest to poor parts of a country, the US intervened on the side of the richest. This took the form of coups, invasions, bombings. You have bombed or invaded over 30 countries since the end of WW II. That's why in your country one per cent of the population owns over 50% of the wealth, and 10% has over 90, leaving the rest to fight like dogs for the scraps. The rest of the world is pretty cynical about you preaching democracy to us.
Posted by smitty on September 30,2008 | 04:11AM
Until the last paragraphs where Kinzer tries to explain the present mood in Iran, the article looks magnificent. His conclusions, however, are mostly the wishful thinking of a western scholar, who couldn't very well end up his analysis on a pessimistic note (he has to suggest that our 'victory'could be around the corner if we just do the things right) What is missing in his conclusion is precisely that Iran, being a traditional Shia society, has a capacity of bearing the hardship which is totally unfathomable to the West (and never mind its most hedonistic derrivative such as the U.S.A.). Stating that Iranian's main preoccupation would be yearning for western values (jobs,'freedom','contact with the outside world' etc)is simply westernising a totally un-western concept of a problem of a society based on its strong spiritual values. Just look at Ahmadinejad who stands un-afraid, as a rock, facing the most heavily armed country the world has ever seen, which is threatening him daily with anihillation. Why doesn't he listen to us, accepts his (Iraq's) fate and falls on his knees? (there should be here a food for thought for our academics) Napoleon understood better the things when he said : "there are two things that count in this World, the saber and the spirit, and in the long run- the spirit always prevails".
Posted by Peter RV on September 30,2008 | 08:18AM
It is nice to see someone provide a much-needed context to this situation. However, this article should be in Time, NY Times, Wash Post, Chi Trib, La Times - page 1; otherwise, our history-impaired executive branch and populace will likely pursue additional disastrous actions.
Posted by Stevan on September 30,2008 | 09:19AM
Thank you SO much for adding some modicum of balance & reason to the freak-show that is being run as U.S. policy on Iran... ..... Uhhhhh would the neoconz lie, fabricate & distort?? HMMMMMM? If you need time to think, you are part of the problem ?? Whatever the U.S. problem with Iran may be..Having an informed view of Iran is beneficial in pursuit of a solution that serves all interests....
Posted by Thomas on September 30,2008 | 09:26AM
Excellent Journalism. I wish we had more of " All shah 's men" Thoughtful Writings
Posted by Robert Reedberry on September 30,2008 | 12:30PM
Almost mirror images: To many Americans, the blame seems to lie only with a radical, aggressive and almost nihilistic regime in Tehran, which has threatened Israel, opposed U.S. efforts to resolve Middle East conflicts and has been linked to terrorism in cities from Berlin to Buenos Aires. To many Iranians, the blame seems to lie only with a radical, aggressive and almost nihilistic regime in Washington, which has threatened the Muslim world, opposed Iranian efforts to resolve Middle East conflicts and has been linked to terrorism in cities from Fallujah to the FATA areas of Pakistan. Plenty of blame to go around on both sides. As noted, Iran feeds off American hostility but George Bush & Co. exploit Iranian hostility in an almost identical manner. When I read Sometimes Ahmadinejad even defends these draconian measures while sitting in front of a photo of majestic Mount Damavand, a traditional nationalist symbol. I couldn't help thinking of all the times George Bush has posed in front of nationalist symbols while imposing draconian measures such as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, etc. etc. etc.
Posted by W C Freed on September 30,2008 | 04:46PM
What a fresh breath of honest writing. Finaly an article that calls facts with their name with out bias one way or another just reporting historical facts. Very good work
Posted by Mark Bolan on September 30,2008 | 05:11PM
A well-written history, mostly testable facts and little or no mind-swaying rhetoric. Opens and clears my mind and makes new sense out of recent and not-so-recent events in that part of the Near East. Assembles what I remember from news reports over many years into a rational structure. Many thanks!
Posted by Stan on October 1,2008 | 12:04AM
dear,mr.kinzer, excellent journalism. just like your book"all shah's men" ! thank you, p.shahdad
Posted by parviz shahdad on October 1,2008 | 06:25AM
Simply OUTSTANDING!! Mr. Kinzer, your name is etched in the heart and mind of every single true Iranian. You are the very reason I still believe in true and unbiased journalism. I got tears in my eyes when I read your comment about:(not exact words) Passing multiple BP stations and using another brand in support of beloved Dr. Mosaddegh. You know better than any one else in the world how much we love him and if it wasn't for Operation Ajax probably we didn't have to be where we are at this moment. But I assure you movement has not died yet and very soon Iran will join the rest of the FREE world. Kindest Regards.
Posted by Aryajet on October 1,2008 | 12:41PM
Mohammed Reza Pahlevi was no saint, but he was less brutal in his repression of dissent than the ayatollahs have been. Hundreds of people were killed or sent into exile by the Shah's secret police. Thousands have been killed or sent into exile by the present theocratic regime. The Shah permitted the growth of civil institutions and permitted reigious freedom, both of which have been suppressed by the ayatollahs. Eisenhower was a fool to overthrow Mossadegh, but Carter was equally foolish to press the Shah to abdicate. The Shah was a sick old man. His son would probably turned Iran into a modern constitutional monarchy. That has been the history of monarchies. Theocracies have been more tenacious of power.
Posted by Allen A. Smith on October 1,2008 | 03:04PM
WHY was this not taught in the US history classes? This is the first time I have heard of this.
Posted by Barbara on October 2,2008 | 12:55PM
Fantastic summary of something that I have learned by getting to know my significant other and his friends and family over the past 5 years- all Iranian Americans who came here from Iran in the 1970s and 1980s. I had had absolutely no idea about this. This drama is very personal, and has not only shaped the Iranian political scene, but actually still plays out very personally for my boyfriend, who is very identified with the foreign exploitation of Iran. A similar story can be traced about Iraq. Thanks for bringing this more into view. I wish you, or the Iranian American community, or someone would hire a big PR firm to make it household knowledge. We need that desperately. Sara
Posted by Sara Olsen on October 2,2008 | 03:41PM
Interesting that the photo on page 62 showing Darius with the caption "Ancient conquerors (top: Darius) built Persia into an empire" is part of the famous mosaic of the defeat of Darius by Alexander (variously attributed as either the battle of Gaugemela or Issus). Certainly one could have chosen one of the bas-relief images of a Persian king, which would have had the added benefit of showing an example of Achaemenid Persian art
Posted by Thomas Murray on October 3,2008 | 07:44AM
I was very interested in the "Other Side" of the coin about Iran and it's history. What a breath of fresh prespective. It was a very learning experience. I had no idea, but I do know the US seems to think that we're right and have all the answers and no other nation does. Thanks for open my eyes.
Posted by Ginny Hummell on October 3,2008 | 09:43AM
Is there someone out there in cyber-space who might have the where with all to influence the presidential candidates to read this information?The timing is critical and could make a hugh difference in possible negotiations after U.S. elections,especilly if Obama is the man.
Posted by Raleigh Burt on October 3,2008 | 10:54AM
I don't think that there is any doubt that installing the Shah in power was the wrong action to take. Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. Eisenhauer was listening to men who had fought and won World War 2 and were concerned about the Russian bear establishing itself in that part of the world and the threat it would bring to the free world's oil supply. Iranian anger against the United States was certainly justifiable, but their actions against the United States Embassy employees were not. Those United States citizens working at the embassy were not responsible for the installation of the Shah. The Iranian people by overthrowing the Shah proved that even with Khomeini's bad theology, that the Americans are right, power does come from the people.
Posted by Keith Wellman on October 3,2008 | 04:01PM
Excellent article which accurately explores the historical relationship of the United States and Iran. The question is: Why are the American people usually in the dark about this history? Are the public airwaves of the television networks practicing censorship? I was in Iran and have written about it with links. below. http://uniskywriter.blogspot.com/
Posted by Henry Pelifian on October 4,2008 | 06:28AM
Thank you very much for the clarity in your reporting. This sober review of Iran's history and interactions with the West and Russia is a must read for any american. Not that it absolves what the radical clerics and Ahmadinejad are saying and doing, but it helps us to understand they have historical precedence to not trust our intentions. I would be interested in learning about what forces inside Iran may shape its political future: Could it be different than status quo? If so, then how?
Posted by Kashif Hassan on October 4,2008 | 11:00AM
Factual articles such as this are a start toward a completely rational and objective understanding by the general public of Iran and how it fits into the rest of the world. Absent such a clear understanding of Iran and/or its motives: the very real danger exisits of a very deadly and completely unnecessary conflict with Iran to the deteriment of The United States' long term best interests. As the short term quick profits of its narrow predominently commercial interests, since about 1850, have increasingly taken precedence over the long term prosparity and best interests of the U.S. as a national entity.
Posted by Bob on October 4,2008 | 01:16PM
Hello, this website is great, and stories are so full and complete, with many details. Not like those from many popular websites, who write nothing new, just repeat same things in different words. Thanks!
Posted by Lithuanian on October 4,2008 | 02:41PM
Informative article, but he seems to imply that all personalities, all people, all nations are shaped solely on there treatment by others, that what is inside of us makes no difference. For one example may I suggest looking at the South Koreans and what they have been subjugated to in their history, their response, and where they are now.
Posted by Jim Haley on October 4,2008 | 04:07PM
this needs to be told on 60 minutes. TV. so americans will know the truth.
Posted by taine on October 4,2008 | 04:53PM
Thank you for this enlightening article. I have been associated with Persian people all my life in America and did not know this. I have never heard them discuss it. I agree with Sara who posted earlier, that this info needs to be common household knowledge. Mary Hubbart
Posted by Mary Hubbart on October 4,2008 | 08:18PM
I guess nobody has paid any attention to the typical photograph of Iran and Iranians with this report. Why does the media have to show violent and ugly pictures from Iran and Iranians on every report they have about Iran? I guess the purpose is to show that Iranians are stone-aged, uncivilized people that don't have any culture and civilization and are governed by ugly animal-like savages called mullahs and extremists. Unfortunately, this has served the purpose and that is how Americans and the ignorant people of other countries portrait us Iranians in their mind. Shame on those who remain still and quiet. Shame on those who are ignorant about the achievements of the great Persian civilization and its influence on the world history and civilizations and are not proud of it.
Posted by Babak on October 5,2008 | 03:41PM
Well said, Sara, and I totally agree with your idea of having this article, and the information it contains, disseminated to as many voters as possible. I am doing my part by sending it to every one on my EMAIL list and advising the recipients to pass it along to their contacts.
Posted by Don Parkhill on October 5,2008 | 08:53PM
Dear Mr. Kinzer, While congratulating you on the commendable work you have done on the Mossadegh era, I wonder why your rigorous research so well exemplified with regard to that era does not lead you to a more balanced assessment of the Qajar era. There are ample sources one could consult for a more balanced assessment of both the era and its rulers, than the very unscholarly remark that Nasser-ed-Din Shah was "morally corrupt." One would except such an assessment from partisans of Curzon and the Pahlavis, but not from a current researcher with aspirations to scholarly work. Sincerely, Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar Professor, Dept. of Political Science Director, Middle East Studies Program Santa Barbara City College President, International Qajar Studies Assoc. (IQSA)
Posted by Prof. M.M. Eskandari-Qajar on October 6,2008 | 01:31PM
Why do I feel like a mushroom who's finally come out into the light? I count myself as fairly educated, but clearly I've got a lot to learn after having been subjected to the "axis of evil" nonsense for the last few years. Thank you so much for sharing some of Iran's story with me!
Posted by Eric M. on October 8,2008 | 04:01PM
Thank you, Mr. Kinzer, for an outstanding clarification of Iran's sad history of domination by Western nations. Although I am proud of the many compassionate and principled actions of the U.S. and its citizens, I am decidedly not proud of our interference in Iran's struggles for independence. Although I certainly was angered by the hostage-taking and other actions/statements by the fundamentalist government, at least now I have some understanding of their history. I was aware of events after the overthrow of their government and installation of the Shah. Until his overthrow, however, all I remember seeing in the media were descriptions of his lavish lifestyle and his role as our ally. It's disturbing to realize that Britain and the U.S. believed they had the "right" to subvert the sovereignty of an independent state and install the government they wanted Iran to have. (Based on our actions re Iraq, it would appear our government has not learned from past history.)
Posted by Diane on October 12,2008 | 12:02AM
Finally I come across a balanced, objective and well written and researched article on the Middle East... There is yet hope for professional journalism... To think I stumbled upon this webiste by chance... I'll be back for more valuable and insightful articles like this one...keep up the good work!
Posted by Fadi Abu Shakra on October 12,2008 | 10:26AM
Growing up there were always whispers that while what the Iranians were doing was horrible, the U.S. had a hidden skeleton in the closet that the average american had no idea of, that was the root cause of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Thank you for clearing up the foggy innuendos and bringing the whole ugly history into the light. The depressing part is we do not learn from our history and the parallels to our current state is painful.
Posted by JPB on October 12,2008 | 10:49AM
The War Drums just got a little quieter. Read Overthrow by Mr. Kinzer!
Posted by TruthisTreason on October 12,2008 | 12:09PM
Kinzer's dismissal of the 25 year regime of Mohammad Reza Shah as purely evil in 1/2 page of an 11 page article without any attention whatever to the democratic reforms the Shah did put in place makes the rest of his "scholarship" sadly suspect. The Shah, for all his greed and corruption, tried to bring his country into the 20th century. He attempted to bring women out from under the veil and sent them to school. He struggled to bring Western ethics to a country mired in religious fanaticism that was much more brutal than his secret police ever thought to be. I spent seven years in Iran during his reign and while there is no doubt his secret police were feared, are they any worse than our own "rendition"? In this climate of suspicion there is no room for biased or incomplete history.
Posted by Galer Barnes on October 12,2008 | 01:37PM
Thank you for writing about Iran, for me it was interesting to see some one from another country is writing about Iran. However I was dissapointed to see all those pages are pure history. a newspaper article must be news worthy or commentary, since the old events are not news worthy , your article had to be a commentary ,for example you could pick up an event, analyse it and express your views, other wise you were writing a piece of history book or making speaches for a history class. by exchanging views we can all learn from the history otherwise history is a past event that can only be written and recorded the important thing is to learn from history discussion and exchange of ideas.is one way to reach that goal.
Posted by Abolghassem Madani on October 14,2008 | 03:55AM
I don't understand why this pro-Iran individual failed to explain why Israel should be destroyed or did he possibly forget the tirades of the leaders of this country that believes the way to bring the 12th Imam back is to start a war that will bring Shia law to the world.
Posted by Ronald on October 14,2008 | 01:05PM
It would be a great idea to send a copy of this to the candidates for the office of president and the current president and their staffs to read. This gives one a slightly different take on the present standoff between the U.S. and Iran. How is this true of our relationships with some other countries?
Posted by James R. Miller on October 15,2008 | 12:17PM
Can someone print this out for Senator McCain? Maybe he will quit singing "Bomb bomb bomb Iran". Warmongering must stop. In all seriousness, I agree with other comments. This type of historical perspective should be included in core curriculum. Yes, it is hard to believe our government could be involved as it was in teh 1950's but we must learn from history, not repeat it as it appears we are today. Coincidently, the August 2008 edition of National Geographic has an article about Iran. Well worth the read. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text
Posted by Walter on October 17,2008 | 04:07PM
As an Iranian raised in Canada, I am often frustrated that people don't take the time to actually examine my country's history before they pontificate on its domestic and international affairs. I want to sincerely thank you for doing the opposite: your honest and even-handed approach is refreshing.
Posted by Azin Samani on October 17,2008 | 11:00PM
I sure am glad that we are refusing as Americans to talk to Iran. I'm sure that this will make the world a safer place to live. Long live insanity.
Posted by Kirk Nelson on October 24,2008 | 02:53PM
Definitely, one of the best articles that describe almost all things about Persian.
Posted by Dariush on November 6,2008 | 11:42AM
This excellent article should serve as an eye opener to the Americans who see Iranians the tunnel vision of the US presidents since Jimmy Carter as terrorists and war mongers. It is time for a change in American foreign policy and it is time for normalization of relations with the people of Iran and to recognize that American policy leading to the overthrow of the Shah was flawed and not in the interest of the people of Iran and it is time for putting the past behind and making peace and promoting trade between Iran and the USA. The Iran Iraq war in the early 80s was imposed on Iran and the rest of the world ganged up on it and did not share the sorrow of its people. The Reagan Bush administration cheered Saddam Hussein to bloody the Iranian people and built up Saddam's army. No the US has no higher ground in relations to Iran. The US needs to therefore forget the past and look to better relations with the Iranian people. As an Obama supporter I would urge him to take a revisit the strategic relationship with Iran.
Posted by Girish on November 11,2008 | 06:27AM
Sadly, there is simply too much interest in the US -- financial and political -- to keep the demonization of Iran and other nations and peoples alive.
Posted by Ellen on November 12,2008 | 11:55PM
So am I to gather that when Persia conquered many other countries and created an "empire" this is cause for admiration? But when Iran itself falls victim to foreign powers this is injustice?
Posted by EM on November 15,2008 | 05:23PM
Well said EM - stop living in the past, makes something of yourself NOW, stop whining and complaining and get it done instead of talking about it
Posted by GoozNejad on November 23,2008 | 04:39PM
Iran is a great ancient civilisation with a long history of and culture and heritage like India and China. No western culture can come anywhere near that of Iran, India and China and we must all be proud of our heritage ad try to uphold the dignity of out Nations before the neuvaux rich powers of the modern world with super eapons of destrction.
Posted by Ranjan Khastgir on November 25,2008 | 06:12AM
Living in Iran as an American teenager during the 1950's, I saw first hand the demonstrations that occurred during the spring and summer of 1953. Some of the parades were part of Moharram, the Shia month of mourning, but the news reporters did not distinguish between those parades and the political demonstrations, making the whole situation seem worse than it was leading up to CIA intervention. For many years I have told my friends what really happened, just as the article describes. I also remember all the rumors spread by Kermit Roosevelt to justify his actions, which to those of us who had lived there many years knew to be blatantly false. Iran is a country of culture, history, and long memory.
Posted by Margaret F. on December 27,2008 | 11:29AM