Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile. (CIA World Factbook)
In reviewing "All the Shahs' Men" the Economist took a similar perspective about the taking over of the US Embassy to what Colman is saying. The Economist stated that the US embassy was taken over to make sure that the US could not meddle in Iranian history again, as it had w/ Mossadegh.
Fisk, describes how in the early days of the Iranian revolution there was not the blood bath/ reign of terror quality to it, that was soon to come. However, as the religious leaders became more seated in power, then it quickly turned into a killing spree with widespread public hangings.
There is a recording of a talk given by the author of "All the Shah's Men", Stephen Kinzer, on Alternative Radio. Along with asking the question would we(the US) be in the mess it is today had it not overthrown a democratically elected Prime Minister (I think Mossadegh was a PM) Kinzer draws parallels between the intelligence back then and the intelligence leading up to the current Iraq war. Kinzer -or another journalist spoke with several of the foreign service officers who were in Tehran during the rise of Mossadegh. These foreign service officers were sending back information that Mossadegh was associated with Communist and that Communism was growing in Iran. Kinzer states that all other historical evidence does not show this to be the case. When he (or this other journalist) asked these foreign services officers about this discrepancy they replied that they were aware that their reports were overblown, but Washington wanted to hear that Mossadegh was a Communist and that there was a growing Communist threat in Iran.
It is an interesting conundrum for the US. We have been hearing the rhetoric about spreading Democracy in the Middle East, but we never hear about Mossadegh.
This is the United States of Amnesia, and history is for losers. (A friend of mine likes to say that in the Middle East, what happened a thousand years ago is far more important than yesterday's news. Here, they're both irrelevant.)
With greater protections under international law than civilians.
I personally feel entitled to justify those I can identify with in one way or another. To criticise "the other", especially when they are not a part of the conversation, doesn't seem very productive. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Damn typos. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
"The claim that we lost is unfounded. Half of Lebanon is destroyed; is that a loss?"
