Ever wondered how these “small group of extremists” came about holding the entire country hostage? That’s because US nation state apparatus decided to overthrow democratically elected government there for their own interests.
When you study American foreign policy, you can’t help but wondering it’s indeed not the interest of USA to have once unconquerable empires like Persia to be thriving and realize their full potential. US would rather have dysfunctional corrupt extremists dependent on foreign aids rule an entire region than challenging its hegemony.
So next time you hear our media preach how detestable other foreign leaders like Erdogan or Modi or MBS is, think twice what the agenda there is. USA has had no problems supporting savage regimes for their own interests. I will pick WMD monster Saddam Hussein any day everyday over whatever there is left in Iraq today. History repeats itself. Nation state with media collusion saturating its own citizens mind with propaganda to serve their own interests (often just a very small group of people living north of Richmond) where the same group of people keep drumming the war machines for decades under different banners. Enough said.
> you can’t help but wondering it’s indeed not the interest of USA to have once unconquerable empires like Persia to be thriving and realize their full potential.
This is rather conspiratorial.
Great Britian and Russia have been involved in Iran since the 19th century (example[1]). They both invaded during WW2[2]. Britian left after the war but Russia stuck around. As the cold war began, the USA also got sucked into the mess in the middle east because Russia already had a presence there[3]. The US involvement is often portrayed as the beginning of this mess (just like you did), but it really isn't.
I promise that at no point did anyone involved say to themselves "I sure am scared of a modern Persian Empire". The country was simply caught up in the geopolitical chess game between world super powers. That doesn't make it right, but that's what it is.
The CIA's role in the coup has been greatly exaggerated. Even that source says:
> In 2014, historian Ray Takeyh conclusively showed that the US-led coup attempt was unsuccessful, with the CIA writing to Eisenhower that "The move failed […] We now [...] probably have to snuggle up to Mosaddeq if we're going to save [our influence in Iran];" the demonstrations that led to Mosaddeq's resignation took place some weeks after the Roosevelt-organized ones, and were composed of average citizens, not the thugs-for-hire that the CIA and MI6 had recruited.[64]
>"Ever wondered how these “small group of extremists” came about holding the entire country hostage? That’s because US nation state apparatus decided to overthrow democratically elected government there for their own interests."
Honestly it doesn't sound like you've studied very much then. I would recommend you read up Ali Shariati who was the revolution's ideologue and someone who was extremely influential amongst those university students of 1979. He was also very influential among younger clerics as well as with Khomeini himself. His philosophy was that society would be guided by the intelligentsia instead of the clergy. His political philosophy was one that was intended to lead to a freer society. And indeed in the immediate aftermath of the revolution democratic institutions called "shuras" and "komitehs" arose which gave workers and the impoverished an economic and political voice. These were considered a threat to clerical power however and so power was consolidated and the revolution was highjacked. Your parroting of the just "blame the west" narrative is just plain lazy.
Yeah, the us did kick it off in Iran. Then religious extremists managed to transition that to longterm despotic control of the country. Before the us overthrew the former govt, Iran wasn't exactly an unconquerable empire for a very long time though. And the us didn't learn it's lesson, having done this over and over again in south america and central america and other places. It seems like we are currently in a period of not doing this but all it takes is a new presidential whim to kick it off again, probably.
US actions don't remove the ability for their to be reliable observation that certain leaders are terrible. Kicking up hate for muslims is not a good thing long term for India. Killing your democratic enemies and cutting them up with saws in embassies is also clearly wrong. I feel completely empowered to point these things out, while being able to talk about the many problems in the US too.
US does whatever the President, Senate, Congress votes to do at the time.
It seems US is learning it's lesson but only takes one president to declare a war. Iran and Afghanistan were massive failures and trillions of tax payer dollars wasted.
Even US supporting Ukraine has resulted in failure. Failure in the sense of millions of lives lost and displaced, no victory for Ukraine and Russia is still destroying their infrastructure.
I support US helping other countries when a victory is swift and definitive.
> Ever wondered how these “small group of extremists” came about holding the entire country hostage? That’s because US nation state apparatus decided to overthrow democratically elected government there for their own interests.
It is tiresome to read again and again on the internet about how my country would be X or Y had the evil Westerners not "overthrown" the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953.
This false narrative is bandied around so much and so many fall for it with zero interest or curiosity to delve deeper to see if any of it is true.
Well, no, it isn't true.
Sadly, unfortunately, tragically, [insert adjective of your choice here]...
#Iran has NEVER been a democracy
Read that again.
While our future is bright and with the imminent the removal of the Islamic theocracy we will have the opportunity to have a secular democracy that represents and governs all Iranians, that will be a very important first for our ancient people, land and society.
What most ignorant people refer to in the above lazy copypasta are the events in and around 1953 with the appointment and dismissal of Mossadegh.
#READ THAT AGAIN
*appointment*
and
*dismissal*
Mossadegh was appointed, not elected, as per the 1906 Iranian constitution:
> ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.
You and I may not like that article in the 1906 constitution. While we're free to have our opinions about it, we can not have our own facts. The facts are that just like previous PM's (which included him btw!) Mossadegh was appointed legally (in accordance with the enacted constitutional framework) and also legally dismissed as well.
Funny that no one mentions or even remembers the first time around that he was appointed and dismissed: 28 April 1951 appointed and 17 July 1952 dismissed (1 year, 80 days) but every ignorant person loses their minds re the second time in 1952/1953 !!
Furthermore, it is hilarious that Mossadegh is now seen by some ignorant people devoid of any historical knowledge as a symbol or champion of democracy.
Mossadegh was so "democratic" that his referendum to dissolve parliament so that he obtains absolute power won 99.93% of the votes.
What did credible international publications think of his democratic zeal?
> TIME magazine: “Hitler’s best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja’s in 1936; Stalin’s peak was 99.73% Da’s in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.”
> NBC TV’s John Cameron Swayze announced: Mossadegh “has accomplished what Hitler and Stalin could not. He received 99 9⁄10 percent of the vote in a carefully managed referendum.”
> New York Times: “A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadegh in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country.”
> NYT, A Bid For Dictatorship, 7/15/52:”Having brought his country to the verge of bankruptcy,Premier Mossadegh is now trying to take it further along the road to ruin by demanding dictatorial powers for 6 months,on the plea that he needs these powers to pull Iran out of the crisis into which he has plunged it.What he proposes is in effect a legalized coup d’etat that smacks of Hitler’s technique.This is the legal device by which Hitler also acquired absolute powers he had no intention,of course, of surrendering them on termination of the ostensible period for which they had been granted, and there is no assurance that Mr. Mossadegh would act differently.”
> Melbourne paper, The Argus (8/21/53): “THE swift and violent overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh , Premier and virtual dictator of Persia, has been a complete surprise to the world, and a pleasant surprise to the Western half of it.”
The fact is many contemporary international news outlets referred to Mossadegh as a dictator because that’s what he was. There was nothing democratic about his reign (nor his coup attempt at overthrowing the Shah) Anyone who says otherwise is either naive or lying.
There’s only one reason a handful of Iranians have rehabilitated, re-branded, mythologized and continue to promote Mossadegh: their disdain for the late Shah.
Lamenting the loss of a Mossadeq because of democratic ambitions betrays a lack of knowledge of Iranian history.The most common misconception is that he was democratically elected. He wasn’t, he was appointed by the King.Another misconception is that he was a champion of democracy.
During his tenure Mossadegh dissolved the senate, shut down parliament, not once did he hold a full meeting of the council of ministers, suspended elections for the National Assembly, announced he would rule by decree, jailed hundreds of opponents, and the cherry on top of this "democratic" so called champion: he dismissed the Supreme Court.
This angered the National Assembly so he announced a referendum to decide if it should be dissolved. At the opening session he gave a speech aimed at intimidating dissenters saying only 80% of those present truly represented the people - for visuals think Saddam’s parliament speech with that cigar.
Our “champion of democracy” arranged that those voting for dissolution and those against voted in plainly marked booths. The signal was clear: anyone brave enough to vote in opposition would be beaten up by his street hooligans/Tudeh (Communist) supporters.
Dissolution won by 99% of all votes!
In one town with a population of 3,000, 18000 votes were cast in favor of Mossadeq’s undemocratic dissolution. His democratic ideals were so far reaching he allowed the dead to vote. Hundreds of people were killed during his rigged elections.
By the time of the counter-coup that toppled him he had 27 gallows put up on Sepah Square to hang his enemies in public. All but approximately 4 days of his premiership were under martial law/curfew. There was nothing democratic about his reign.
While a member of parliament he posed as a champion of the constitution, due process, representative govt, free press; but only in a few months did he do the things mentioned above. Khomeini promised democracy too. Had his revolution not succeeded he too would be touted a great democrat
From 1941-1979 Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi appointed & dismissed 22 PMs (incl. Mossadegh twice) in accordance to the 1906 Constitution.Yet, Mossadeq is the only 1 referred 2 as “democratically elected” despite the fact that all were appointed and dismissed in the same manner.
What set Mossadeq apart from the pack were his political ambitions.After becoming Prime Minister he successfully forced the Shah 2 appoint him Minister of War,granting himself absolute power.He soon replaced officers w/those loyal 2 him, consolidating power to obtain the throne via a coup
When the Shah finally dismissed Mossadegh in accordance with his legal authority under the Constitution of 1906, Mossadeq had the officer who delivered the dismissal decree arrested, his Foreign Minister published an editorial in Bakhtar-e-Emruz denouncing the Shah & called for his ouster.
It’s clear to the objective student of Iranian modern history that Mossadeq initiated a coup against the Shah and the events that followed & led to Mossadegh’s downfall should more appropriately be labeled a “counter-coup”
The Mossadegh that many promote is more of a myth like CheGuevara. People think he stood for things which were inconsistent with reality.
Also, it bears notice that Mossadeq's own Chief of Police & cousin, General Daftari, joined the royal forces to topple him. He was disliked by everyone except his communist friends.
Genuine question, doesn't the ultra-orthodox wing reflect the popular opinion of the country ?
My understanding is that Iran has among the greatest Urban-Rural divides in the world, and that the rural population is large enough to democratically force their conservative views onto the urban population. Turkey seems to be in a similar position, but their proximity to NATO and Europe keeps them somewhat grounded.
> small group of extremists holds the entire country hostage
I'm just not sure that the group of people we consider extremists are that small.
Iran's Supreme leader and guardian council have ultimate veto power over all legislation and candidates.
In the past decade, there have been massive nationwide protests almost annually, often with election fairness as a theme.
The Iranian military has a special wing, the IRGC, that is dedicated to the Supreme leader and used to crush protest or dissent.
These are not characteristics of a functioning liberal democracy. If Iran's regime reflects the popular opinion of Iranians (which I believe it doesn't), then that's in spite of their government, not because of it.
The IRGC is not a 'special wing' of the Iranian military. They are a completely separate organization which has no equivalency in Western societies or defense departments.
The IRGC is tasked with protecting and spreading Khomeini's brand of Islamic theocracy throughout the world. This is why you see Iranian proxies in Yemen, Nigeria, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, etc.
The Iranian military is tasked with protecting the Iranian nation and people. The military is a lower priority and less funded that IRGC, especially since the IRGC is a major actor in Iran's economy via various bonyads.
GAMAAN has provided insight into Iranian opinions with intelligent polling and verification methods that correct for the Islamic theocratic regime's authoritarian control over society. The coles notes are that the majority of Iranians do NOT support the Islamic regime, are not religious and do not support the theocratic laws and regulations such as enforced hijab and other gender apartheid measures currently in place against Iranian women.
That is not possible to answer due to the very high level of oppression. I still have Muslim family back home in Iran, especially in rural areas of Gilan province. They are very much against the government and its form of rule, but they are also not too keen on the socially liberal aspects of western democracy either. If I were to draw a rough comparison to the US political spectrum, I would place them as moderates similar to Mitt Romney supporters, or at worst McCain. The ultra-orthodox - closer to the Ted Cruz types - is mostly made up of the the Mullahs and their following for which there are plenty, but far outnumbered by moderates and liberals combined. Again though, this is impossible to measure as if you go around surveying the country, most people (especially in the elder generation) will not publicly speak out against the government and its policies.
Iran is actually relatively unique in the developed world in that their urban population is about as conservative as the population as a whole (Japan is another example IIRC). There is nuance here (most of the conservative urban population is concentrated in certain cities and neighborhoods) but the urban/rural divide does not explain the political divide.
The Iranian government has killed thousands of people and repressed other viewpoints not supported by the ruling elite.
It is possible the general population in Iran support this. All I know is that in countries where the people are allowed to voice their opinions freely, they generally oppose raping and torturing prisoners.
I am only a little more informed than most people on the topic, but I think it's kind of like this:
The conservative majority likes having an Islamic Republic, and has a lingering "memory" of the corruption and such of the Shah's regime, but that doesn't necessarily mean they like what the current regime has become. And as another poster said, the majority of the country, whatever their social/religious views, seems to be fed up with the country's rather dire economic state. It's been that way for the past like 5 years at least.
The main question is, what percentage of the society are these conservatives? What's the opinion of the rest of people? Unlike you, in my opinion, most people have good memories of the Shah's time (Zamane Shah). It's quite funny, but most of the hospitals that are now named after Khomeini Hospital were built by the Shah. Also most stadiums and universities.
Moreover, this is a superficial view of the story if we think that what annoys people in Iran is mostly economic. This can be seen even in the slogan of the biggest anti-government demonstration that started last year, "Women, Life, Freedom", the three things that has been oppressed in the last four decades. Yes, economic issues have put a lot of pressure on the people, but people's wishes should not be reduced to it.
It's probably a little bit like they now think this is worse than Zamaan-e-Shah, and that time is now viewed with history's rose-colored glasses
But the Shah was overthrown for a reason (and his overthrow was good and just even if what succeeded it didn't pan out well), and was a pretty popular event.
In the absence of the Regime's latest round of oppression, where they really turned it up a notch, and in the absence of economic turmoil, I doubt there would be much by the way of serious protests. I don't believe that absolutely everything can be reduced to economic factors, but I think that's usually a pretty big motivator in terms of getting most of any population to care enough about something to risk life and limb to protest.
I feel the Nobel prize was less for fighting for women's rights, and more for fighting against an anti-American, anti-Western government. For some reason, I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes. I of course don't ever see it going to someone fighting against the American regime itself, and its mass surveillance and war crimes, such as Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, or Chelsea Manning.
> To be fair, Mandela did not get it while imprisoned and while the US and the UK were tacit supporters of the Apartheid regime.
To be even more fair, Mandela wasn’t the first anti-apartheid Nobel Peace Prize award, and Albert John Lutuli (awarded 1960) and Archbishop Tutu (awarded 1984) got it for fighting apartheid when the US and UK were tacit (active, of the regime if not the apartheid policy specifically, in 1960) supporters of the apartheid regime (Reagan’s reversal on his “constructive engagement” approach came inmediately after Archbishop Tutu's address to Congress and subsequent meeting with the President after the award.. And Dr. King (awarded 1964) got it for his opposition to the parallel policy in America.
You are right. Although those recipients were clearly in favor of non-violent fighting for human rights and were not explicitly anti-western or anti-US (the definitions of non-recipients this subthread started with) When Dr King began opposing the Vietnam war instead of simply fighting for equal rights at home he became a larger menace.
The definition of non-recipients was never tied to violence. The examples given were Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, all peaceful activists or journalists.
I don't agree that Arafat was fighting any less than Narges Mohammadi when he got the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't get the prize for surrendering (neither did Mandela but he got the prize after he had already won).
I mean the Philippines is traditionally a US ally, but Duterte both openly criticised the US and tried to get closer to China. And Maria Ressa is definitely not an anti-US or anti-Western activist.
Pakistan's various leaders on the other hand have criticised the U.S far more harshly and far more persistently over the years. They have also had close relations with China for decades.
There are no peace Nobel prizes for such Pakistanis though. Malala got it for figthing for education of young girls. Although I no longer remember how Pakistan got into the discussion and if we're arguing or agreeing :)
You're mistaken about Yasser Arafat. He wasn't awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting Israeli apartheid; rather, he received it for ceasing that fight in line with the Oslo Accords- a deal brokered by the United States.
Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to make peace in the middle east (as were Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin), not for ceasing his political fight or for giving up his ambitions.
He said: "Peace is in our interest: as only in an atmosphere of just peace shall the Palestinian people achieve their legitimate ambition for independence and sovereignty."
Narges Mohammadi's fight is a peaceful one as well.
I do not disagree that this was a peaceful move, I rather disagree that Yasser Arafat is an example of someone getting the peace prize despite acting against American/Western interest.
The claim that I responded to was essentially that only opponents of anti-Western regimes ever get the Nobel Peace Price. Arafat is a counter example to that.
Arafat's decision to pursue his goals with political means is neither pro- nor anti-Western/Israeli. It was meant to be pro-Palestinian. Hardliners on both sides hated the idea and unfortunately they have prevailed.
Lê_Đức_Thọ, who fought the US in Vietnam, got it in 1973 (together with Kissinger) and promptly refused it. Maybe the Nobel committee does not want to be embarrassed by a refusal again, and that is the only reason it no longer awards it to anti-western activists :)
They gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a US president who had ordered so many drone strikes that even by the US's own admission, hundreds of children were slaughtered.
By virtue of the President’s role of Commander in Chief and that Doctor’s Without Borders as an organization has received the prize, it can be said that this President is the first to bomb another Nobel recipient after an attack on a MSF hospital.
> On 7 October 2015, President Barack Obama issued an apology and announced the United States would be making condolence payments of $6,000 to the families of those killed in the airstrike
Literally adding insult to injury. No wonder the US kills so many foreigners if it only values them at six thousand dollars a piece.
Had the drone strikes started when he Obama received the Nobel? It was awarded October 9, 2009, and he had only taken office that January. I recall the drone strikes (possibly incorrectly) being a second term controversy, not a first 9 months controversy.
Obama did more drone strikes in his first year (563) than Bush did his entire term.
I can't find the specific months, but it's unlikely it was all done in the last quarter. He also authorized the first drone strike on an American.
It’s a common misconception that the prize is for being a 100% peaceful person one’s entire life. In fact the award is for making progress on peace in a specific context; it is not meant to certify the recipient has no blood on their hands.
See also: all of the winners whose pasts include revolutionary actions that killed innocents.
As others said, the prize was well before drone strikes were a thing. It was basically honouring the effort to run and win the US presidential election as a black man, something nobody had ever managed to do.
This is because civil rights are a Western ideology. They certainly didn't come from ISIS' views on women. Nor from Russia and China, who supported them.
Snowden defected to Russia, see above about supporting ISIS.
Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families who were working against AQ, another regime that openly oppresses its people's civil rights.
I think you might need to have a hard look at what you think peace is.
So far, the most civil rights a person can experience is under Western governance, flawed as it is.
To add context, Snowden became trapped in Russia when the US State Department decided to cancel his passport while he was at an airport there on the way out of Russia.
> Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families
Exposure like the footage they revealed of US drones killing innocent civilians?
> The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 432,093 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.
Right, Assange is the problem, not the US military operations he exposed.
>Right, Assange is the problem, not the US military operations he exposed.
It's only clear that civilians were intentionally targeted by ISIS and AQ. It's also true that civilians who opposed Western military forces were killed. That's expected, because opposing a military force is an official enlistment.
Assange is the problem. You don't get a peace prize for aiding in civil rights oppression.
> This is because civil rights are a Western ideology. They certainly didn't come from ISIS' views on women. Nor from Russia and China, who supported them.
How do you come to the conclusion that Russia and China support ISIS?
Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent. But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.
The West represents civil rights. That's just as fact. Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations? Obviously not.
> Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent.
How are "we" supposed to be better then?
> But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.
Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Taliban etc are civil rights activits for the US (sold as "moderate rebels" in Syria by German media at least). Of course they are deemed terrorists in other countries. I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.
> Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations?
I ask myself if I do enjoy civil rights if I hold dissident opinions in western countries. Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries, while it's obvious that we target 3rd world country standards for human rights?
This makes me feel like you didn't read my replies. If you read even a little bit about the Iraqi Insurgency you wouldn't be asking for a source. It's on Wikipedia, a bunch of sources at the bottom. It's on other encyclopedia pages. Plenty of articles. Etc. I don't believe that you didn't find it.
>How are "we" supposed to be better then?
Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights. When the US helped AQ it was under the premise that they would support civil rights. When they didn't, the West labeled them terrorists.
>I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.
I see, but ISIS and AQ are deserving of awards in that department? That's laughable. These are groups that televise beheadings, and treat women worse than the West treats animals. And this is glamorized. Is anti civil rights behavior glamorized in the US? Of course not. The very definition of civil rights is at odds with non Western society. And that's true whether or not you believe that the US is committing acts outside those values. The point is, if it's done, then it's done in secret, which is at the least preventing its promotion in society.
>Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries...
Obviously. Less worse = better. Why would you want it to be worse? What did you mean by "supposedly?" Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? That's ridiculous. Does the US stone women for adultery? Jail women for showing their body? Amputate limbs for theft? You can't be seriously pushing for that to be called civil rights. Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.
> Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights.
You implied it and you are doing it in your last paragraph again.
> Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? [...]
I am trying to say that you are hanging the bar so low, that you can get away with 3rd world standards (for civil rights). With your question series you are just describing islamic countries and not all 3rd world countries are islamic.
> Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.
Motte-and-bailey for civil rights and you again try to sell me that we are better. The west is not better and we should stop meddling in internal affairs of foreign countries. I can't blame them for anti-western sentiment.
Hitchen's Razor? LMFAO! You're refusing to read and follow citation from multiple encyclopedias. Not to be too forward, but you don't exactly sound like you know what you're talking about. I have better things to do with my time than listen to your claims of superiority over Brittanica, and other trusted sources.
Gandhi - whose name has become synonymous with peace and non-violence - was nominated 3 times but didn't win.
The evidence strongly suggests that the Nobel committee doesn't like giving the prize against anti-western dissidents until they absolutely have to, i.e. when not giving the prize would raise more eyebrows and damage the Nobel's reputation. The two anti-western dissidents that come to mind are Nelson Mandela and (arguably) Martin Luther King. Again, they received the prize after achieving global fame and recognition.
ElBaradei won the prize for his work in the IAEA (whose primary focus has been on non-western nations) -not for his opposition to the Iraq war - whose primary focus has been on non-western nations.
Tawakkol Karman (2011) is another dissident against a non-western country.
Willy Brandt wasn't a dissident of the West. Far from it in fact - known for fierce anti-communist domestic policies , support for right-wing governments, the Vietnam war and for promoting greater European and western integration.
Nobel prizes given to anti-apartheid South African activists seem to be a laudable counter-example to the rule though.
> The two anti-western dissidents that come to mind are Nelson Mandela and (arguably) Martin Luther King. Again, they received the prize after achieving global fame and recognition.
Seems like a “no true Scotsman” argument. Naturally, the winners are going to often be prominent individuals.
> Tawakkol Karman (2011) is another dissident against a non-western country.
The previous poster specifically said “I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes,” so I brought up a recent activist that has been against the Saudi government (and I guess Malala Yousafzai could be viewed as critical of many parts of the Pakistani government).
> ElBaradei won the prize for his work in the IAEA (whose primary focus has been on non-western nations) -not for his opposition to the Iraq war - whose primary focus has been on non-western nations.
It was pretty obvious to everyone at the time that this (as well as Obama’s prize) was a direct rebuke against Bush’s foreign policy. Here’s the opening paragraph of the New York Times article about his award[1]:
> The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded Friday to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, whom the Bush administration tried but failed to remove from his job just months ago.
> The award was a vindication of a man and an agency long at odds with President Bush and his administration over how to confront Iraq and Iran. It could strengthen the agency's position as conflicts loom over preventing Iran from obtaining fuel it could use for nuclear weapons and disarming North Korea.
> For most of the last year, the Bush administration had tried to block Dr. ElBaradei from assuming a third term as chief of the agency, a part of the United Nations, arguing that he would not be strong enough to face down Iran and the covert nuclear weapons program it is suspected of having. But the United States had no support from any of its allies, and ultimately had to withdraw its objections to Dr. ElBaradei's reappointment.
> Seems like a “no true Scotsman” argument. Naturally, the winners are going to often be prominent individuals.
I would argue that the majority of recent Peace Laureates (including this years) became internationally prominent after winning the prize. Did you know of Narges Mohammadi before this announcement?
> The previous poster specifically said “I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes,”
I really wasn't defending the OP's assertion. In fact, I don't agree with it at all. These are largely transactional western alliances. While the Nobel Committee might want to avoid a confrontation with Saudi Arabia, I doubt it has too many qualms about awarding prizes to dissidents from Pakistan. You already mentioned Yousafzai. My point was really that the Nobel Prize is rarely awarded to western dissidents (including journalists or activists) and is almost exclusively awarded to dissidents in non-western countries.
> For most of the last year, the Bush administration had tried to block Dr. ElBaradei from assuming a third term as chief of the agency, a part of the United Nations, arguing that he would not be strong enough to face down Iran and the covert nuclear weapons program it is suspected of having. But the United States had no support from any of its allies, and ultimately had to withdraw its objections to Dr. ElBaradei's reappointment.
Your post already has my rebuttal. The United States was the sole objector to ElBaradei's appointment- with the rest of the west and in-fact the rest of the world backing him. The Iraq War was universally unpopular by 2005 ( with a case of mass amnesia by supporters from pre-2003) Hardly a controversial choice.
There have been some “anti-western” Nobel peace prize awards in the recent past. I think Saudi Arab was not happy about 2011 Nobel peace prize winner for example. While Snowden and Assange have done great things, they are not exactly in line with the human rights activism type activities rewarded by the committee.
> more for fighting against an anti-American, anti-Western government
"[t]he recipient is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway. Since 2020 the prize is awarded in the Atrium of the University of Oslo" [0]
The winners are basically selected by a subset of retired Norwegian MPs, and even Alfred Nobel's living heir has become opposed to the politicization of the Nobel Peace Price [1]. So it's reflecting the values of a subset of the Norwegian elite
The comment above should NOT be viewed as a rejection of Narges Mohammadi's work.
The Nobel prize is awarded by a committee of (largely) Judeo-Christian westerners, in a western country.
Equivalent awards given out by dictatorships or theocracies around the world can be just as easily seen through the same lens of hypocrisy and cynicism.
I am courious: could you name the committee members? [1] I am sure they are westerners, not clear about if the "Judeo-Christian" claim is very precise [0]
Obviously there is a bias in the awards, but is there a way to not be biased? Also, there is space to create better Nobel prizes for sure so blaming Nobel prize is in a way linked to the world incapacity to promote something better?
Can the West still be characterized as Judeo-christian? Western culture seems largely liberal at this point with the more religious people being lumped to the right wing.
It is said many churches/cathedrals in Europe are now appreciated more for their historical value than as places of worship
The word Judeo-Christian is often used to refer to exactly that kind of secularized Christian morality which undergirds the post-Enlightenment west. It became popular as a means to combat anti-Semitism in America, by arguing that Jews and Christians (and nobody else) shared some kind of common moral framework which so happens to be what the United States was built on.
The problem is, if you asked Jews 200 years prior about "Judeo-Christian values" they would have laughed you out of the ghetto. It's solely the product of an assimilating Jewish population trying to make a claim to American identity, like Italian Americans and Columbus Day. It's also totally entangled in debates about Zionism, as Judeo-Christian comes to mean "Abrahamic but not Muslim." Actually, you hear Abrahamic get used more often as Muslims in America stake a similar claim to America.
I wonder.why a Peace Prize should ever go to anyone for fighting, even if the fighting is for a patently just cause. There should be a different prize, or at least a different name for it.
But this ship has sailed, apparently.
OTOH it's really understandable that many people value fighting for a just cause higher than peace. The easiest way to peace is often to just surrender, and have peace on the terms of an evil aggressor. But it's not a kind of peace many people prefer to live in.
"The Nobel Prize For Doing Nothing In The Face Of An Oppressor And Calling That Peace" has far too many candidates for them to be able to pick a winner.
I'd say that the way Dalai Lama or MLK or even Mahatma Gandhi fought for their causes is rather different from the way Nelson Mandela or Abraham Lincoln fought for their causes. In either case, the cause was just and noble, and sometimes even the same.
you are right. people fight for peace, fight for freedom, whatever. People do not understand what is peace. There is only very few places in the world (1 where I know of, by chance) that actually study, what is peace. culture of peace. Peace is known not to be simply the absence of war, and so, trying to remove war isn't neccesarily moving towards peace or a culture of peace, while many things which do not remove violence, can still be considered contributions (very great ones) to peace.
imho the nobel peace prize should take into account what is peace, not just focus on the absence of war. this is an outdated idea. Polemology vs. Irenology.
There are so many people contributing greatly to peace who are invisible. only the ones 'fighting against war' are made visible. and with those, like other commentors suggest, its often simply an opinion. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and one mans soldier is anothers terrorist... they are all fighting, killing or destroying (destruction can be non-physical here). it should atleast be a nobel anti-war prize or something. not a peace prize. it doesn't do justice to the many people contributing actively to a culture of peace in one way or another.
> For some reason, I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes
Rigoberta Menchú (awarded 1992) was an activist against the abuses of US allied regime, which abuses were aligned with and arguably a manifestation of US geopolitical priorities, and the Rev. Dr. King (awarded 1964) was an activist against the abuses of the American regime itself.
My favorite Nobel peace prize goes to Abiy Ahmed who was awarded 2019 prize. He went to Sweden took the prize, deliver a speech then a couple of months later he went on a streak of atrocious in Ethiopia [1]. You name it ( mass killing, rape, genocide..etc).
Also take into consideration that any head of state, prime minister or cabinet member in any government can nominate people for the prize (A lot of other people can do that too)[2] . So it would be always interesting to know who our governments officials nominated over time
> So it would be always interesting to know who our governments officials nominated over time
There's a list of nominees [0].
The Pakistani Senate nominated Erdogan for this year's prize, for example [0].
That said, most nominations seem to be done by Norwegian MPs trying to message to their own constituents (eg. Abiy's nomination and the large Ethiopian diaspora voting bloc in Norway and Sweden) [1]
To be fair, Obama was granted a Nobel peace prize almost as soon as he got in office (just for being in office)… it was also right before continuing the drone assassination campaign, including the extra judicial killing of US citizens without trial
The Nobel peace prize is a joke. I think, at this point, everyone knows that. They should have called it something else, so not to devalue the other Nobel prizes. But then it'd not be as catchy.
Also Iran in 1953 had a prime Minister Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil. The UK (and US) sought the support of right-wing mullahs, then overthrew the prime minister and replaced him with a dictator. Then the CIA helped SAVAK kill off the secular left for the next few decades. Eventually even the right-wing clerics and bazaari grew tired of foreign interference and threw the western powers out.
> Also Iran in 1953 had a prime Minister Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil.
Iranian oil was nationalized; in 1951 the National Iranian Oil Company took control, and retained it even after Mossadegh’s ouster (even up to today).
> The UK (and US) sought the support of right-wing mullahs, then overthrew the prime minister and replaced him with a dictator.
First, by this point in time Mossadegh had dissolved parliament and was ruling by fiat based on a rigged plebiscite (he claimed that 99.9% of Iranians had voted to give him control of the country[1]). Second, he wasn’t replaced with a dictator. The Shah had been in power since the Soviet Union and the U.K. had forced his father to abdicate over a decade before, and had been in a power struggle with the Majlis for quite some time by that point.
> Eventually even the right-wing clerics and bazaari grew tired of foreign interference and threw the western powers out.
The Shah was (mostly) friendly with the West, but he was hardly a puppet. He was the one who got OPEC to double their prices during the 1973 oil crisis, which hit the West pretty hard. Here's how PBS put it[2]:
> The final blow came in December when the Shah of Iran, ostensibly a U.S. ally, took advantage of American impotence and persuaded the rest of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to more than double the price of a barrel of oil from $5.11 to $11.65.
> Iranian oil was nationalized; in 1951 the National Iranian Oil Company took control, and retained it even after Mossadegh’s ouster (even up to today).
Control of oil sales reverted back to British Petroleum (and the Seven Sisters) after the US/UK ousted Iran's prime Minister with Operation Ajax. Not all of Mosaddegh's changes were undone as it would gave destabilized the Shah.
> Second, he wasn’t replaced with a dictator. The Shah had been in power
The Prime Minister ran the government like a modern western government, the Shah was a figurehead. What you're saying is the US and UK wanted to remove the modern parliament to revert to an older, anti-democraric, conservative, traditional government. Which is what happened, and now the Swedes and westerners are whining about the traditionalism the west foisted on Iran, now that it is no longer western aligned.
Aside from mullahs and the dictator, the CIA gave money to criminal elements in Iran to help regain western control.
The Shah was a figurehead and left for Italy. He did not want to run Iran or even go back but was convinced to by westerners. He flew back to Iran with Allen Dulles.
> had forced his father to advocated over a decade before
> The Prime Minister ran the government like a modern western government, the Shah was a figurehead.
This is simply false. If you want an example, look at the 1949 Iranian constitutional assembly where the Shah was able to successfully change the Iranian constitution to increase his political power. A lot of people are only interested in the U.S. involvement in ousting Mossadegh 1953, and frankly don’t seem to understand (or seem interested in understanding) anything else that was happening in the country at the time.
> Forced his father to advocate? Advocate for what?
Sorry, that should have read "abdicate."
> What you're saying is the US and UK wanted to remove the modern parliament to revert to an older, anti-democraric, conservative, traditional government.
No, the Majlis had been dissolved by Mossadegh after they threatened to oust him, and then he used a rigged plebiscite to take full control of the country[1]:
> The Iranian Majlis, the lower house of Parliament, which last month threatened to oust Premier Mohammed Mossadegh with votes of no confidence, was declared today to have been dissolved as the result of the referendum completed this week, in which 99.94 per cent of the voters using non-secret ballots took the Premier's side in his quarrels with the chamber.
But he was elected good or bad policies it was up to the voters to decide - the CIA/US supported coup bought in a military dictator who had people dropped into the sea and lakes from aircraft.
How about the mothers still today protesting about their sons/daughters who disappeared (1,248).
> Saudi Arabia and Iran struck a peace deal this year, brokered with Chinese help.
It wasn't a peace deal - it was a normalization of relations (aka they've reestablished diplomatic contact) [0]. Iranian and Saudi proxies are still killing each other in Syria and Iraq.
> We haven't heard about Yemen since.
That's because of Oman acting as a mediator between the Houthis and Saudis [1]
- "I'm pretty sure he is the peace prize recipient who started the most wars"
Henry Kissinger, 1973?
edit: I think Wilson (1919 Nobel; 1913-1921 presidency) is also a contender, if anyone has the patience/stamina to count all his conflicts and classify them. (I.e. what counts as "starting a war" and what's better described as a continuation of an existing conflict).
At the risk of further encouraging you to think that there is validity to anything you regurgitate, what do you think were the "7 wars"? And how did Obama "start" them?
It is very difficult to think these matters in rational and neutral way. Everyone has a side and if you talk against your own ”side”, you get cancelled.
While, for example, the above is quite obvious if you know how politics and power work. Everyone likes to stay as ”a good guy”, but it is impossible to have and maintain power by being just a good guy.
Many nations try to keep a specific narrative and most believe on it because they don’t like the alternative, as it would make many arguments hypocrite.
You mean the guy who has sworn allegiance to Putin and takes an anti-Ukraine stance on Twitter to save his neck? A guy who has made millions peddling 'his story' and lives a life of luxury in Moscow? Yeah, surely he should get a Nobel prize
It would be nice if instead of everyone hating on the prize, we could take a moment and reflect. Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through, the sacrifices they've made, and the bravery they show to try to make things better.
Think the prize is politicized and corrupt? Whatever - it's not about you or your opinion.
> Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through
Iran had a parliament in 1953, when the US and UK launched operation Ajax after the prime Minister nationalized Iran's oil. The prime Minister was ousted, a dictator replaced him - who returned to Iran on a flight with Allen Dulles. The conservative mullahs were western allies in removing power from the parliament.
Then this structure the west put into place fell out of alignment with the west in 1979, and we suddenly hear an enormous amount of stated sympathy about "women trapped in these regimes". Sympathy that we didn't hear when the CIA was handing SAVAK lists of progressive, secular women to arrest or kill. It's farcical.
Your story about operation Ajax is just that - a story. Iran’s PMs were all elected by parliament and the one before Mr. Mossadeq was assassinated by Islamists allied to your “democrat” who then let the killer get off with no jail time.
You also fail to note that the PM in question had a “99%” referendum during his tenure. You also fail to mention that the said PM refused his constitutionally valid dismissal by the Shah and then proceeded to launch a COUP against the constitutional monarchy.
You fail to mention all this because NYTimes and CIA and the rest of the Western world is perfectly happy with the narrative of Kermit Roosevelt getting off the plane with a suitcase of dollars and then taking over a “99%” supported regime overnight! CIA is sure impressive!
The facts are that the PM in question began to alienate his allies — the Islamists — so they withdrew support, and very substantial chunk of the nation absolutely did not agree with his coup and his program of unilaterally changing the outcome of the 1905 Constitutional Revolution of Iran which do grant certain powers to the monarch. This includes dismissing the PM.
So, now that we have a more ‘rounded’ historic context of what actually led to ‘53 counter coup encouraged and supported by US and UK (which failed) and the next day’s Army’s counter-coup (which succeeded), the topical point remains:
Whatever CIA, or “Anglo-Saxons” or this or that evil empire has done in NO WAY excuse or elucidate the dictatorial regime of the clergy and their very open trampling the rights of women in Iran.
I am not sure what is the Islamist version of “Tankee” but you are it.
[and a ps for Iranians in the audience]
If you continue to repeat the ridiculous NYTimes/CIA version of the story you are denigrating our great people. The idea that some flunky from CIA with a suitcase of cash managed to unseat a “99%” PM overnight mainly says that Iranians are mindless chumps who are trivially manipulated. This is neither flattering or accurate.
Most people today would agree with Mossadegh's initiative and the point remains that he was ousted from power for his nationalization of a western oil company and his inimity with the islamists and the Shah. The US helped in the process. And it's no disrespect to the iranians to state those facts.
Everyone in Iran, including the Shah, wanted Iran’s oil nationalized. It was the economic consequences that tempered others. The Good Dr. had to go hat in hand to US and beg Eisenhower to aid after oil revenues stopped. That was his bright idea.
Also your story is not the propaganda narrative that is repeated. This is the single paragraph story:
Iran did have a democratic government, but because the PM nationalized the oil, US did a coup and installed a dictator, the shah.
And that is entirely different from your “US helped in the process”. That would be accurate because that is all it was: in the main political support. Then, we in fact had a decade were Generals were powerful, until the Shah, finally in 60s (without CIA and to the great annoyance of the Kennedys) assumed all the power after having disbanded the Communist party and defanged the National Front. The “dictatorship” began 10 years later and it was far more benevolent than say a psycho killer like Mao who murdered millions. But Mao was a “great man” and the Shah is a “dictator”. Go figure.
This is a prize awarded by the 2023 Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. The oldest member of the committee was 4 years old in 1953, and all five are Norwegian, not American or British. The person who received the award is an Iranian woman.
Why the hell is the bad behavior of the CIA in 1953 relevant to this discussion? "The West" is not a monolithic entity that should be held accountable as a single unit indefinitely for evil things done by two countries 70 years ago.
How about being held accountable at least once? That did not happen yet. The best thing that we hear is some random liberal american "not approving" Iraq or Libya invasions.
It might seem like a hard take but, what happened in 1979 is not much different that 1953 with regard to influence of western countries on it IMO. Many people in Iran also believe the 1979 "revolution" was supported by western countries, if not planned. Iran was on a path to rapid growth and also Shah's decision on doubling the Oil's price in 1973 could be another reason [1].
> It is obvious there is much more attention and criticism on Iran than other regimes you are not supposed to care, and you don't even need to look very far.
Everyone always acts like it's some kind of conspiracy that their most-hated governments don't get sufficient criticism or that their favorite governments get more than a fair share of criticism.
I can only roll my eyes at this and continue to not take you seriously.
First of all, you're assuming a parity between the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia. A couple of years ago, I would have been more sympathetic to this point, but with Iran's brutal crackdown of late, which apparently includes widespread rape of women in prisons, I think it's safe to say the Regime is accomplishing the impressive feat of making Saudi Arabia look good.
Really, I think it may really just come down to money; Saudi Arabia is in the fortunate position of being able to pay large chunks of its citizenry to be docile and follow the rules. If their economy was similarly bad, I do think it's likely they would be also be engaging in violent repression.
Second of all, you can probably find plenty of Guardian articles criticizing the Saudi government. In fact, you've provided very little evidence of any kind that those three publications use any of the same language at all about either government, or that they don't criticize Saudi Arabia.
Third, even if you could point to similarities, it wouldn't be evidence of a "conspiracy"; it would instead merely reflect a double-standard held among the Western public at large, which tends to view Iran worse than Saudi Arabia because, on some reptilian level, it knows Saudi Arabia is a geo-political ally and Iran is an enemy. If you want to say this opinion is hypocritical, I'd say you're probably right (especially since Saudi hasn't been acting like an ally lately), but of course, you're not making any such reasonable claim.
At the end of the day, an allegation of "conspiracy" is simply something lodged by what I would call the "ignorant arrogant"; people who think they are smarter than they are, but who actually have no desire or ability to actually think critically. Instead, they just want an easy answer to lay blame for things they don't like. There is a lot of mental and emotional infirmity involved in calling things "conspiracies".
We only know about Iran's brutal crackdown of late from western NGOs and their thralls. Heck, most of Iranians themselves are likely getting these news from these sources, and not from direct or second order witnesses.
Meanwhile, we never seem to hear anything about Saudi Arabia. No crackdowns, no police brutality, no dress code enforcement. Yes, we do hear "criticisms of SA government", but that is a far cry from full throttle inciting of rebellions and then covering these rebellions 24/7, by the means of media.
I'm not saying that Iran is a nice country to live if you are a young woman. It's just that in Saudi Arabia they could not even drive until very recently.
A "double-standard held among the Western public at large" is the conspiracy I'm talking about. You don't need to have any evil puppeteers if your media are obedient to the sufficient extent and if self-proclaimed critical thinking experts are in fact mental gymnastics experts.
I'm also wondering how much do you need to be paid to be content about not being treated as a person.
> A "double-standard held among the Western public at large" is the conspiracy I'm talking about. You don't need to have any evil puppeteers if your media are obedient to the sufficient extent and if self-proclaimed critical thinking experts are in fact mental gymnastics experts.
If you think the media is "obedient", then yes, you are alleging a conspiracy because it makes you feel smarter and more savvy than you are. A general double-standard is not a conspiracy.
> We only know about Iran's brutal crackdown of late from western NGOs and their thralls. Heck, most of Iranians themselves are likely getting these news from these sources, and not from direct or second order witnesses.
This is such an absurd and kind of morally off thing to say; you're basically acting like certain horrors that are being perpetrated against some people probably aren't happening, and are ignoring any real footage that comes out of Iran.
> Meanwhile, we never seem to hear anything about Saudi Arabia. No crackdowns, no police brutality, no dress code enforcement.
You can hear plenty of negative news about it, but has it occurred to you that the reason why we hear less is because there is less? No, you could not give that notion any credence, because it would rob of you of the superiority you feel from being contrarian and sophomorically cynical.
What real footage? As far as I noticed there are two bodies in Iran stories on the timespan of a year, one of which is still warm. It is a horrible personal tragedy, but as far as social struggle goes, not so much.
There are likely much more secondary victims who were incited by NGOs to riot and got brutalized by riot police. Who is to blame here, especially in the absense of results?
How much less are we hearing from SA? Half a dead body per year? We're not hearing anything and that's it.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that Mossadegh was legally asked to step down, and refused, and then the person with the legal right ousted Mossadegh.
Regardless, if we don't like dictators or power grabs, then we certainly shouldn't like the current regime in Iran.
I'm pretty sure there were people who cared in 1979, I wasn't one of them because I was in school. And I mean, I'm probably older than most people on HN. Probably a significant percentage of the community here didn't care in 1979 because they weren't alive.
Anyone old enough to vote in 1979 is probably pretty close to retirement now. Almost everyone in a position of power in 1979 is probably dead. Obviously Biden was a young senator, but that's about it.
I'm male, and I'm with you. Yes, this IS political, and what's your point? It's a thumb in the eye to one of the worst regimes on the planet. I'm sure this will piss off the mullahs, and what better reason than that?
People like her (whom I'd never heard of, sad to say) who put it all on the line to defend human rights -- if that's what the Peace Prize has evolved into, then good.
There are subjects were shows that HN is not onpy skewed towards male, but also wealthy, priviledged and mostly white male. With a very healthy dose of SV bubble techbros thrown in the mix.
HN still is one of the last places on the internet one can have interesting discussions. Sometimes so, it feels like is changing...
> Do you really think this recipient isn’t deserving?
Yes. What is the concrete achievement being celebrated here? Especially regarding to doing "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"? [1]
> I think you’ll find that the peace prize has been political for a very long time.
> The giving of it to Kissinger is going to be hard to beat.
I broadly agree with both of your points here. Perhaps in an ideal word, nobody would have cared about the prize. But at least we can try to shame them for making ridiculous choices.
>Think the prize is politicized and corrupt? Whatever - it's not about you or your opinion.
Here's a hot take -- I think all the Nobel Prizes, not just the Peace Price are politicized, corrupt, pop-culture-ish, and basically just in-group accolades! Similar to the Academy Awards.
Well, Nobel Prizes aren't exactly "how we run science, medicine, etc." But perhaps you could argue that chasing Nobel Prizes is a counterproductively strong incentive in those fields (I have no idea if that is the case).
Well, the police giving a citizen that saved a baby and award for example. Or moviegoers praising a new film. I'm sure you can imagine a few. Whereas Nobel Prizes, Academy Awards, etc. seems to be a lot of self-dealing when they are not trying to get points for doing something that is currently popular in a "fad" sort of way.
> It would be nice if instead of everyone hating on the prize, we could take a moment and reflect.
Nice can also mean silly and ignorant, as any well-aged dictionary would tell you. [0] We are reflecting, on the corruption and politicization of our institutions.
> Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through, the sacrifices they've made, and the bravery they show to try to make things better.
Essentially the same Bush-era "plight of the Afghan women" kind of appeal to emotion to justify corruption, interventionism, and war [1].
Also, I'm pretty sure you don't really know much about the political situation in Iran. Mohammadi belongs to a political faction called the Reformists [2], which is filled with regime apologists and charlatans. More specifically, she belongs to a particular branch which is sometimes called Neo-Shariatism [3]. Shariati himself was the "ideologue of the Islamic Revolution" [4], and a full-fledged charlatan who used to falsely claim to have a PhD in sociology from Sorbonne [5].
Mohammadi is currently a political prisoner, but that obviously isn't something which merits a Peace Prize. I'm sure that there isn't a shortage of political prisoners in the Islamic Republic.
The prize is supposedly awarded to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Hmmm. Well. I don't quite see how formenting revolution fits the bill, but the Peace Prize has been very strange of late in general.
By its own lights, I don't see a single person or entity who would deserve the prize this mad year. Maybe there's some ethicist somewhere...
"Since World War II, the Peace Prize has principally been awarded to honour efforts in four main areas: arms control and disarmament, peace negotiation, democracy and human rights, and work aimed at creating a better organized and more peaceful world. In the 21st century the Nobel Committee has embraced efforts to limit the harm done by man-made climate change and threats to the environment as relevant to the Peace Prize." [0]
Narges is one of the most inspiring women in confronting the inhumane regime of the Islamic Republic, which never stops committing crimes. A regime that sent a 16-year-old girl into a coma just a few days ago because of her hijab [1]. Narges spent most of her life in the most dangerous prisons in Iran for her activities, and I think this award was not only for her, but also for the all oppressed women in Iran in the last four decades.
The people who call out the "inhumane regime" of Iran are usually exactly the same ones who openly hate America (where women can do whatever the hell they want) and display sky high levels of admiration for Barack Obama, who gave a metric ton of American taxpayer money to Iran.
I am posting this again because my first post has been shadow banned.
Not quite, the GP is pointing out that it's become in vogue as of late to express hate for the USA among leftist circles, those people will post the raised fist or w/e appropriate color to the SM profiles and do little else, but they all do express admiration for 44.
The propaganda of this barbaric Iranian regime is active everywhere, but the truth cannot be covered with words like the "Western Media", so try other things.
This is also not the first time that the child-killing and anti-women regime of Iran commits such crimes. About a year ago, Mehsa Amini was killed by police forces for the same crime of insufficient hijab. In the revolutionary demonstrations after that, about 500 more people were killed, among them Nika Shakarami [1] by the "impact of a hard object" and 9-year-old Kian Pirfalak [2] by the shootings by the security forces. Other examples of innocent people killed can be found in the links in these wikipedia pages.
The Nobel peace prize is not about who has the worst life. Women in Afghanistan have it - in general - worse than in Iran, I'm quite sure about that. That's not the criterium to get this prize.
This is whataboutism, nothing less, and your fake-news remark makes me wonder your motivation even more.
But the world is just as peaceful (or peaceless) as before her activism. Now if she actually overthrew or forced the government to reform - it would be different. But award should be given for results not efforts.
It does feel more like the 'Western moral prize' rather than a Peace Prize.
Truth is, the most peaceful transitions are usually military coups. 'Peacefully' won transitions are often the bloodiest. Fear is a terrible thing, but it does lead to effective peace.
With the Nobel Peace Prize, it's usually a coin toss between moral martyr, future genocider and someone who did impactful work towards peace. The best example of their schizo-ness is Gandhi. They didn't award Gandhi when he lead a peaceful resistance. But, awarded it posthumously in the aftermath of the bloodiest & nastiest population exchange in the history of humanity.
> It does feel more like the 'Western moral prize' rather than a Peace Prize.
I'm not seeing the problem here. Some non-Western regimes seem to think it's fine to deny people their human rights, e.g. Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, China. There is no moral equivalence between Western and those.
2/4 of those were in better conditions before the US invaded them for oil interests.
Venezuela's bloodiness is in part because of CIA funded violent opposition. Venezuela while a basket case now, is still a "what if" in a world without CIA interreference and unilateral sanctions.
China is odd. It is an autocratic repressive regime with their recent founder having the 2nd highest body count of any leader. But, it is also the most impressive story of raising an slice of humanity from poverty into a strong middle economy.
Western countries think about peace & human rights in isolation. What recent democratic nation has managed to elevate itself from abject poverty to being a strong middle economy, with no natural resources ride to infinity. India might have something to show over the next 30 years, but as of today, they started off richer than China at independence and find themselves miles behind. All of Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand & Japan had their growth occur under incredibly repressive govts. They might seem peaceful countries today, they certainly weren't that during their growth.
> moral equivalence
Moral equivalence can only exist when all other variables are the same. Norway might claim moral high ground on account of being an egalitarian nation, but its entire economy is oil. Remove the oil, and you might see their claimed unwavering morals waver.
> Norway might claim moral high ground on account of being an egalitarian nation, but its entire economy is oil. Remove the oil, and you might see their claimed unwavering morals waver.
apparently you were born after 1980. Who cares about their oil?
> Venezuela's bloodiness is in part because of CIA funded violent opposition.
Oh, I see. So Chavez & Maduro are because of the CIA? What a world we live in, where the CIA has such awesome power such that everything "bad" is their fault. I suppose now they're powerless until Maduro is finally gone, and then it'll be their doing.
Yet they still can't get rid of Castro, predict the fall of the Soviet Union, keep the Shah in power, or stop 9/11. They're only powerful when something you don't like happens.
Maybe you should move to one of those people's paradises. It sounds like you'd be happier there.
Not all peaces are equal. One peace might be that of some idyllic utopia where all are content, healthy, and safe. Then there is the peace of the death camp which has completed its mission and has no victims left to murder. And countless peaces in between those two extremes, some better and less violent, some gruesome and traumatizing even just to describe.
I cannot say which peace the Nobel awards, or even if it awards to the same sort of peace year to year. But if anyone can do something about the Iranian government, then maybe they do deserve the thing. I doubt he ever meant it to become the "successful eternal subjugation of humanity" award.
It's worse. She obviously deserves a western moral prize, but peace Nobel in last decades is "Moral wank to make westerners feel good about themselves"
The Nobel Peace Prize has historically been surrounded by the kind of ambivalent feelings you allude to.
To name one: Hume & Trimble (1998) was considered ironic because it was viewed as kind of reward for ceasing violence they initially caused. Similar remarks were made in 1993 about Mandela and De Klerk. It can even be argued that Gorbachev and Carter had blood on their hands before becoming saints.
Maybe this kind of ambiguity is simply rooted in the fact that the monetary price is paid by the deeply ironic invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel.
' Guess "contribution to peace" is less about ethics and more of a political concept.
> monetary price is paid by the deeply ironic invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel.
Note that net-net, the invention of dynamite probably saved many lives. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite invented by Nobel isn't very useful for military purposes, and has never been in wide military use. It can't be safely stored for long periods or in hot conditions, making it ill-suited for battlefield logistics. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite is primarily used in mining and earth-moving.
Properly stored, dynamite is both much safer and more powerful than the black powder or liquid nitroglycerine that were primarily used in mining and earth-moving before the invention of dynamite.
Much later, "military dynamite", a more stable dynamite substitute devoid of nitroglycerine and more suited to military use was developed. While more stable, it's more expensive, and less commonly used. I don't believe Nobel had anything to do with the development of military dynamite.
My newspaper had an interview with a former judge, and he said something along the lines of: if it doesn't chafe, it will become irrelevant. So tend to prefer somewhat controversial figures over safe choices.
> Well. I don't quite see how formenting revolution fits the bill
Oppressive regimes like to use these sorts of rhetorical ploys to discredit social movements. Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency? Or are they just puppets to foreign machinations?
LOL, try harder. NGOs paid by the westerners are a thing, but you sure know that. If these people did not get free money for their actions, they would be silent.
"Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency?"
"Authoritarian regimes" usually have popular support since a huge majority supports the ruling party.
Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.
>"Authoritarian regimes" usually have popular support since a huge majority supports the ruling party.
This argument makes about as much sense as the following one:
>Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.
The defining characteristic of an authoritarian regime as opposed to a democratic one is that it does not derive its power and legitimacy from the people - i.e. popular support. It may be stable and "popular" and still terrible, North Korea comes to mind. But as out of touch as you seem to be, you probably belong to that strange group of people who think NK is actually an anti Western paradise.
There's a simple test of"a huge majority supports the ruling party":
Have a fair election, where both sides are permitted to make their case to the voting public. No candidates or supporters would be imprisoned or legally harassed, before or after the election.
Then have another one a year or two later, since "your vote actually counts" would be a teaching moment for people who aren't used to it.
Unfortunately, this is very true. If we look at public opposition to authoritarian regimes, we will see layers upon layers of NGO pets and very few independent figures.
It is so apparent that they actually discredit the idea of opposing authoritarianism. Democracy is a tough sell if you know your local democratic movement is paid for by other countries which do not have your country's well-being, or existence, as a motivation.
So there are a lot of people discontent with lack of options and restrictions to freedom of speech and expression, but they do not have a voice. People who have a voice are universally paid agents of NGOs. They get good money to film expensive produced youtube videos and get cited by world press all the time. There is significant mismatch between two groups, but they get compounded and written off by the majority and the regime.
So it turned out just this week that the prominent democratic opposition figure, the guy behind the anti-authoritarian icon Pussy Riot and the anti-war, pacifist often-cited media Mediazona, brags that he is enlisted in Armed Forces of Ukraine.
So he is non-Russian, non-democratic, non-pacifist non-journalist.
He is just a proud Ukrainian fighter all along the way. Great for him. Have we got any Russian opposition? Give me a name, I challenge you.
I also wonder how great it for low-level activists who were supplying Mediazona with information in order to raise awareness of Russian soldier deaths on Ukrainian fronts, that they are now liable to get high treason charges for offloading that data directly in hands of an enlisted AFU fighter.
"There is significant mismatch between two groups, but they get compounded and written off by the majority and the regime."
That is by nature. You can't make every person in a country happy. There are millions of homeless people, discontent people, depressed people all around the West. These people have been mercilessly oppressed by the cruel practices of neo-liberalism and profit-oriented capitalism. Imagine what world-wide sanctions and isolation would do to them.
Are there any NGOs that promote their plight? Of course not, since other countries either can't pay or are not interested in them. In the best case, there is a few under-paid organizations that are (cleverly) not getting the media attention.
You are arguing the work done is good, which doesnt mean it should win or be included in every category.
Keep hammering how horrible dictators are or child illiteracy is just shouting think of the children meme.
Would it surprise you if she won Nobel prize for chemistry for advocating freedoms ? It would surprise me
There have been quite a few laureates who were awarded the prize for their activism against apartheid, some of whom also spent time in prison due to their revolutionary tendencies. Would you consider these prizes equally unjustified?
Choosing to face injustice with articles and signs and peaceful gatherings instead of masks and high explosives furthers the goals of peace. Unless her articles explicitly called for violence, I have not read them.
You could at least make the case that Obama promoted -- indeed, in a sense, embodied -- "fraternity between nations," for he was incredibly popular with most of America's allies. (See, e.g., his "rock star" reception in Germany.) Even its enemies were at worst ambivalent towards him personally, and at best they were hopeful that he'd bring about positive change. In this sense, he, at minimum, shored up the self-image of the Western world.
So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.
But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.
If I recall correctly though, Obama won the peace prize shortly after winning the election and ran from a much more doveish platform than he governed from.
He won the prize before actually doing anything more than campaign promises. If we're awarding prizes based on campaign promises...well, there will be some interesting awards, indeed.
The mishandling of the entire middle-east is hard to ignore. If anything, Trump's only consensus wins came from cleaning up the mess in the middle east.
> shored up the self-image of the Western world
Which tells you everything you need to about the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you're going to make claims with such authority, please have the correct information. Sure Al-Qaeda was formed after the Soviet withdrawal, but it consisted of very members that US and Pakistan (ISI) helped in their fight against Soviet union, including Osama Bin Laden.
Obama getting the Nobel peace price was when I realised what a big political joke the whole thing is (and I admire Obama!).
It is very clear that it is just another political tool used by the west - Gandhi did not get the award because the British government lobbied hard against him. Imagine, the man who advocated for peaceful political resolutions throughout his life, who was the architect of the non-violent political movement that inspired 100's of millions in his own country and other foreign leaders to embrace it too for their local political cause, is considered "not worthy" of the very thing that this "Peace" prize seeks to bestow recognition upon.
The founders of the Non-Aligned Movement also deserved the peace prize for refusing to get involved in the cold war politics (a very black and white way of looking at international politics). I am sure there are many more good examples, around the world, of people who deserved this prize but weren't seriously considered (or deliberately omitted) because of western politics.
MLK was killed. Key parts of the US are still extremely heavily segregated. Major portions of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act have been undone by the courts. Antidiscrimination legislation and jurisprudence is being more often leveraged to prevent policies that MLK would have supported like affirmative action than it is being used to continue the project of desegregation. Teaching core parts of MLK's belief system can get you fired in some states.
It is nonsensical to declare human rights under the umbrella of a religion. Human Rights by their definition apply to all humans no matter which, if any, religion they might have chosen to follow. A group of muslims does not get to unilaterally declare the basic rights of every human. The UN is the place to do that and they did. The Cairo Declaration is the reactionary attempt by some muslim countries to deny some basic human rights to their own people. It's a perverse twisting of the original idea.
Several of the rights in the Cairo Declaration [1] would cover women taking off the hijab. Even more would forbid beating someone to death for their clothing choices.
>people being free to choose the way want to live their lives
Do you think this is what the Iranians choose?
>There is high voter turnout
Are you claiming Iran has free democratic elections?
Just to put this in some perspective - Iran has an extreme shia muslim regime. Following the laws of shia islam is strictly enforced (don't wear a hijab? get beaten and thrown in jail. Homosexual? get publicly hanged from a crane). Now, how many Iranians do you think self-identify as shia muslims? The answer is around 30%. And this was before the recent country-wide mass demonstrations against the shia regime. Realistically maybe 10-20% of Iranians support this violent authoritarian regime.
Oh and we didn't even talk about the opression of women, which are, you know, about 50% of the population.
I think it's pretty funny how contrarians from the West will whitewash anything as long as it opposes what they believe is wrong with the West. You see it with the extreme right and Russia, and the extreme left and Iran. Ironically these 2 regimes are closest allies.
It is possible to have completely above-the-board, fair elections and wind up with a set of politicians who work expressly against the interests of the people. I hope you don't consider that a point in dispute.
Who knows but saying that a western liberal democracy is the yardstick for governing all people is very flawed - look at Afghanistan - it imploded overnight once the US pulled out.
What about Saudi Arabia or the UAE ???.
I don't see the West complaining about them because they do our bidding ???.
Nobody ever claimed Iran has freedom of religion - they tolerate some as mentioned but Islamic offshoots like the Bahai, Ahmadiyya and the Alawites who claim some link to mainstream Islam and further revelations after the prophet died are definitely not tolerated.
Saudi Arabic will sentence you to death if you are deemed to be an apostate (denying Islam or converting to another religion - also no proselyting if you a Christian visiting/staying there).
That's only convincing if you ignore the mass rioting that happens every other election cycle when the popular liberal (relative to Iran, eg he still hates America, but thinks maybe women should be given more freedom) candidate who promises reform gets removed from the ballot.
Having seen the rioting and resulting crackdowns in person, it's absurd to say that the people are particularly happy with the state of things.
Like Jan 06th in the US where a fairly significant chunk of voters still believe that the election was stolen ?
I think there is liberal minority of young people but reckon the majority of Iranians were not happy with the Pahlavi regime either that the CIA engineered on them.
And I did mention that the clerics needs to approve all election candidates btw.
Carrying water for tyrannical regimes while eating up the regime's propaganda and replying to any other information with whataboutisms doesn't make you balanced. It makes you, at best, a useful idiot. Not all too different from those supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine citing Russian propaganda about how NATO was preparing to invade Russia.
