This piece is blatant anti-Iranian propaganda, because it fails to give any context for the events of 1979. It entirely omits any reason why Americans became unwelcome in Iran. The islamic revolution occurred in Iran as a direct result of the hostile actions of the CIA, who in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah as an absolute monarch, with full authorisation from Eisenhower and Churchill. It is an entirely uncontroversial matter of historical record that the British and American government acted to prevent the establishment of democratic rule in Iran, in order to secure supplies of cheap oil.
Without providing this context, the piece portrays American diplomats in Iran as hapless victims; In fact, they were active participants in the machinery used to oppress the Iranian people. Most Americans remain completely unaware of the events of the 1953 coup; This makes any mention of the '79 revolution without the context of the '53 coup propaganda, plain and simple. It is the direct moral equivalent of telling people that you were beaten up by some guy, while omitting the fact that you had raped his wife and shot his dog. The omission is as deceptive as any lie.
The story is about the ingenious use of diplomatic and intelligence resources to accomplish a daring cross-border mission in an innovative way. It is not to provide a balanced summary of the geopolitical structure of the Middle East.
An article about a CIA exfil from Iran need cover the full socio-political context as much as a story about a Berlin entrepreneur need re-hash WWII. One of the strengths of the Wired article is that it presents the nuclear story and avoids the proximal drama.
The preceding comment, on the other hand, labels the six subjects of the article as "active participants in the machinery used to oppress the Iranian people".
I get this strange feeling you might not be supporting a similar purely technical description of the story had it been about the Taliban finding a new way to remotely detonate IEDs to blow up Western convoys using a cool spread spectrum in order to avoid jamming.
We get what the story is about. What the preceding comment points out that the story in question lacks important context in an effort to impart the wrong messages and ideas. This is not OK.
No it isn't. This is not about why the events happened. It is about how one CIA operative mounted a brilliant operation to rescue a group of people from a hostile environment. It is all about facts, which is what journalism should really be about.
> Without providing this context, the piece portrays American diplomats in Iran as hapless victims. In fact, they were active participants in the machinery used to oppress the Iranian people.
Bullshit. Not one janitor, clerk attendant and marine soldier that worked on the embassy took part in any oppression of the Iranian people. Two wrongs don't make one right, and saying that the attack was in someway justified is just disgusting. So what's next? 9/11 was justified because a bunch of ordinary people are part of the imperialist machine?
Despite coups, despite wars, etc. the embassy has been held as being above all that. Civilized societies do not invade embassies, they do not hold diplomats as hostages, they do not kill or threaten to kill diplomats, period. This is true even in a time of war.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with a sneak attack the US did not storm the Japanese embassy, they did not hold Japanese diplomats hostage. They did not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies. Etc. That sort of boorish behavior is not and should not ever be tolerated. If you cannot tolerate the continued presence of a country's diplomats in your country then you eject them, you do not hold them hostage. Period.
> When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with a sneak attack the US did not storm the Japanese embassy, they did not hold Japanese diplomats hostage. They did not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies. Etc. That sort of boorish behavior is not and should not ever be tolerated. If you cannot tolerate the continued presence of a country's diplomats in your country then you eject them, you do not hold them hostage. Period.
Roughly 400 Japanese Embassy staff (including diplomats) were actually held by the FBI and used in trade for American embassy staff who were stuck in Japan. Same was done with German and Italian diplomats. They were reportedly held comfortably at resort compounds the government took over. While they were treated much better than other Japanese in the US at the time they were still held against their will, and were used as currency to recover American staff.
> They did not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies.
No idea about the Japanese but several employees of the German embassy were arrested for 'spying'.
Ok I agree with your point but bad example: America did not storm the embassy but did forcibly intern thousands of Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Also- its important to note a few things: 1) the embassy storming was carried out on a whim by one group of over eager revolutionaries, it was not officially sanctioned until it was a fait accomplie, 2) saying the 1979 revolution was a direct result of the 1953 coup is bumbling self centrism at best - a lot happened in the country over that period that culminated in the revolution. Which leads to 3) Khomeini was not the stated aim of the revolution- a democracy was. Khomeini and the Islamists hijacked the revolution and killed, imprisoned, or exiled all other parties involved until that point. They have maintained control since then with history's most sophisticated religio-political machinery combining censorship and xenophobia, police state security infrastructure, and a unique brand of divine mysticism. Fascinating and tragic.
They might well have done that had Pearl Harbor been an overthrow of Congress rather than a bombing of a far-flung military base. It did result in Japanese Internment after all.
Why? Why should diplomats be treated any differently than any other person? My estimation would be that if these rights are essential for diplomats they are just as essential for everyone else.
If they are not provided to everyone else then why would diplomats expect these privileges? What is the philosophical framework that elevates diplomats above others?
If the people are subject to internment, why not the diplomats?
If the people may be killed by drones, why not the diplomats?
If the people may be held without trial, why not the diplomats?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity -- "Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis. Originally, these privileges and immunities were granted on a bilateral, ad hoc basis, which led to misunderstandings and conflict, pressure on weaker states, and an inability for other states to judge which party was at fault."
Your vision falls apart where embassies are actively involved in espionage, as they nearly always are.
Embassy immunity is like saying it is OK to shoot an and enemy soldier but not an enemy president? Why, because he real war isn't nation vs nation, but sociopolitical elite vs humanity.
These are the agreements that civilized peoples make with one another. What provocation is sufficient to violate the sovereignty of embassy land?
Again, if you don't want diplomats in your country you eject them. It happens from time to time. You don't take them hostage, there is no excuse for that, not even all out war.
Agree 100%. The 1953 coup was one of the worst things US foreign affairs did. It's probably the biggest reason why America is viewed with so much contempt throughout the middle east, still.
Not mentioning this fact to an audience that might be oblivious to it is inexcusable.
I wonder how the just released movie handles this fact?
I take issue with your thoughtless repetition of given "facts" via NYTimes and other interested parties regarding 53. The Shah of Iran was the Shah of Iran prior to '53 and after '53. Dr. Mossadeq was appointed per constitution of Iran and was dismissed per the same constitution by the monarch. He refused to accept his dismissal. Did you know he was a prince of the prior (deposed and alien) ruling family? Did you know he dissolved the parliament?
The counter-coup of 53 was initiated and carried out by the Iranian military officers who upheld their constitutional oath. The fact that NYTimes, and other "interested parties" to this day take joy twisting facts, rewriting history, and casting calumny on a man (that most certainly will be remembered as one of the greatest Persian Kings of Iran) is fully informative for the student of history/geo-politics ...
I saw the movie Argo yesterday. It did a great job of not presenting the Iranians as the bad guys. Within the first 10 minutes you know why they took the embassy. In fact, I'd say I have a much more positive view of Iran now. It was an excellent movie.
I also like how they consistently place "spies" in double quotes ... only to admit several sentences later that many actually were, with ample evidence published in the painstakingly reconstructed "Documents From the US Espionage Den" :)
I think it's pretty reasonable to think both the Shah AND the Ayatollahs are bad governments, and additionally that both unilaterally nationalizing private property AND maintaining extractive industries in foreign countries without reasonable compensation to citizens are wrong.
True -- if you didn't have the coup, it's unlikely you would have had an absolute monarch and thus probably not an islamic revolution either.
The 1947-1953 government wasn't particularly stable on its own, though, and it's not like neighbors (or states anywhere) with massive natural resource finds tend toward good government, though. Reza Shah was probably the best government in modern Iranian history (although I'm not an expert).
Still, if I were there in 1954-1979 I would have been against the Shah, and 1979-now against the IR. (although my level of "against" probably would have been "GTFO and go try to start a business in the UK or US or even UAE".)
The reason the "Ayatollahs" are a "bad government" has more to do with the fact that they do not yield to US power. The Shah on the other hand was considered, or would have been considered, a "moderate"--you know like the moderate Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt (before their liberation), and so on.
"Human rights" -reports on Iran are highly politicised; criticism against Iran is often based on political reasons and not for a real concern about any “human rights” issue.
Btw, if the report you're linking to is the same one I read about then it uses highly questionable sources (I think it was MEK operatives, not sure though).
This isn't a "Human rights"-report on Iran. It's the Human Rights Watch report on Iran. HRW has been critical of the US as well.
Any claim that HRW is part of a propaganda machine working against Iran is an extraordinary claim, and the onus is on you to back it up with evidence.
It's particularly difficult to have that claim stand on its own when it's so easy to get firsthand narratives of the brutality of the Iranian regime from other sources. It doesn't take MEK spies to reveal the stories of people tortured hung from construction cranes for writing subversive blog posts.
"Any claim that HRW is part of a propaganda machine working against Iran"
- never made that claim
"the onus is on you to back it up with evidence."
- funny how that burden never seem to apply to those making the actual accusations. Often someone makes a claim about brutality and it's accepted at face value simply because the accused is somebody we don't like politically.
I'm not saying the government is without its problems. No society is without these problems. The things you mention, and worse, however occur in the West too, but it doesn't seem to be an issue.
Then there is the question of “bad” compared to what. Say e.g. Saudi Arabia or Bahrain? The crimes committed there by the state are far worse by all accounts. Somehow those governments are “moderates” and not “bad”. Go figure.
The argument I’m making is that there are no real concern for human rights in Iran. The only concern is to make Iran submit to western demands. Take the issue of sanctions. The purpose is to make Iranians suffer so that they will “get the picture” and overthrow their government.
Or how about the support for the terrorist organization MEK? Or supporting Al Quada in Syria? The nonsense that “the west” (whatever that means) really cares about “human rights” (whatever that means) makes sense only to those high on the propaganda coming from the mainstream media.
And what happened to him? Thanks for the link, I'll look into it later. I have read about how the US negotiated with the "Mullahs" so that they could replace the Shah with them (in hope to have another Saudi Arabia?), but the US was "betrayed".
If we had some real journalist rather than those sad bunch of propagandist working for the corporate/state interests, we might have had a better understanding of what is going on in the world.
Yup. Read elteto's comment above: "It is about how one CIA operative mounted a brilliant operation to rescue a group of people from a hostile environment. It is all about facts, which is what journalism should really be about."
You obviously have a misunderstanding of what propaganda means. I find this article very interesting and full of factual information, the exact opposite of what propaganda is. It is all about the rescue operation and they don't even go into what provoked the attack on the embassy. Which part of it is propaganda again?
Though this is a US site, and Wired is a US magazine, and the US seem to have something against Iran (or it's nuclear program anyway). You would be hard pressed to find many pro-Iran articles.
Propaganda involves a deliberate attempt to provoke a desired emotional reaction. As a rough rule of thumb, if the author seeks to make you feel rather than think, it's propaganda. This is generally done with techniques such as distortion of facts, omission of truths, caricatured images, extreme simplification of complex situations and so forth.
Contrary to some opinions, propaganda is not just about making you dislike someone or something else. Montages of your own people/accomplishments/military force, accompanied by stirring music, for example, is propaganda.
Propoganda would be to always report on Iran in such negative contexts as CIA espionage and UN sanctions, and never report directly on its innovations or ongoings. Lying by omission, basically.
I don't read Wired enough to know if this is the case.
No. Just that every where I look these days there is an article about Iran. Every next day there is some new article about Iran doing something. And when it isn't then there are articles like these - dug up from the history to fill some new Iran related news. I am scared if this is a precursor to a new war. It looks awfully similar to the last time.
(Btw, I am an Indian in India who has got nothing to do with USA and Iran.)
Actually, having lived in India for a while in the 90s I can tell you that (if you lived in India at that time) you are likely to be more biased against the US (and other NATO powers) and more biased towards Russia and the Arab states.
India was "non-aligned" during the cold war but was fairly tilted towards the USSR (cheap munitions, convenient ideology) and this was conveyed through the strongly controlled media.
Due to the size and volatility of the Muslim population in India there were many moves to appear (and push people to appear) allied with the Arab states and against Israel.
I wonder what, in general, the modern viewpoint is. Young people in India now are more into consumer goods and I think less political than they were 20 years ago, but I only get brief snapshots now.
>> Actually, having lived in India for a while in the 90s I can tell you that (if you lived in India at that time) you are likely to be more biased against the US (and other NATO powers) and more biased towards Russia and the Arab states.
Then can someone tell the hordes of Indians getting into the US since the 90's they were/are somehow confused and need to change direction towards Russia and India. Thanks!
There was a program where people in certain sectors went to the USSR to get educated. It wasn't very big. Also, I have found, people are fairly pragmatic politics is politics and business is business. Indians come to the US because they have an infrastructure here (established Indians) and job opportunities, neither of which exist in scale in the USSR.
Funny, the same can be said of people living in the US and US allies. The west has a very "strongly controlled media" too, and the message being sent is quite clear.
I'm sure you can have the opinion that media in North America and Western Europe is very strongly controlled, but it is a fact that mass media (Television and radio, though not newspapers) in India up to the end of the 90s were state controlled. After liberalization in the late 90s private television stations opened up.
Actually, if you have a look at the date this article was written in 2007. So it's certainly not part of any concerted effort to make Iran look bad or a precursor to a new war.
Without providing this context, the piece portrays American diplomats in Iran as hapless victims; In fact, they were active participants in the machinery used to oppress the Iranian people. Most Americans remain completely unaware of the events of the 1953 coup; This makes any mention of the '79 revolution without the context of the '53 coup propaganda, plain and simple. It is the direct moral equivalent of telling people that you were beaten up by some guy, while omitting the fact that you had raped his wife and shot his dog. The omission is as deceptive as any lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat