Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.

Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?

 

[Annie]

When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.

Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?

Should Carter apologize for overthrowing the Shah and letting Khomeni walk in?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Anyone who understands anything about the middle east knows that apologies come from a position of weakness.
Why do you think the Iranians freed the hostages on the day Ronny Raygun took office? They knew he meant business that's why.
Obama is only projecting weakness.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES. And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.

 

[editec]

Anyone who understands anything about the middle east knows that apologies come from a position of weakness.
Why do you think the Iranians freed the hostages on the day Ronny Raygun took office? They knew he meant business that's why.
Obama is only projecting weakness.

Ayatolla Khomainie wanted to prove he could effect the outcome of a US election.

He showed the Islamic world how easy it was to topple a POTUS.

He knew that holding the hostages would do just that.

He bragged about it as he was doing it.

Carter fell for his trap.

It would not have mattered who America elected. It happened to be Reagan.

Those hostages were going to be released immediately after Carter was out of office.

Did Khomainie fear, Reagan?

To do what? Invade? Drop the big one?

I think Khomainie wasn't too worried about either of those.

He didn't need the hostages, post Carter. They'd served their purpose.

Ayatolla proved his point...that our democracy was easy to manipulate because our President was easy to manipulate.

I wonder what Reagan would have done, had he been in Carter's shoes on day one of the hostage crises?

I doubt he'd have been so easy to maipulate as Carter, but what would Ron have done if he'd been President on Nov. 4, 1979?

What would any of you have done on that date had you been POTUS on that first day?

Obviously storming the embassy was an act of war.

It pissed off a lot of Americans and I was one of them.

I thought at the time, that turning Tehran into a sheet of glass might alert the Iranians that we were not amused.

I may have been over reacting a bit.

But I'd have taken a harder line than Carter did.

The so-called hostages were POWs as far as I was concerned. They were after all, spooks, state department professionals and Marine guards.

I'd have begun systematically destroying Iranian oil facilities and all military infrastructure by air.

I'd have escalated even to the point of invasion.

I'd have tracked Khomainie down, and I'd have hanged the bastard.

Storm our embassy?

Die, foreignor die!

I've mellowed since then.

 

[Modbert]

tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES. And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.

I dare you to say the same about the holocaust. I DARE YOU.

Hypocrite in that aspect much Sarge?

Unlike you, I care about both incidents and not just one. This changed the future of Iran easily; one can only imagine how it might be today if we had not done what we did.

 

[Article 15]

tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES. And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.

Dumbest post of the week.

 

[toomuchtime_]

When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.

Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?

The article presents one way to spin the story. Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not. During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets. After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it. The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.

There can be little doubt but that the USSR would have turned Iran into a Soviet satellite state if Mossadeq had managed to break relations with the UK and US, and then Iran would have had no control over its oil production or oil revenues. In fact, had the Soviets not gotten bogged down in Afghanistan, they would almost certainly have tried again to take over Iran after the Islamic Revolution.

Instead asking for an apology from the US, Amadinejad should apologize to the US for its decades of ingratitude.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.

Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?

The article presents one way to spin the story. Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not. During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets. After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it. The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.

There can be little doubt but that the USSR would have turned Iran into a Soviet satellite state if Mossadeq had managed to break relations with the UK and US, and then Iran would have had no control over its oil production or oil revenues. In fact, had the Soviets not gotten bogged down in Afghanistan, they would almost certainly have tried again to take over Iran after the Islamic Revolution.

Instead asking for an apology from the US, Amadinejad should apologize to the US for its decades of ingratitude.

Yes, what ingrates. We give them a perfectly good military dictator to rule over them and they dare question us?

Maybe the Soviets would have taken over Iran, key word being maybe. The choice, however, was for the Iranian people to make, and they clearly chose Mossadeq.

 

[RodISHI]

Yet they get to make those choices today?

 

[Agnapostate]

tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES. And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.

Iranians are not Arabs, in case that was your implication. If it was, a skewed understanding of Middle Eastern affairs leads to a skewed perspective on how best to handle them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet they get to make those choices today?

No, however we can't know what would have happened had we not taken out their elected government to re-install a military dictator back into power. Had that not happened, maybe they would.

 

[Agnapostate]

The article presents one way to spin the story. Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not. During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets. After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it. The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.

There can be little doubt but that the USSR would have turned Iran into a Soviet satellite state if Mossadeq had managed to break relations with the UK and US, and then Iran would have had no control over its oil production or oil revenues. In fact, had the Soviets not gotten bogged down in Afghanistan, they would almost certainly have tried again to take over Iran after the Islamic Revolution.

Instead asking for an apology from the US, Amadinejad should apologize to the US for its decades of ingratitude.

There's little basis for such claims, first considering that Mossadeq was a democratic socialist with little connection to the state capitalist political ideology of the Soviet Union, and then considering that he was hostile toward foreign intervention in Iran.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES. And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.

Iranians are not Arabs, in case that was your implication. If it was, a skewed understanding of Middle Eastern affairs leads to a skewed perspective on how best to handle them.

That, retard, would be why they both, Iranian and arab are listed, cause they are NOT the same. They both however are Muslim AND they both think like Muslims, which is that apologizing is a sign of weakness.

 

[Agnapostate]

That, retard, would be why they both, Iranian and arab are listed, cause they are NOT the same. They both however are Muslim AND they both think like Muslims, which is that apologizing is a sign of weakness.

These crude comparisons and conflations are a chief basis for your ignorance of commendable Middle East and Islamic policy. Much like GWB, who was unaware that there were sect differences in Islam while he was planning the invasion of Iraq, you simply don't have the sufficient knowledge of the region to understand that a Persian, Shi'a government is not likely to develop nuclear weapons (on which Supreme Leader Khameini has declared a fatwa, incidentally) only to surrender control of them to an unaccountable Arab, Sunni, and jihadist organization, just to take a common example.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?

The article presents one way to spin the story. Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not. During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets. After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it. The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.

There can be little doubt but that the USSR would have turned Iran into a Soviet satellite state if Mossadeq had managed to break relations with the UK and US, and then Iran would have had no control over its oil production or oil revenues. In fact, had the Soviets not gotten bogged down in Afghanistan, they would almost certainly have tried again to take over Iran after the Islamic Revolution.

Instead asking for an apology from the US, Amadinejad should apologize to the US for its decades of ingratitude.

Yes, what ingrates. We give them a perfectly good military dictator to rule over them and they dare question us?

Maybe the Soviets would have taken over Iran, key word being maybe. The choice, however, was for the Iranian people to make, and they clearly chose Mossadeq.

There is no question but that the Soviets would have tried to take over Iran, and with the UK and US not supporting the government, there would have been nothing to stop them. The real choice the Iranians had was between the Shah and a Soviet dictatorship.

In fact, the Shah was a constitutional monarch who succeeded his father to the throne in 1941, and after the war instituted extensive social, economic and political reforms, some of which alienated the clergy which joined in a loose political alliance with the communists to oppose the Shah. Mossadeq, who was a member of the Qajar royal family the Shah's father had overthrown in 1921 had not been allowed to participate in politics until after the new Shah had instituted those reforms.

After Mossadeq nationalized the oil industry, the British blockaded Iran, preventing the country from selling any oil, and as the economy crumbled, the people demonstrated daily in the streets for and against everything. Mossadeq became increasingly worried that the crowds would turn against him or that the Shah or his supporters would try to depose him, so he demanded that the Shah sign over to him control of the military which the constitution vested in the Shah.

The Shah, never a strong or courageous man, signed papers to that effect, but then had a change of heart and exercised his constitutional authority to remove Mossadeq as PM and appoint some one else, but Mossadeq refused to step down and fired up his followers against the Shah, who then fled the country out of fear. It was at this point the US and UK agents persuaded the Shah to return to Iran, assert his constitutional authority and to rally his supporters and the military to support this move. Mossadeq had in the meantime, facing some opposition in the parliament, declared a state of emergency and began to rule by decree. With the assistance of US and UK advice and money, the Shah's supporters began a propaganda campaign to rally support for the Shah among the people and the military, and then the Shah had Mossadeq arrested for treason for refusing to abide by the Shah's order to step down from the office of PM and other offenses.

So did the US and UK help the Shah depose Mossadeq in a coup or did they prevent Mossadeq from deposing the Shah in a coup? When Mossadeq demanded the Shah give him control over the military was he acting within his legal powers, or had he exceeded his legal authority? When he closed the parliament and began to rule by decree, had he effectively ended democracy in Iran? There are accounts of these events that support all of these points of view, but when we consider that the main opposition to the Shah were the Soviet inspired communists and the hardline Islamists, it is clear that without the Shah, there was no likelihood Iran would remained a democracy.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The article presents one way to spin the story. Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not. During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets. After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it. The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.

There can be little doubt but that the USSR would have turned Iran into a Soviet satellite state if Mossadeq had managed to break relations with the UK and US, and then Iran would have had no control over its oil production or oil revenues. In fact, had the Soviets not gotten bogged down in Afghanistan, they would almost certainly have tried again to take over Iran after the Islamic Revolution.

Instead asking for an apology from the US, Amadinejad should apologize to the US for its decades of ingratitude.

There's little basis for such claims, first considering that Mossadeq was a democratic socialist with little connection to the state capitalist political ideology of the Soviet Union, and then considering that he was hostile toward foreign intervention in Iran.

And you believe the Soviets would have asked Mossadeq his opinion? What we know for a fact is that the USSR wanted Iran and that without the support of the US and UK there was little Iran could have done to resist them. If Mossadeq didn't intend to make Iran into a Soviet satellite state, then he was a fool to think he could have prevented it.

 

[Agnapostate]

And you believe the Soviets would have asked Mossadeq his opinion? What we know for a fact is that the USSR wanted Iran and that without the support of the US and UK there was little Iran could have done to resist them. If Mossadeq didn't intend to make Iran into a Soviet satellite state, then he was a fool to think he could have prevented it.

Then the preferable solution would have been to support a democratically elected leader against Soviet intrusion, not undermine him so as to effectively replace him with a brutal dictator and his murderous SAVAK police. Clearly, the motive was British opposition to Mossadeq's oil nationalization plans.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That, retard, would be why they both, Iranian and arab are listed, cause they are NOT the same. They both however are Muslim AND they both think like Muslims, which is that apologizing is a sign of weakness.

These crude comparisons and conflations are a chief basis for your ignorance of commendable Middle East and Islamic policy. Much like GWB, who was unaware that there were sect differences in Islam while he was planning the invasion of Iraq, you simply don't have the sufficient knowledge of the region to understand that a Persian, Shi'a government is not likely to develop nuclear weapons (on which Supreme Leader Khameini has declared a fatwa, incidentally) only to surrender control of them to an unaccountable Arab, Sunni, and jihadist organization, just to take a common example.

I am not worried about them giving them to some other faction, they will USE them themselves or give them to their terrorist puppets. And by the way, when they do, they will pay in LOTS of blood as Israel and the US NUKE the hell out of Iran.

 

[editec]

When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.

Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?

The article presents one way to spin the story. Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not. During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets. After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it. The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.

There can be little doubt but that the USSR would have turned Iran into a Soviet satellite state if Mossadeq had managed to break relations with the UK and US, and then Iran would have had no control over its oil production or oil revenues. In fact, had the Soviets not gotten bogged down in Afghanistan, they would almost certainly have tried again to take over Iran after the Islamic Revolution.

Instead asking for an apology from the US, Amadinejad should apologize to the US for its decades of ingratitude.

That argument really depends entirely in the premise that Mopssadeq would have willingly turned Iran into a Societ client state.

Frankly, I doubt that.

Obviously you believe it.

If you are right, then the coup was a good thing.

If I am right, then the coup was a bad idea.

What evidence do you bring to the table to support your contention?