> 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.
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.