6 ms·

> 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 operatio

> 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.

Tao3300 3y ago
Ok? Where's this going? We're not supposed to care now because the CIA did some shady stuff a million years ago?
- potatototoo99 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - antihezbol 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - catlover76 3y ago
    > 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.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Why do you assume it isn't a conspiracy? It is. It is absolutely a conspiracy. WSJ, NYT or Guardian know which words are allowed for Iran and which are for Saudis.
      - catlover76 3y ago
        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".
        thriftwy 3y ago
        > Iran's brutal crackdown of late 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.
oh_sigh 3y ago
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.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  Mossadegh was buying people in the Parliament, let’s be realistic
michaeltimo 3y ago
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]. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06/a-tale-of-two-oil-shocks-part-1-1973-76.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06...
continuitylimit 3y ago
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.
- Qiu_Zhanxuan 3y ago
  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.
  - continuitylimit 3y ago
AlbertCory 3y ago
#whataboutism The fact is, the mullahs torture and kill anyone who speaks up. That's happening now, not 71 years ago. "women trapped in these regimes" does not need quotation marks, unless you think there are NO women trapped in these regimes.
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
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.
lolinder 3y ago
Your reply is a complete non sequitur. 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.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  Are we still talking about Nobel peace prizes here? Even Obama got one.
- thriftwy 3y 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.

Tao3300 3y ago

Ok? Where's this going? We're not supposed to care now because the CIA did some shady stuff a million years ago?

potatototoo99 3y ago
[flagged]
- antihezbol 3y ago
  [flagged]
- catlover76 3y ago
  > 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.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Why do you assume it isn't a conspiracy? It is. It is absolutely a conspiracy. WSJ, NYT or Guardian know which words are allowed for Iran and which are for Saudis.
    - catlover76 3y ago
      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".
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        > Iran's brutal crackdown of late 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.

oh_sigh 3y ago

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.

selimthegrim 3y ago
Mossadegh was buying people in the Parliament, let’s be realistic

michaeltimo 3y ago

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]. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06/a-tale-of-two-oil-shocks-part-1-1973-76.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06...

continuitylimit 3y ago

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.

Qiu_Zhanxuan 3y ago
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.
- continuitylimit 3y ago

AlbertCory 3y ago

#whataboutism The fact is, the mullahs torture and kill anyone who speaks up. That's happening now, not 71 years ago. "women trapped in these regimes" does not need quotation marks, unless you think there are NO women trapped in these regimes.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

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.

lolinder 3y ago

Your reply is a complete non sequitur. 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.

beebeepka 3y ago
Are we still talking about Nobel peace prizes here? Even Obama got one.
thriftwy 3y 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.