In the relationship between America and Iran, America is the bad guy!

MayCaesar

Well, let us see.

The US is the world leading liberal democracy featuring an incredibly high quality of life, some of the highest individual freedoms in the world. The US has provided countless failing nations with humanitarian aid and defended many nations from conquerors.

Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship in which women are slaves to their promiscuous husbands who get jailed for leaving their home with their heads not covered. In Iran, dissidents are harshly persecuted, Israeli people are third-rate citizens, sexual minorities is outlawed, quality of life is comparable to African nations. Iran routinely befriends other similarly totalitarian states and, by all indications, conducts an illegal mass destruction weapon development.

The US is the bad guy here, just because of some coup that happened 55 years ago? Does not make sense.

That Iran is the enemy of the US is the only reasonable outcome. Civilized nations should not maintain friendly relations with cavemen.

AmericanFurryBoy

For more info on this stuff y’all should read “Against All Enemies, Inside Americas War On Terror” by Richard A. Clarke.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

I'm not making an argument that the US should be allies with Iran, but the justification for the US being an aggressive foe, is just not there! The coup that the CIA orchestrated, reversed the democratic process of voting for Iranians, which in turn strengthened the monarchical rule of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Pahlavi was the ruler of Iran, right up until the Iranian revolution in 1979. Your argument that "Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship" is moot, because it was the US who initially put in place an oppressive monarchy that reversed the rule of a democratically elected Prime minister. The 1979 revolution that put in place the rule of the Ayatollahs was the Iranian peoples reaction to the oppressive monarchy that the US put in place in the first place. Your argument that the coup in 1953 is no reason to consider the US a "bad guy" is invalid. In the same sense, if Iran were somehow able to conduct a coup in the US in 1953 that reversed our democratic process, I'm sure the people of the US would have some pretty harsh feelings towards Iran, and those feelings would be justified, even today. The US is the bad guy here, and there was no justification for the US to commit an act of war on a country that wasn't any kind of a threat to the US. 

MayCaesar

@piloteer

CIA did not "orchestrate" the coup; rather, the US took the right side when it started and supported it. The fact that the previous leader was elected democratically does not say anything about the quality of that leader. Trump also was elected democratically; does not mean it was a good choice that should be respected.

Pahlavi who the US supported was probably the softest leader in the whole history of Iran. He was no saint, but then who is?

If as a result of a coup in the US the quality of life in the US increased, then I would say it was a good coup, despite it coming from the outside. The problem is though, the US is pretty much the freest nation in the world, so whoever supports a coup here is likely to support a much worse leadership, than the one that is already here.

If you want to see the US as the bad guy, it is your right. But I think that going to some third world country like Iran or Russia and living there for a while would open your eyes on many things. It is common on the West nowadays to think that totalitarian dictatorships are always caused by evil Western capitalists, because people do not have any experience of living there and, hence, lack personal insight. Live in such a state for a while, encounter countless cases of corruption and individual betrayal on an everyday basis - and then you will understand that it is not the outside influence that makes a state what it is, but the people inside it.

It is not the US who caused Ayatollahs to take power. It is the people of Iran who, as a whole, thought it was the best choice at the time. The US may have caused some grief before, but the final word belonged to the Iranian people, and they said their word.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

Never would I question the insight you bring to DI because you lived in Russia, and that makes you a more than adequate debater and probably an interesting person outside of DI. But knowing your style of debate and some of your beliefs, I know that you would appreciate my argument that if I'm expected to have to pay for, or be involved in the United States policy of policing countries that they see as dictatorships, then I myself am living in a dictatorship. Iran wasn't necessarily a "third world country" in the way that Russia was(still is in my mind), not to say that Iran was a beach resort, but they didn't have starvation, and many consider Iran to be the most progressive of Muslim countries. That's obviously debatable, and I certainly won't be making that argument here, because I don't consider it to be true. They weren't any kind of a threat to the United States, so I find it very difficult for someone to argue that the US was justified for their actions in 1953. The only beneficiaries of the 1953 coup were the British, and more specifically BP (or what is now called BP). Iran wasn't conducting any kind of "ethnic cleansing", or threatening to annex any territory, all they were doing was calling on Britain to renegotiate their oil trade deal. The US wasn't a buyer of Iranian oil, so our involvement in the 1953 coup is perplexing, even to modern day CIA agents. Eisenhower himself apologized for approving the operation, and during his final address as President, he warned against actions like those and warned against the "military industrial complex". I'm not sure if he was talking about operation Ajax specifically when he made those comments, but his message was crystal clear, and he was disappointed at how the actions of the CIA gave America's image a black eye. Beyond the tarnished global image America received after our involvement in Iran, there's also the problem of an enemy that we gained that we didn't need to have, and the ramifications are still being played out today. None of this needed to happen to the people of the US, these were issues between Iran and Britain. 

MayCaesar

Here is the thing. Historical processes leave very long-lasting traces on the most fundamental elements of societies, such as social and economical culture. These traces manifest in many different ways, sometimes holding down or even reversing the progress.

The concept I have developed in this regard is what I call the "progress wave". This concept recognises that, in general, the evolution of societal culture tends to lag behind the evolution of the political system, as well as technological evolution.
According to this concept, the optimal political and economical progress rate is the one "riding" the cultural "progress wave", not running in front of it or lagging behind it. There is a sweet spot in which the political changes in the society occur alongside the evolution of the societal culture.
If political changes are occurring too fast, then the society rebels against them and reverses the trend. If, on the other hand, they are occurring too slow, then the society gets impatient and, again, demands change - typically through a revolution.

Why, for example, did the African colonies went into such a disarray soon after getting independence? Why did the Russian post-Soviet economical and social reforms fail, turning it into an authoritarian ultra-nationalistic state? Why is the Singaporean political system crafted by the genius Lee Kuan Yew slowly getting usurped by corrupt politicians, after decades of unbelievable success?

I believe that all of these instances can, in general, be explained as follows: the rate of the political progress was much faster than the rate of the cultural progress, which was unsustainable long-term. Much like if you keep borrowing from the bank faster than you can pay the loans off, then eventually a crisis will occur and you will have to declare bankruptcy.

Now, I by no means say this to argue that the political progress in underdeveloped nations must be slow; if anything, I believe in the exact opposite. However, it is important to understand that positive political changes in outdated societies are not sufficient to redefine the society as a whole, and require something more in order to work. Something like what was done in Japan, South Korea and East Germany, where essentially the nations were managed by a Western mandate and did not have a true independence for a while.

---

In case of Iran, the coup the US supported was a move in the right direction. Pahlavi was the most progressive leader in the history of Iran; under him, for a short time, religious dogmatism was toppled, a semi-free import-focused market was created, and the society was opened up to the external interaction.
However, in simplified terms, the Iranian society was not ready for such a state of affairs: its cultural development had not reached the required level to match the newly found freedoms and opportunities people acquired. The system felt alien to people, they did not feel at home in it. They wanted to go back to their roots.
And that is what happened, when the charismatic religious leader Khomeini offered a compelling narrative based on historical and national appeal, as opposed to practical considerations.

What if the US had not supported the coup, and the coup had failed? Would the outcome be different? Perhaps. I think a better question to ask would be this: is the current state of affairs in Iran a result of the American involvement, or the Iranian people's choice? To me it is pretty clear that the latter is the case.
The Iranian people could have made a different choice under different circumstances. But in the end, their choice was dictated by the preceding historical processes, going back many-many centuries. Nothing can erase those processes, and one way or another, they would affect the Iranian society either way.

---

I definitely cannot accept the claim that Iran is the most progressive of Muslim countries; I would argue that it is one of the most regressive ones. In terms of degree of individual social freedoms, economical freedoms, liberalisation of political system and secularism, it only stands a comparison to Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
I read recently that the current size of the public sector in Iran is 60% of the entire economy. Given how incredibly corrupt and self-enclosed the system is, it essentially denotes an economical apocalypse. There were mass demonstrations recently, with people demanding economical liberalisation, but they did not lead anywhere, because the totalitarian system does not take the desires of its citizens seriously.

---

I do not know what to do about nations such as Iran, barring a full-scale invasion and a long-term external governing by a democratic nation. The problems are too deep to be solved merely through democratic elections. History shows that an attempt to install a domestic democracy in such cases does not last, because people elect the very people who are going to undo the democracy. This happened in Russia, in South Africa, in Zimbabwe, in Venezuela, in Turkey and in other similar nations.

What can be attempted, however, is supporting the groups in favor of a free market. Fundamentally, the economy is the most empowering entity in a nation, and when the economy is done right, other elements have a chance to evolve accordingly. I definitely do not support everything such people as Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew, Batista or Pahlavi did - but they set the right economical vector, and in many cases it played out. Singapore and Chili are now modern rapidly developing economies, for the first time in the history of their independence. Cuba and Iran, on the other hand, failed at this, because the economical reforms were overridden by totalitarian populists who offered a more compelling narrative at just the right time.

At least supporting this sort of people has a small chance of working. Not doing anything at all, on the other hand, guarantees that we are going to have more and more North Koreas and Soviet Unions out there, making everyone's life difficult and promoting very malicious values in the world. I do not think what we are currently observing in Venezuela or, say, Syria would have happened in case malicious authoritarian regimes were routinely hard-pressed to change. Employing the "none of our business" politics is not going to solve the problem of militaristic totalitarian states. I do not know what is going to solve them, but, at least, I know what we should not do. That is better than nothing.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

You're not arguing that the United States foreign policy is conducive to a healthy economy or national security for the US, are you??? No, couldn't be, because the Korean war is still in effect, and there's no guarantee it will end anytime soon. The tax burden on US citizens is vomit inducing, and the only reason it's become a security issue is because we got involved in the first place. If we hadn't participated in the Korean war, it's certainly conceivable that all of Korea would have fallen to the communists, and would not have been an enemy to the US, or at least would not have been an aggressive foe. The same is true for Iran, they would not have had anything to do with the US, and most people in the US would probably not have ever heard of Iran. Then there was the Vietnam war, which not only failed at stopping communism in Vietnam, but the byproduct of that war caused Cambodia to fall to an egregious communist regime that brought ethnic cleansing and starvation to Cambodia. The government that the US was backing in Vietnam was not even close to a democracy. It was a brutal dictatorship, the only reason the US backed them was because they were anti-communists, but it would be hard for you to argue that it was a "step in the right direction". It can also be argued that it was the United States "secret" bombing raids that persuaded Cambodians to join the Khmer rouge, which brought on a humanitarian crises. After the Vietnamese liberated Cambodia from the Khmer rouge, the reagan administration began funding Khmer rouge militias, all for the purpose of getting revenge on the Vietnamese. That little number cost taxpayers more money, with no results, except bloodshed. The US and Britain were involved in a horrifying civil war in Greece, where sympathizers of the Greek National Army were known to carry out acts of terrorism on suspected communist collaborators. At the end of that civil war, Greece was in a worse condition than it was after the nazi occupation of Greece. Could this be considered a "step in the right direction"? The political ramifications of the Greek civil war are still felt today. Just in case any Americans on this thread ever find themselves in Greece, I would recommend saying you're Canadian, that way they won't try to jam their fingers in your eyes. On the surface, it seemed like a good idea for the US to fund the Mujahideen. From 1979 to 1989, the US funded the Afghan resistance against a Soviet invasion. In the end, Afghanistan was successful at ousting the Soviet forces, but their economy was non-existent and civil war broke out. After the Taliban gained control of the country, they imposed Muslim law and later allowed al-Qaeda to train their forces and plan the terrorist attacks on the US on 9/11. None of this would have happened if the US had let the Soviets take control of Afghanistan. It would be very hard for anybody to argue that these policies of intervention was beneficial for the US, or the people in those countries. 

So if you're not arguing that these policies were beneficial, you must be arguing that they were morally justified because democratic countries must promote democracy for other countries. To do that, first you must make a convincing argument that we as American citizens are responsible for the liberty and/or safety of the countries in question. As I've already said, if we're expected to have to pay for and possibly be involved in the "liberation" of other countries from dictators, how can we not consider ourselves to not be living in a dictatorship? How can I get on with my pursuit of happiness if I'm expected to make others free to be happy? Those were questions that were never properly answered when they were asked by a Jewish born Russian teenager who was able to escape the horrors of the Russian revolution. I wish I could have been there when she was told that democratic countries must protect democracy in other countries. I wonder if Ayn Rand raised one eyebrow when she asked, " if they can't fight for and gain freedom on their own, who says they deserve freedom? The policy of "promoting democracy" in foreign countries is not conducive to democracy at home! 

It can also be said that having an economic partnership with a country can help to influence the policies of that country. I'm not saying that the US should have traded with the Khmer rouge, but we could have supported the red army in the Chinese civil war, and we could have had an economic relationship with China. Obviously they are not a democratic country, but it's not like the US doesn't trade with countries that are less than admirable. Just because they differ ideologically doesn't mean we can't have a beneficial economic partnership. It would seem that economic partnerships are more mutually beneficial for the US and the countries we trade with. It wouldn't be a burden on taxpayers and it wouldn't require military action.