The recent turmoil in Iran and some of the responses it has garnered from the American media and politicians has led me to reflect on the importance of knowing your country and other countries’ recent history.
In most high school history classes and beyond, it is extremely rare to reach the end of the textbook. Despite the magnificent efforts of instructors, these sections are often – albeit wrongly – ignored.
Even so, the best books usually end at about 1992. If Americans, especially college students, were made more aware of recent events, pundits and politicians would not get away with idiotic views.
In response to the apparently crooked election in Iran and its aftermath, a prominent conservative New York Times columnist, William Kristol, said on Fox News Sunday that Mr. Obama should “support the demonstrators. He should say that stealing elections is unacceptable …He could work with the Europeans to say, ‘let’s bring in international observers to review whether this was a fair election. If it wasn’t, let’s think about having another election.”
Crooked elections, rigged polls, and voting irregularities are frightening and shameful. But wait a second, this situation sounds rather familiar. Do you remember 2000?
While most current N.C. State students were expanding their social adaptability at middle school and jamming to Limp Bizkit, there was a presidential election with highly questionable results in our own country. Nice one Kristol, perhaps you should leave your talents for “The Daily Show.”
Good thing it was settled by the Supreme Court and riots in the streets were avoided. If there were a protest movement of this magnitude in 2000, the same conservatives who today constantly shriek their support for the Iranian people would have branded their American counterparts un-American and traitorous.
Those who call for Obama to specifically condemn the Iranian government are only making such claims for short-term political gain by saying the opposite of the President. If they understood the modern history of Iran and its relationship with the United States, they would praise Obama as several conservative figures — Peggy Noonan, a Reagan speechwriter, and Henry Kissinger — have.
History lesson: in the early 1950’s Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossaddeq was overthrown by the CIA through Operation Ajax. The main reason the U.S. government did this was because Mossaddeq nationalized all of Iranian oil, a move that deeply frightened the U.S. who saw this as a step towards communism and anti-American business.
Mossaddeq was driven out of the country and the Shah was installed as leader with the backing of the U.S. government. The goal of the action was that the U.S. would have a more favorable relationship with the region.
The Shah oppressed the Iranian people and angered the population, especially the clerics who orchestrated a revolution in 1979. The revolution ran the Shah, and U.S. influence out of the country.
The Iranians are very familiar with this and many resent us deeply for our role in the Shah’s reign. Showing our support as citizens for the Iranian protestors is a positive thing. But there is no need for a perception that the American government is meddling with their country, especially considering our tenuous history.
The perception of U.S. government backing would probably help the corrupt government and would only undermine the grassroots display of democracy in Iran.
Send your thoughts on the U.S. response to the Iranian elections to [email protected].
