Best iran history books according to redditors
We found 295 Reddit comments discussing the best iran history books. We ranked the 78 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
3. October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan
8 mentions
Terrorism
SECOND
What the "Iranian nuclear threat" was actually all about, was a pretext to impose regime-change in Iran, pushed by the Isreaelis and NeoCons, just as they pushed for the Iraq war with bogus claims about "WMDs in Iraq"
They exaggerated the iran threat
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-27/israeli-government-has-exaggerated-iranian-nuclear-threat-years
And the Iraq threat
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-04-israeli-iraq-threat_x.htm
The pushed for the Iraq war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/
and a war on Iran
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/
The pro-Israeli lobby had been pushing a PR war on Iran for a long time already, ie:
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam
And AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) spent millions of dollars trying to undermine the deal
https://www.thenation.com/article/inside-the-effort-to-kill-the-iran-deal/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/06/429911872/in-iran-deal-fight-lobbyists-are-spending-millions-to-sway-12-senators
See, the Israelis (and Saudis) and their supporters in the US including the NeoCons and Iran hawks consider an improvement in US-Iran relations as coming at their expense, so they don't want to see the US and Iran getting along and they would rather see the US engage in regime-change in Iran
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-bolton-iran-regime-change-231586
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/05/its-time-to-pursue-regime-change-in-iran/
This book is all about that: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
On the other hand, there are people who say that the US should "go to Iran" just as Nixon went to China because that will promote US interests the best
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530
Note that when Nixon decided to recognize Communist China, the US had to dump relations with Taiwan. Israel does not want to become a Taiwan if the US decides to mend relations with Iran.
Here's another book I plan to read once it comes out: https://www.amazon.com/Deal-Century-Iran-Blocked-Wests/dp/0997896507
FINALLY
The nuclear agreement called the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is not technically a "treaty" but is an "executive agreement"
Executive Agreements are more common in international affairs than treaties, they also don't have the same formalities such as a need to be ratified through the Senate. There's a lot of hype claiming that Obama somehow violated the constitution by entering into the agreement but there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about executive agreements, they're actually VERY common. https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm
There's all sort of BS being claimed, namely that Iran did not "sign" the agreement and that it is not "legally binding" -- but in fact international agreements including treaties are not legally binding (there is no court, judge or police to enforce them) and instead they are political agreements that are "binding" only as long as each party agrees to be bound by it. International agreements are also not a car loan that require you to sign them to be valid.
It is also claimed that there were "Secret concessions" made to Iran which were "exposed" by the UN.
Example:
>U.N. watchdog exposes secret concessions in Obama’s Iran deal
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/25/u-n-watchdog-exposes-secret-concessions-in-obamas-iran-deal/
But in fact literally EVERY WORD in that headline is actually false. The documents were not "exposed", the signatories themselves decided to make them public so as to end the hype about "secret deals", there were no "concessions" just technical agreements like agreeing to not count unrecoverable waste Uranium in the amount that Iran was supposed to be able to keep, and in fact the IAEA is not part of the UN but is an independent agency, and it isn't a "watchdog" either its role in the NonProliferation Treaty is just as an accountant that measures declared nuclear material to make sure the declared amounts match the actual amounts, that's all (it isn't an investigative agency or an intelligence agency charged with finding WMDs, in fact its actual job is to promote the use of nuclear technology)
The JCPOA required certain measures by Iran for at least 10-15 years (after which the "normal" Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations will continue to be in place) ie to limit the number of centrifuges it operates that are used to enrich uranium before using the material to make reactor fuel rods, to only enrich to 3.65% which can't be used for bombs (Iran never enriched uranium to bomb-grade anyway) to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and to cease work on a heavy water reactor and to export any heavy water it produces beyond its domestic needs. Iran has done all of that and the IAEA has verified it in its reports. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/11/gov2016-55.pdf
However the opponents of the deal have been claiming that Iran has supposedly "violated" the deal by producing 0.1 ton more heavy water than a the 130 ton "limit" contained in the agreement. The problem is that there is actually no such limit in the agreement.
Annex 1, Part C, Paragraph 14 of the JCPOA states that Iran is to keep enough heavy water to meet its domestic needs including contingency stocks (estimated to be 130 tons in total) and any excess is to be exported for sale.
All Iran is required to do under Paragraph 15 is inform the IAEA of its heavy water stock and allow occasional IAEA visits to the production facility to monitor the stock.
Iran has done all that too.
Note that neither paragraph imposes a specific upper limit on the amount of heavy water which can be produced.
See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245318.pdf for the exact text I'm citing
And 24 extra gallons of heavy water is not a violation of that "estimate". Note that heavy water itself is quite harmless and can't be used as a weapon and furthermore without an operational heavy water reactor (Iran poured concrete into the reactor their were building so it can't ever work, as the agreement required) there is no way that heavy water can somehow be used to make nukes anyway (and, the reactor was subject to IAEA monitoring anyway.)
In exchange, the US is supposed to lift as many sanctions as it can and release Iran's frozen funds. OF course the Iranians and the Obama administration new that they could not lift ALL the sanctions since most of the sanctions were imposed by COngress, not the President. So some sanctions have been removed but the US and Iran still can't do business especially since existing sanctions prevent Iran from doing business using US dollars which is the international currency. And, Congress is pushing for new sanctions. The Iranians consider this a violation of the agreement which requires the US to do its best to remove all sanctions but the text of the treaty does not actually require all the sanctions to be removed.
So bottom line is that despite all the hype, neither side has "violated" the agreement.
Note however that the US and Iran are not the only parties to the deal: Russia, China, Germany, UK and France that have signed it too, and it has been endorsed by the UN Security Council. The European courts had already ruled sanctions on Iran to be illegal before the deal,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions-eu-idUSBRE91514220130206
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-courts-insight-idUKBRE96E0M920130715
and the the other countries have told the US that they will continue to abide by the deal even if the US pulls out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/iran-nuclear-deal-vital-warns-theresa-may-donald-trump-vows/
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/In-a-message-to-Trump-China-defends-Iran-nuclear-deal/article16767795.ece
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-eu-idUSKCN0PU0S520150720
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/Russia-Loss-of-Iranian-nuclear-deal-would-be-unforgivable-475468
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/06/china-warns-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-must-stand/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-europe-idUKKCN0RA2H420150910
Unfortunately, the most efficient way to become knowledgable about the Middle East is to read. A lot. The Middle East is a far more complex place than most people imagine and understanding the region requires a great deal of knowledge. I have been studying the Middle East for nearly a decade and I still feel like there is so much that I do not know. I would start by reading reputable news sources every day. Places like The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, Financial Times, are the Los Angeles Times are good English language news sources that you should look at. Additionally, I have written up a suggested reading list for learning about the Middle East, though it is a bit more security-related since that's my area of expertise. I hope it helps. And feel free to ask any questions if you have them.
Books - General History of the Middle East
Books - Middle East Military History
Books - Middle East Terrorism and Substate Violence
Books - U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East
Think Tanks
Below is a list of several different think tanks, which frequently publish everything from extension research and analysis to quick and succinct blog posts about the issues in the Middle East. Some of these think tanks specifically focus on the Middle East, while for others it is only one area of their research.
Journals, Blogs, Podcasts, and other Publications
Because close US allies Israel and the Saudis object to the US and Iran getting along, since that would make them third wheels. Same happened to Taiwan when in 1979 the US to recognize Communist China. Taiwan is now not really recognized as a country by the US.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#1949%E2%80%931979 Israel doesn't want to become Taiwan if any US president wants to "go to Iran" as many have urged the US to do https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530
Iran is after all now a Republic, that overthrew the US-backed monarchy and claims to be Islamic -- this threatens Saudi Arabia which is not only a US-backed monarchy but also supposedly the TOP Islamic country, defender of the Faith etc. Israel, because Iran refuses to recognize Israel and supports the Palestinian cause, and so should Iran and the US get along then Israel may have to make a deal with the Palestinians. The US being at war with Iran or Iraq, gives the Israelis the chance to continue taking Palestinian lands: https://www.haaretz.com/1.4775662
So they've been pushing the US to attack Iran for a while now rather than risk the US and Iran getting along. They have powerful lobbyists and pressure groups spending a lot of money to get their way
​
https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=5970
​
\>Attack Iran the day after Israel, demands Israel
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/attack-iran-the-day-iraq-war-ends-demands-israel-gnggkk7pzbw
​
https://lobelog.com/three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal/
John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that pays him
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/24/john-bolton-wants-regime-change-in-iran-and-so-does-the-cult-that-paid-him/
​
​
>He uses this to say that Iran didn't offer up anything new in the agreement from what they proposed in 2005.
He's hardly the only one who points out that Iran had been making BETTER compromise offers earlier on that were rejected by the US:
US Amb. Chas Freeman:
>In 2005, Iran offered a deal. We rejected it, refused to talk to Iran directly, and doubled down on sanctions. Ten years later, we settled for much less than what was originally offered.
http://chasfreeman.net/lessons-from-americas-continuing-misadventures-in-the-middle-east/
British Sec of State Jack Straw
>“I’m absolutely convinced that we can do business with Dr Rouhani, because we did do business with Dr Rouhani, and had it not been for major problems within the US administration under President Bush, we could have actually settled the whole Iran nuclear dossier back in 2005, and we probably wouldn’t have had President Ahmadinejad as a consequence of the failure as well.”
https://www.opendemocracy.net/david-morrison-peter-oborne/us-scuppered-deal-with-iran-in-2005-says-then-british-foreign-minister
Even IAEA director ElBaradei:
> I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers. http://www.newsweek.com/elbaradei-iranians-are-not-fanatics-80021
Instead:
>They weren’t interested in a compromise with the government in Tehran, but regime change – by any means necessary
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/
In fact there's a long line of Iranian offers that were rejected
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/when-ahmadinejad-questions-the-1.html
In 2004 Iran suspended enrichment entirely for years as a good faith gesture; the US pressured the Europeans to not accept perfectly reasonable and legal Iranian offers:
>One witness puts the problem like this: “There was not the faintest chance that President George W Bush’s Republican advisers and Israeli allies would allow him to look benignly on such a deal. On the contrary, if the Europeans were to defy American wishes, they would be letting themselves in for a transatlantic row to end all rows.”So when they came back to the negotiating table one hour later they were studiously non-committal. They spoke highly of the Iranian offer, but asked for time so that their governments could consider it.
>And when Sir John Sawers took the Iranian offer back to London it was very quickly forgotten. According to Foreign Office sources, Tony Blair intervened to make sure that it went no further
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10007603/Iran-how-the-West-missed-a-chance-to-make-peace-with-Tehran.html
So the EU3 were basically lying to the Iranians and secretly in cahootz with the US:
>Thus, according to a cable leaked by WikiLeaks, Giannella explained during a visit to the US embassy in Brussels in December 2004 that, from an E3 perspective, ‘permanent cessation of all enrichment activities was non-negotiable, and that no other “objective guarantee” would suffice’. At the same time, she conceded that she had ‘never heard a single Iranian interlocutor even hint at the possibility of giving up the sacred “right” to develop and maintain a nuclear fuel cycle’. The ‘talks are buying time,’ she said.36 However, in the Paris Agreement, the E3 also explicitly recognized that suspension ‘is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation’, which from the Iranian perspective implied that Iran was entitled to conduct all fuel cycle activities.37
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/168617/EUNPC_no%2027.pdf
And ended up offering Iran an "empty box in pretty wrapping"
http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/PUB110805.pdf
At another point the US killed a deal after Iran had agreed to the same terms proposed by Obama just weeks earlier, causing the other parties to the negotiations to get ticked:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/flynt-and-hillary-mann-leverett/president-obama-should-be_b_592886.html
By then it became obvious that the real agenda was regime-change, and the 'nuclear threat' issue was just the cooked-up pretext, and that no matter what compromises Iran made the US would just increase demands -- like ElBaradei said above.
https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/611735702/giving-the-finger-to-iran-and-turkey-and
https://news.vice.com/article/the-great-iranian-nuclear-swindle
Also, remember that the sanctions were already being dismantled as EU courts had ruled them to be illegal
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-courts-insight/insight-how-european-courts-are-dismantling-sanctions-on-iran-idUSBRE96E0LS20130715
Since you seem to be into air warfare, there's little else but older stuff like:
Mind: these three were published in 2002-2004 period, and could all need a great deal of 'overhauls and upgrades'. The publishing of the first one caused a small 'publishing revolution' in Iran in particular, thus there is plenty of new info.
Here are few examples for diverse 'updates':
Much newer, and then providing 'the other side's point of view' would be such like:
For ground warfare, there's meanwhile an entire series suitably titled Iran-Iraq War. This was sold out, but a 2nd edition is due out in early 2019.
Finally, for better understanding of all the possible rumours about (supposed) Iranian acquisitions of Russian weapons (all of which rarely materialize), and the reasons for generally sad condition of the IRIAF in particular (also why diverse projects like F-14AM always stop at 'one prototype only'), see: Iran is Too Much of a Mess to Acquire Russian Weaponry.
Similarly, reasons why at least 'rumours' on specific missile-related projects should be taken seriously, are described in a four-part series of articles starting here: Iran Is Building Air Defenses Against Stealth Aircraft
I've been saying this for ages... I know we think we are hot shit, but with as many silkworms as Iran has even if we tried we could not stop them. Any military action against Iran is likely to lead to an immediate barrage of silkworms against all major oil facilities within range, including the KAAOT, Suadi Arabia, etc. Oil would go to a minimum of 200/bar, and even that is pretty much garunteed depression for the US. When are we going to realize that Iran is probably the best genuine chance we have at maintaining stability in the area, unless we want to be there for the next 100 years or so that is...
Bob Baer has a really good book about Iran, if you are interested in the situation I highly suggest it. link
> Nixon personally sabotaged peace talks between
FordLBJ and Vietnam...FTFY.
Actually, it's worse than that. Nixon worked with foreign countries to subvert the peace talks and policies of the sitting American president.
If Nixon had done this all by himself and inside the US, one could call it a person exercising his political rights.
But since Nixon worked with foreign governments to do this, thus extending the war and causing thousands more American soldiers to be killed (and who knows how many more Vietnamese -- but we don't count them!), I'd say that would likely fall into the category of outright treason.
And perhaps even more important is that Nixon's actions set the political precedent for others to do this.
The Reagan/Bush election team in 1980 worked with Iran to keep Americans held hostage by a foreign government to subvert Jimmy Carter's chances for reelection.
We know this (source, another) from not only French and then-Soviet intelligence reports of Reagan/Bush officials meeting with Iranians in France, not only from Jimmy Carter himself saying he know of such "rumors" as president but felt it was best to let history sort the issue out, not only from Carter's NSC aide Gary Sick and his book October Surprise, but from the now-retired former president of Iran who said that both Carter and Reagan/Bush were offering Iran deals to release the hostages and that he took the deal he thought was best for Iran: the deal offered by the Reagan/Bush election team.
I don't understand what you mean by "he didn't.'
But either way, Reagan wasn't just criminal, he was a literal traitor -- at least if you believe the "October Surprise" conspiracy theory (which I do).
The "October Surprise" conspiracy theory is that Reagan worked with the Iranian revolutionary gov't to keep the American hostages held hostage.
We have lots of indicators that this actually happened. Consider:
Later, during Reagan's presidency, he would do repeated similar deals with the Iranians -- the basis for the Iran-Contra scandal and other deals for hostages in Lebanon.
To me, that adds up to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush working with a hostile foreign power to rig a US election -- i.e. being literal traitors.
While people talk about Reagan's "landslide" victory, if Carter had freed the hostages in October the election would have been very, very different.
Edit: Fixed typos on initials of rich people who think it's cool to give their kids 2 middle names.
> "I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." -- President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987.
If anybody has read books by Robert Baer, I'd recommend "The Devil We Know"
Baer suggests that replacing our regional Allies in the ME (Israel & Saudi) with Iran could potentially be the play that breaks the stupidity cycle in our foreign policy.
I actually read a book on this. The F5Es gave a good account of themselves here but I do recall the losses being very high on the account of AA systems the Iraqis possesed.
Another good conflict which the F5Es did extremely well was the Ethiopia-Somalia conflict, which there is also a good book on. The Ethopians did well with good GCI and actually came out on top, which is quite amazing given how outnumbered the F5s were.
>... F-14s they never got to fly as well
Where did you get that info from? It's pretty well documented that the F-14 was Iran's frontline fighter for over 40 years and saw a lot of action. As a matter of fact, Iranian Tomcats have shot down more aircraft than the US Navy.
Iran has done some crazy shit to keep the fleet in the air. At first, they bought spare parts on the black market. Then when that route was shut down, they bought them from the CIA (Google the Iran-Contra scandal for details). After that was shut down they kept reverse engineering the equipment. For example, the Iranians stock of AIM-54A missiles started running low in the late 1980's, but they did have lots and lots of MIM-23 HAWK SAMs. So they modified the HAWKs so that they could be carried and fired from the F-14. The same program that integrated the HAWKs also allowed the Tomcat to carry the AGM-65 Maverick air-ground missiles.
Some sources:
This is correct in terms of both contemporary Sunni and Shi'i Islam. Scholars are generally recognized by their erudition and contributions to the theory and/or application of Islamic (as well as other areas such as theology, Qur'anic exegesis, spiritual practice, etc.).
I can comment more on the situation in Twelver Shi'ism, as I am a Twelver Shi'i Muslim myself. Twelver Shi'ism will appear to have more of a hierarchical structure or at least exhibit more centrality than what is seen in the Sunni world, but it's still very far form the central hierachy of the Catholic clergly. While often finds comparisons between the Shi'i scholars and the catholic clergy in the media and even in the academic literature, these comparisons are often misguided, and at the very least reductive. Basically, within Twelver Shi'ism since the late eighteenth (or perhaps more accurately/practically, the mid-nineteenth century), the common practice has been for the laity to follow the rulings of the most learned scholar that has the authority to exercise independent legal judgements (although these are still, at least nominally, only derivations made from the source material, the Qur'an and ahadith, rather than original legislation); they would also pay the khums tax to this scholar if applicable, which among other things, funds the seminaries. At various points in time one figure would be seen by the vast majority as the most learned, but at other points in time (such as the current era), there would be multiple figures with large followings. Virtually anyone could announce themselves as a learned scholar, but to be taken seriously by much of the population, and indeed by ones peers, one would typically need to study in one of several seminaries (which today would primarily be those in Qum, Iran and to a lesser extent in Najafi, Iraq) under well-known teachers (generally, the most recognized scholars of the previous generation). Things have become more complicated since the Islamic Revolution in Iran, where the lines between scholarship and public service (i.e., holding positions of political power) are becoming blurred.
The situation within contemporary Sunni Islam is even more decentralized. For one things, there are four major legal schools within Sunni Islam, and then there's also the Salafi movement that exists outside of those legal schools. Moreover, scholarship even within the same legal school can be quite different based on geography. For example, the Hanafi school is the primary school followed in both Asia Minor (e.g., Turkey) and Central/South Asia, but as I've heard there's quite a difference between the practice of the religion, even in its more legal dimensions, between say Turkey and Pakistan; in fact even within South Asia, there are multiple approaches taken by Hanafi Sunni Musilms that lead to quite different expressions of religion, and each will have their own scholars.
Moreover, the prestige of centers of learning within Sunni Islam have also been in flux lately. One of the issues in Sunni scholarship today is that whereas in Shi'i Islam centers of learning are primarily funded through khums, in Sunni Islam they've historically relied mainly on awqaf (charitable endowments, the singular form is waqf), and these were regulated if not outright taken by modern nation states in the contemporary era. In fact, modern (often secular) nation states in the Islamic world began to increasingly oversee and regulate the formal practice of religion and its scholarship within their borders. Therefore, scholars became increasingly dependent on the state for support, so you have something like national hierarchies forming, with say, a grand mufti at the head. This in term led to the prestige of centers of learning such as Al-Azhar university in Cairo, Egypt to fall in the eyes of many, as they were seen as being co-opted by the state (although the relationship between scholars and temporal power has always been tenuous and tricky in both the Sunni and Shi'i traditions). Simultaneously, we've seen increasing prestige associated with the Salafi expression of Islam (with centers of learning in Saudi Arabia), which ostensibly eschews all hierarchy even more rigorously than what's seen in other expressions of Islam, by rejecting the legal schools. However, some would contend that effectively, much of Salafi practice comes from treating a small number of contemporary scholars as authorities.
Of course there are other Muslim groups, so we can briefly cover them. Zaydi Shi'ism also has a rich history of scholarship, based primarily in Yemen, but I'm less familiar with that to comment (and at various times throughout history the lines between Zaydi scholarship and Sunni scholarship have become blended), and I know virtually nothing about Ibadi scholarship (which is a school of thought that is neither Shi'i nor Sunni, largely based in Oman), and ditto for Zahiri scholarship (sometimes considered a fifth school in Sunni Islam). I should add that the Nizari Ismaili Shi'i community does feature a type of hierarchy, in that they have a present living Imam who carries the charismatic authority of the Prophet (saws), as opposed to the hidden Imam of the Twelver Shi'is; this Imam can act as an infallible. But really this is one charismatic figure, who essentially acts like a head of state without a territory in the modern world, surrounded by a bureaucracy. For more information, you can look up the Agha Khan Development Network (AKDN). I should add though that Nizari Isma'ilis today resemble something that is basically unrecognizable when compared to normative Sunni, Twelver/Zaidi/Shi'i, and Ibadi Islam.
There are also Sufi groups, most of which fall within Sunni Islam legally speaking, but some of which are not strictly speaking Sunni (and might actually be affiliated with Twelver Shi'ism, even though Sufism is generally viewed upon negatively in that tradition). Here you might have some hierarchy within a tariqa but that's different. There are also antinomian Sufi groups, which do their own thing and don't really follow Islamic law. These may exhibit some cult-like tendencies, where you have a charismatic community built around one or a small group of leaders, but here I'm just speculating as this is pretty far from the areas I'm knowledgeable about.
In short, aside from these mystical/antinomian persuasions, in theory, a scholar in Islam is really no different than a member of the laity in religious/theological terms, except for their ability to issue rulings on religious law. Although I don't know much about Catholicism (so take this with a grain or few of salt), I guess you can think of Muslim scholars as something in between a lay theologian and a canon lawyer I guess. In practice, of course, they serve in a distinct social/cultural role, and do things like leading prayers, officiating marriages, handling burial rites, counseling people and giving them advice, etc., although a qualified lay individual can fulfill all these functions too.
For further reading on Sunni scholarship, see Jonathan A.C. Brown's Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy, and for further reading on Shi'i scholarship, see Roy Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet.
But there where People behind the "things beyond his control"
The F-5E was involved in a few shooting wars, maybe some of these will interest you? It flew in the late years of the Vietnam War for the South, in the Ogaden War for Ethiopia against Somalian MiG-21s, in the Iran-Iraq War for Iran, in the Gulf War with the Saudi and Bahrani air forces, and in the Yemenite War of 1979 where Taiwanese mercenaries were flying F-5E for Northern Yemen against Cuban mercenaries flying for the South. It has also seen quite a lot of counter-insurgency action in the hands of Morocco, Kenya and the Philippines at least, plus crises that could have boiled over like the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis.
EDIT: This book might have the details you're after! It's called "Iranian Tigers at War: Northrop F-5A/B, F-5E/F and Sub-Variants in Iranian Service since 1966".
> Strong rumours have circulated that while Carter negotiated the release of the hostages. A representative for the Republican party convinced the Iranians that they would give them a better deal if they delayed their release till after the election
It's actually much more than just strong rumors. A few points:
This is one of those issues in US history where there is no "smoking gun". But to me it's a no-brainer what happened: Like Nixon in an earlier election who worked with a foreign power to undermine a sitting American president, the Reagan/Bush election team committed outright treason in working to keep American diplomats held hostage by a foreign power.
> "I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." -- President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987.
This is fascinating, thank you! The election of Bernie Sanders is the best thing that could happen to U.S.-Iran relations.
Thanks to Israeli propaganda, most Americans don't understand that the Shiite peoples are non-aggressive, and only concerned to defend their national sovereignty - as opposed to Sunni fundamentalists, supported by the Saudis, who include the true jihadi terrorists. So-called Shiite "terrorists" are only defending their homelands.
My friend Jeremy Stone played a key role in opening scientific exchanges between the U.S. and Iran, before Ahmadinejad ascended to power and screwed this up. Jeremy is a friend of Foreign Minister Zarif, and speaks warmly of him. And Jeremy's foundation has commissioned the work of Gareth Porter, who wrote a book documenting that Iran never has had a nuclear weapons program: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459131754&sr=1-1&keywords=Gareth+Porter
I suspect that the Austrian artist, Karpour, who made that wonderful drawing of "Birdie", is of Iranian origin; do you know?: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CebXh5qUEAA7wc0.jpg
They have completely different evolutionary origins, that's why they are different. Perhaps someone else can provide a better source than hearsay from my Persian friends, but Persians are Indo-Europeans and the two groups are closely related. Thus, Iranians are "racially" Caucasian. Even more, the language they speak (Farsi = Persian; Farsi != Arabic) is linguistically closer to French than it is to Arabic.
Now I'm really entering the area of which I'm unsure (so if I'm wrong, someone correct me!), but Persia was was one of the world's first superpowers, and for centuries it was the only superpower in the region now known as the Middle East. This empire saw its zenith under Xerxes (think 300, minus the hunchbacks and the naked women). The spread of Arabic culture and religion (Islam) came after the death of Mohammed (622 AD), and spread throughout the Middle East like wildfire. Thus, Persia ends up with its old language and race, but the "Arabic" religion/society.
It was up until World War II that "Persia" was known by that name, and one of the leaders changed it to "Iran" because they actually wanted to show solidarity with Hitler and his "Aryan" movement. Before you go making crazy connections about both "Aryan" groups to the Jews, remember that Iran had been a colony of the "Allied" powers since the 1800s, and therefore their association with the Axis was purely an attempt to free themselves from that situation, and Iran's current issues with the Jewish people are unrelated. Therefore, if your friend's family left Persia before it became Iran, it is likely that they would refer to themselves as "Persian." Also, many Persians do not want to associate themselves with the actions of the state of "Iran," and so refer to themselves as Persian. Either is correct; it's all about how they feel on the issue.
For a much more scientific look at the issue than mine, I definitely recommend The Persian Puzzle.
If you want to read up on the history of combat aviation in Iran's Air force, I recommend you talk to /u/x_tc_x. Who is he?
He is an Austrian military aviation author and co-author of these books:
1
2
3
4
He is pretty active on reddit and comments on the Syrian Civil war conflict almost everyday.
Edit: I read the 3rd book and while it mostly focuses on the Arab-Israeli wars, it taught me some things that surprised me and fell in place quite nicely given other things that I knew of these wars. So, I definitely recommend all 4 books. I only skimmed through the 2nd and 4th books.
You spammed a lot of links, but tried to paper over the most important one.
>And the Dec 2015 IAEA report says nothing about a nuclear weapons program in Iran, just studies that were at worst "relevant to" nukes, but which didn't violate the NPT.
This is false. The IAEA concluded, based on limited inspections (which means more evidence of further research might be possible to find if not for the way the deal was structured), that:
>The Agency assesses that a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003. The Agency also assesses that these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities. The Agency has no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009.
The IAEA therefore concluded that the same activities happening prior to 2003, related to a nuclear weapon, continued at least in part until at least 2009.
All the rest is bunk, as far as the possible military dimensions go. Iran was conducting weapons research until at least 2009.
Now I'll go through your articles:
>Actually no, the NIE is the judgment of all 16 (now 17) US intelligence agencies not just one agency, and it concluded that whatever nuclear weapons work existed in Iran ended before 2003.
No, it did not. It concluded initially that Iran appeared to have stopped in 2003, as of the NIE's 2007 report. But US reports post-2007 found that Iran had, at the very least, preserved the capabilities they had made intentionally. This was confirmed by foreign intelligence. That has been the IAEA assessment since 2011.
>Furthermore this book is states the claim that Iran had a weapons program pre-2003 was dismissed by German intelligence as fabricated: https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
Said book is by Gareth Porter, a reporter who has gone to great depths to try and defend Iranian actions at every turn. Porter doesn't have a history of credibility, since he has long been reflexively anti-US; he denied the Cambodian genocide, for example, and admitted it was because he just assumed the US was wrong. He has claimed the Syria chemical attack in Ghouta wasn't done by Assad, despite the UN itself affirming that it was. His claims about German intelligence are unverifiable and German intelligence has multiple times reaffirmed the threat of an Iranian bomb, should they choose to actively pursue anything beyond the design/testing stages.
>"With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran," an IAEA statement said. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917
This is a misrepresentation. First of all, it's an outdated report from 2009. Second of all, the IAEA is saying as it has always said that it doesn't have proof that Iran is actively building a bomb. What it did have proof of was that Iran was designing weapons in ways specific to nuclear weapons, which it has confirmed.
>And Iran's repeated offers were not limited to just 2003 and 2013, there were many other cases of Iran making compromise offers that were ignored or rejected
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/we-in-iran-dont-need-this-quarrel.html
>http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/when-ahmadinejad-questions-the-1.html
Your first link is to an op-ed by then-Iranian ambassador to the UN Javad Zarif. It's hardly a source that describes official policy, as op-eds are regularly used for foreign consumption. It specified only broad parameters for negotiations, and not "compromise offers", as you claimed. Indeed, Iran announced 6 days later that it had enriched uranium for the first time, intended to anger the US most likely. The US responded by saying that the UN should take action to tell Iran to stop its enrichment program, and Ahmedinejad said Iran would "never" stop enrichment.
Al-Monitor is a questionable site, since it has been accused of pushing a pro-Assad, pro-Iran line in the past. Nevertheless, the author is credible. He writes of Ahmedinejad's offer to discuss the 20% enriched uranium being exchanged. Thing is, the US was already considering negotiations and the P5+1 set up a framework.
When Iran came forward with a serious offer, it was debated and negotiations were set up. Not before.
>And I quoted IAEA head ELbaradei about how Iran had offered to limit is enrichment program but was ignored because the US was more interested in regime-change
ElBaradei was simply wrong; if the US was interested in regime-change, it would've done it under Bush a long time ago. Sure, the US might be interested in it, but the nuclear program was never going to be the reason given.
Indeed, Rouhani just admitted a day or two ago that Iran's government was so poor due to sanctions that before the deal, it could barely pay anything more than government salaries. If the US wanted regime-change, it would've let Iran collapse rather than struck a deal.
>And that at one point Iran even accepted the US demands during negotiations with Turkey and Brazil, but the US killed the deal after Iran had said yes. See my prior post for details, I won't repeat them here.
I looked through your links. I see nothing about Turkey and Brazil. I see an offer they made the EU, which the UK thought the US wouldn't have accepted and so it was never really brought up to the US at all.
That's it.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen.html
This mentions Brazil and Turkey. Maybe you meant this? This deal wasn't rejected by the US after it was accepted, it related to a deal to get nuclear fuel transported out. It didn't have anything to do with solving the question of enrichment, inspections, etc.
That deal has been criticized as worse than useless, and that article explains why the deal was essentially ignored:
>As David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, put it in a report, the deal was "not as attractive" as it had been seven months earlier. Back in October, removing 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium would have put a lid on Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. By May, that would still leave them with enough uranium, some of it already highly enriched, to proceed toward nukes with no obstacles.
Iran obfuscated on the issue. When they had the offer to get rid of enough uranium to prevent getting a bomb, and signal to the world that they'd be fine with that, they turned it down. Then they accepted the new deal, when they were sure it would leave them enough uranium to get a bomb if they wanted one.
You see how misleading that is?
>http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/611735702/giving-the-finger-to-iran-and-turkey-and (Note the author is a former National Security Council advisor and Iran specialist)
Gary Sick hasn't been involved in the National Security Council since the few weeks he was in Reagan's administration. He pushed conspiracy theories about the Iranian "October surprise", and had no inside knowledge or nuclear expertise. Please don't misrepresent your sources, who didn't address what I linked to above either.
>... the US may have even tried to plant evidence on Iran https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/cia-s-nuclear-bomb-sting-said-to-spur-review-in-iran-arms-case
Even if this were true, and the allegations haven't been proven, they occurred in 2000. That has no relevance to the huge amount of evidence the IAEA received, and shows only a tiny piece. The IAEA relied on spy data from multiple countries as well as their own data.
The alleged doctoring of a few documents would not affect the overall conclusions.
>And as US Ambassador Chas Freeman has written
The ambassador who failed to get appointed during Obama's administration because he is a disgrace who blamed the "Israel lobby" for his failure to get the job, who became essentially a client of Saudi Arabia and China, and who claimed Israel runs US policy in the Middle East (despite that clearly not being the case with Obama) and despite AIPAC not even taking a position on his nomination?
That Chas Freeman?
He has no idea what happened with Iran; that wasn't his purview in the slightest. His believed "deal" on Iran being better in 2005 is baseless.
>And Iran's offers were already pretty detailed but in any case the point is that Iran was in fact willing to negotiate but was stymied. Sure, not all the details had been worked out before the negotiations, that is supposed to happen in negotiations
When they were willing to negotiate, negotiations happened.
For more information, I recommend you read
[Force and Fanaticism: Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and Beyond]
(https://www.amazon.com/Force-Fanaticism-Wahhabism-Arabia-Beyond/dp/1849044643)
Describes the history of Wahhabism and its effects. Author spent time in Saudi Arabia.
[The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State] (https://www.amazon.com/ISIS-Apocalypse-History-Strategy-Doomsday/dp/1250112648/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875330&sr=1-1&keywords=The+ISIS+Apocalypse)
Self explanatory.
[Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection] (https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Unjust-Behind-U-S-Saudi-Connection/dp/1944869026/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875675&sr=1-1&keywords=kingdom+of+the+unjust+behind+the+u.s.-saudi+connection)
Easy to read description of Saudi crimes.
[The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11] (https://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/1400030846/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875754&sr=1-1&keywords=Looming+Tower)
Excellent narrative history of Al Qaeda. Highly recommended.
[My Year Inside Radical Islam: A Memoir] (https://www.amazon.com/My-Year-Inside-Radical-Islam/dp/1585426113/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875857&sr=1-1&keywords=My+Year+inside+Radical+Islam)
Not a wide-sweeping narrative but a personal story of someone who worked for a Saudi-funded charity and slowly adapted their beliefs.
[On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines -- and Future]
(https://www.amazon.com/Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-Lines/dp/0307473287/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875930&sr=1-1&keywords=On+Saudi+Arabia)
Written by a reporter who spent years in Saudi Arabia, gives a description of Saudi society.
[The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine] (https://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496876042&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Siege+of+Mecca)
A great history of an almost unknown terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. Goes into the relationship between the Saudi royal family and Wahhabi religious establishment.
[Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror]
(https://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Enemy-Jihadist-Ideology-Terror/dp/0300122578/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496876149&sr=1-1&keywords=Knowing+the+Enemy)
Really good explanation of Salafi-Jihadism.
Edit: Added links and made it look nicer. If you want more, just ask. If anyone has any other recommendations, I would like to know. :)
Great book on it. https://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739
Not much of a conspiracy theory when there's a fair bit of evidence pointing to a whole lot of shadyness. Frontline did a whole piece on it, and there's been a few credible books written on it. It's a conspiracy in line with the conspiracy theory that the Russians colluded with the RNC and Trump campaign for the presidential election.
A classic Carlin rant, but the "fuck everybody" line at the bottom sums up how shallow it is.
If that's true, then the question to me would become how/why did those noble-minded baby boomers who broke so many barriers, did so much good, stopped the Vietnam War (along with a couple million dead Vietnamese!) turn into selfish semi-rightists?
And to me, there's 2 big factors in that: (1) the mass media, owned by the rich and constantly preaching capitalism and "greed is good," and (2) Reagan's seizure of power in the 1980 "October Surprise" presidential election.
Those 2 factors today are still impacting us.
It's definitely something you see across the literature. Many aspiring Imams and Mullahs would head to places like Karbala, Najaf, and Qom, and study from the various teachers there. Then, many would head off to various localities, often acting as a community leader with religious legitimacy. You can see some of this happening here:
Roy Mottahedeh - The Mantle of the Prophet: https://www.amazon.com/Mantle-Prophet-Roy-Mottahedeh/dp/1851686169
The history of Iran is one of my favorite subjects. We in the US tend to view the entire Middle east as one monolithic culture, and learning about Persian/Iranian history really helps broaden one's perspective regarding US-Middle East relations.
So many fascinating subjects in Iranian history, from it's long and proud tradition of viewing itself as a coherent culture, which contrasts somewhat with the tribal nature of the Arabs, to the fledging democracy movement that was crushed in 1953 with a great deal of help from the CIA and Great Britain (which just might play into why our relationship with them isn't fantastic), to the current tensions within the country between the educated liberal youth, the religious Guardian Council, and the conservative forces around the military and Ahmadinejad.
My favorite intro book on the Iran is:
A Modern History of Iran by Ervand Abrahamian - a fantastic, and short, overview of Iran once it started modernizing with a few mentions of the deep cultural legacy of Persia.
Tl;Dr Mossadegh hated Brits and Russians because of the "Great Game." Led to anti-socialism and nationalized oil industry despite contemporary support for Marxism in some classes and surrounding nations.
Mossadegh was democratically elected. At the time, surrounding states were experimenting with Marxist ideologies. Given time, Iran would have done the same. In fact, the very revolution that would oust him had a strong connection to his hatred of socialism, historically speaking.
Iran had long been fought over by Russia and the British. Both wanted access to her oil reserves and the Gulf trade network. Britain also wanted to lay communications wires to India across the plateau. This was known as the "Great Game." As such, powerful Iranians (commoners couldn't care less) hated both Britian and Russia from the get-go.
Britian eventually "won" their influence and were able to lay lines and "steal their oil." Mossadegh's residual hatred toward the Brits is evident thru his nationalization of the oil companies - a process that was extremely controversial on the world stage - which directly led to British and American interference.
We can see the desire for change (as was in the developing Marxist states) in the revolutionary spark the Iranian public had back in the 50s. Though, what they received was not what they intended. The other Central Asian states have a tendency to follow Iranian leadership - as has been the case since Persian times. (Ie. Iran goes Islamist? Afghanistan goes Islamist. You get the idea.)
This type of "revolution" is not uncommon in the Middle East. We see the same thing 35 years prior with the Ottomans and T. E. Lawrence. New thoughts > stoked flame by outside forces > revolution > revolution completely hijacked > puppet government.
I've got a book around here about all of this but can't remember the title. I'll edit here when I find it.
Edit a History of Modern Iran
You left out a very important piece of the story (I'm assuming this wasn't purposeful). The Shah was NOT installed by the Americans.
Mohammad Reza Shah (Pahlavi) assumed power in 1941, after his father was pushed out by the British & Soviets. During the period before the 'coup' (which wasn't in fact a coup), Iran functioned as a quasi-constitutional monarchy. Mossadegh was elected by the Majlis (Parliament) as PM, not president and not shah. Mossadegh was an ambitious man and pushed his power as far as he could, to the point of overstepping his rights as PM and leading the Shah (at the urging of the British) to seek his removal.
But the Shah was a coward, and was fearful of Mossadegh's popularity. So he asked for US help in ensuring Mossadegh's dismissal. When some of the military sided with Mossadegh, the Shah fled; this left Mossadegh as the highest-ranking official in Iran -- making him de facto leader.
For many reasons, Mossadegh was unacceptable as leader to the West (esp. the British), so another attempt to depose the PM was launched, under US orders. It resulted in the PM being forced to resign, and the Shah returned to his prior office. In other words, he was reinstalled. This distinction is important, as is the fact that Mossadegh was elected by the Parliament, not the people.
There's a good book on the subject, that gives the reader an exceedingly fair look at the 1953 crisis and Iranian history. It ends with some considerable bullshit, but everything else was well-written and researched.
This goes into extensive detail about Iraq's arms imports during the war.
Here's another one.
October Surprise
Gary Sick, a credible source and an established person. There was also a Nightline episode on this many years ago.
This is nonsense. The Ayatollah and those in power in Iran (and most middle eastern states), are just as self-interested as other people. I suspect that what they want, more than anything, is to maintain their power. That's why they always encourage others to go carry out such attacks why they themselves sit in luxury and protection. It's the same as with war-hawk politicians, advocating other people's kids sign up for the military. Plus, they KNOW that it would look horrible in the international community to start threatening to throw nukes around. It would invite more sanctions and possibly even preemptive attack - something they most certainly don't want.
And remember that they have used this "MAD doesn't apply to them" several times now. They dismissed MAD theory at first because communists were so "dedicated". Then they said that China didn't care about MAD because they had so many people the politicians didn't care if they lost 3/4 of them. Then they said that MAD wouldn't apply to India/Pakistan because there was such hatred there. Now they claim that MAD doesn't apply to Muslim extremists because they all just want to die anyway.
Plus, this all presumes that they're actively pursuing nukes, which much evidence says they're really not.
Lastly, I find it rich that this Republican is accusing his own Republican-led committee of misrepresenting (if not lying) in a Congressional report. If that doesn't tell you that neither party can be trusted, I don't know what does.
October Surprise.
THE ‘OCTOBER SURPRISE’ WAS REAL, LEGENDARY SPYMASTER HINTS IN FINAL INTERVIEW.
I disagree thouroughly. There has been a tremendous disinformation campaign used against Iran and mostly instigated by Israel.
Read these books by the historian, Gareth Porter
Here is an article about one of Porter's books
and "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare"
read some of this journalism before believing Mr. Clapper who we know is in the habit of lying under oath.
The Persian Puzzle offers a good historical perspective on the history of democracy and Islam in Iran in particular, and the middle east in general.
Context for the Iran comment can be found in All the Shah's Men, an excellent book about the 1953 CIA coup in Iran which is practically already the script for a movie directed by Billy Ray starring Aaron Eckhart as Kermit Roosevelt.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Iran-Iraq-War-Military-Strategic/dp/1107673925
The Iran-Iraq War: A Military and Strategic History
The best comprehensive book on the subject I have ever read.
http://www.amazon.com/Immortal-Military-History-Armed-Forces/dp/1626160325/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450762806&sr=1-1&keywords=Immortals+iran
Immortal: A Military History of Iran. - More General Iranian Military History, although it is excellent when putting the Iran-Iraq war into context....
Soviet training for Iraqi internal security forces from Wikipedia. Original source is from Kanan Makiya's Republic of Fear
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Republic-Fear-Politics-Modern-Iraq/dp/0520214390
"As a result of this internal uprising Saddam Hussein sought a secret agreement with KGB head Yuri Andropov late that same year, which led to a close relationship that included intelligence exchange, Iraqi training in KGB and GRU schools, a thorough DGS reorganization under the advice of the KGB, equipment for surveillance and interrogation, and Iraqi embassy support of Soviet agents in countries without Soviet relations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_General_Security#cite_note-6
The amount of arms provided to iran under the deal was tiny and amounted to a couple of shipments of anti-tank missiles.
NOTHING compared to the massive amount of financing, arms, and chemical weapons provided to Saddam
So the US was not really playing both sides, that's a lie
But in any case the book you want to read is "October Surpise" by prof. Gary Sick at Columbia U.
https://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Gary-Sick/dp/0812920872
There were historically two times that the Brits toppled pro democratic govts in Iran and reinstalled monarchist rule
Most people know about 1953: after the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil industry ( which until then was operated as a concession by British Petroleum, and powered the British navy), a joint CIA/ MI5 operation known as TP AJAX was put into effect, reinstalling the last Shah of Iran (the same one that would be later permanently toppled in the 1979 Islamic Revolution)
Currently the most popular book on that is "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer. http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/product-reviews/0470580410
However I also recommend Prince Farmanfarmaian's book "Blood and Oil"
What most people don't know is about the 1906 Constitutional Revolution in Iran, which established the first democracy in the Mideast, ended the 2500 history of absolute monarchy in Iran by adopting a system of Constitutional Monarchy where the King reigned but an elected Parliament ("Majlis") ruled as in the UK ( actually they copied the Belgian constitution). However this was short lived, since the British and Russian imperial forces backed another shah and put him back in power, and ended up shelling Iran's Parliament building. http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Contemporary_History_The_Bombardemant_of_Majlis_June_23rd_1908.htm
Probably the best source on that is Janet Afary's book "
The Iranian Constitutional Revolution"
A certain American named Morgan Shuster who had been hired by the democratic govt to manage Iran's finances (who Britain and Russia hated) wrote a famous memoir about the times entitled "The Strangling of Persia"
All of these books are available on Amazon, buy used I suggest.
Paul Pillar explains why Israel sees Iran as a competitor http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-real-subject-netanyahus-congressional-spectacle-it-isnt-12337
Israel wants the US to go to war against Iran for it, or at least to make sure the two don't get along, because then Israel would not be as important if they do get along.
Here is an award-winning book explaining precisely that: http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
So, pro-Israeli lobbyists have been active for quite a while in the US to push their agenda to start a US-Iran war, :
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/
just as they pushed for the US invasion of Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/
Remember, when the US decided to recognize Communist China, the non-Communist Taiwanese -- who until then were considered the legal govt of China by some -- were kicked to the curb. Many American foreign policy experts believe that in dealing with Iran, the US should "go to China" as President Nixon did by recognising and accepting Iran as a reality http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/if-nixon-can-go-to-china-20130303
But Israel doesn't want to be a third wheel. Iran has 80 million potential consumers of US goods and services as well as a growing well-educated middle class -- while Israel keeps getting the US into trouble and drags her down like ball and chain into a quagmire of war and ethnic cleansing. If the US and Iran get along, who needs Israel?
The Saudis are similarly concerned. They don't want to return to the days of the Shah when Iran was the "policeman of the Persian Gulf"
Also, the "Iran threat" is very useful for Israeli politicians who want to pretend to be the great defenders of Israel though in private they don't feel all that threatened. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/livni-behind-closed-doors-iranian-nuclear-arms-pose-little-threat-to-israel-1.231859
Nuclear weapons "capability" is a bullshit scaremongering term, which they're using because they don't have any actual evidence of any actual weapons so they frame it as "capabilities".
In fact 40 nations already have a nuclear weapons capability, and this is simply because civilian and military nuclear technology is the same not because 1 out of 4 nations on the planet plan on making nukes. Beware of this "capability" weasel language. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8V0ezWHGCYAJ:www.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
People just assume that Iran must want the bomb but that's just an assumption
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802
And note who these authors are who say that Iran's nuclear program is not in breach of international law http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace
But the US wants to keep the "Iranian nuclear threat" alive, since it is a convenient pretext to try to topple their government, just as "WMDs in Iraq" was just as a lie and a pretext to invade Iraq.
http://www.reddit.com/r/iranpolitics/comments/2xih2d/iran_offer_to_cut_centrifuges_by_a_third_led_to/cp0ed8x
Read more about Iran's nuclear program here http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425173705
So it's clear to me that you don't really know all that much about Iran or the Iranian people, but I can suggest some reading material so that you can further educate yourself if you so choose to. I found these books to be quite informative.
1
2
3
4
5
We’ve known about this for 10 years at least. There were cities in Iraq that American soldiers could walk around in without armor because Iran wanted them to remain peaceful. If you want a great book on Iran, read The Devil We Know by ex-cia officer Robert Baer. It was published in 2009 though so it won’t have the last ~ 10 years of current history but frankly, that’s probably the least important bit anyway.
https://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Dealing-Superpower/dp/0307408671
Y'all should read The Siege of Mecca.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Holiest/dp/0307277739
I really suggest you read this book
http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410
It is very informative on the subject and will inform you about all the politics that lead up to the 1953 coup.
Also fuck Kermit Roosevelt.
A couple to get you started...
Nikki Keddie, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution (updated 2006)
Roy Mottahedeh, The Mantle of the Prophet (2nd edition, 2008)
Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek temporary marriges, and many such arrangements lead to permanent loving relationships. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”. http://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Marriage-Contemporary/dp/0815624832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203007477&sr=8-1
> The truth was he smothered jihadis in their cribs
No... he smothered everyone who he decided he didn't like for any particular reason that day. He was a complete lunatic
He took the most repressive elements of both Stalinism and fascism and fused them into an authoritarian state with all the trappings of a personality cult.
Here is just one example of the kind of things he was doing:
>Saddam convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on 22 July 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped,[40] Saddam claimed to have found a fifth column within the Ba'ath Party and directed Muhyi Abdel-Hussein to read out a confession and the names of 68 alleged co-conspirators. These members were labelled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one and taken into custody. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty. The 68 people arrested at the meeting were subsequently tried together and found guilty of treason. 22 were sentenced to execution. Other high-ranking members of the party formed the firing squad.
Read this book, written by an Iraqi who fled the regime if you want to know more
Here is the desktop version of your link
I believe it is referred to in this book, though I might be wrong,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520214390/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i1_r?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0PNENVRTHBWAWQBV1FWS&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop
http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410 - just to make it easier! :) enjoy! -
As for the paper If I get to a good state on it, maybe. haha. It's not one of my finer works. but I'm using Iran as a case study.
Another book you may like, that I used when researching Iran for my paper! Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah. It's on OpenLibrary and is quite fascinating. Khomeini, no matter how you feel about him. was a genius.
The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence Wright is absolutely a great read. Gives a lot of background, history, and insight into the major players that led to the ideology of Al Qaeda and the perpetrators of the act.
The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine by Yaroslav Trofimov
I just started this one and it's very interesting. Almost reads like a thriller. This book more or less covers a major incident that isn't well know, but helped to lead to the modern Islamic terrorism we now have.
I forget what I was watching, I think it was BBC Iran and the West they said the CIA never expected Khomeini to be able to take power. All the Shahs Men(http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410) is a wonderful book which covers the coup against mossadegh.
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
a History of Modern Iran
---
^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot
Or what about the allegations that Reagan and Bush negotiated with Iran to keep the American hostages until after the election against Carter?
https://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890
It has always been suspicious to me that they were released upon Reagan's inauguration. The Iran-Contra scandal was also consistent with the allegations.
Oh right, the same scandal covered up by William Barr.
Hvis du bliver overrasket over det, så vil jeg anbefale den her bog. Den er en god øjenåbner.
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-Assassinations/dp/1400069718/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538902326&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=rise+and+kill+first
- Another link with some of/all of the excerpt: https://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890
- The excerpt is in the "CONCLUSIONS" chapter (page 208) in the book titled "October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan" by Gary Sick, published in 1991.
(b) "'The Trajectory of Justice in America: 2019' by Daniel P. Sheehan, Class/Lecture #11, 7 May 2019, 'Investigating the Investigation': Listen to Mr. Sheehan explain 'this dance' and 'the law schools' and 'this club' in the United States of America -- start at 52:20 (52 minutes and 20 seconds).": https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/boouxv/the_trajectory_of_justice_in_america_2019_by/eniray0 (via https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m)
Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEj2n_n7Gxc&list=PLVza7sesLJh5EM3OE4417e3yiTyndRR6a&index=12&t=0s
Source For #1: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
or
http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
(a) "A LA FRANCE." (page 241, "HYMNES." "I.") in the book "POÉSIES DE ANDRÉ CHÉNIER, PRÉCÉDÉES D'UNE NOTICE PAR M. H. DE LATOUCHE" published in 1840 ("PARIS." "CHARPENTIER, LIBRAIRE-ÉDITEUR" "RUE DE SEINE."): http://archive.org/details/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog
PDF: http://archive.org/download/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog.pdf and http://ia802607.us.archive.org/8/items/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog.pdf
(b) "A la France": https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier/a_la_france
Source: https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier
English translation via Google Translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier/a_la_france
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m
or
http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m
In the same lecture Hitchens recommends Kanan Malika's "Republic of Fear".
You have to understand that the US dispute with Iran is not and never was really about 'nuclear weapons' --- just like the US dispute with Iraq was not really about "WMDs in Iraq" -- that was just the BS fed to the public to justify the plans to topple the regimes there http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
That was just a pretext, and justification for an entirely different policy of imposing regme change in those countries.
There is in fact no evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program, and Iran's nuclear program is perfectly legal.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace
All countries are equal, legally, and so all countries can make nukes if they want. There is no law of nature that says the US can but not Argentina or Iran. Most of the countries of he world including Iran agreed to forego that right, in exchange for certain promises from the countries that already had nukes (these promises have been ignored or violated by the nuclear-armed states.) This bargain was made in the NonProliferation Treaty. However that treaty itself says that the countries are free to withdraw from it if they feel the need to do so, and can go back to having the option ot make nukes.
There is another issue here with respect to Iran: the right to enrich uranium and have the technology to be self-sufficient in nuclear power. The US says this is dangerous because the same technology "could be" used to make nukes, and it wants to limit the number of nations that can enrich uranium. Enriching uranium is a necessary step in making reactor fuel, as well as potentially bombs. Other nations -- particularly developing nations -- say the US is out to create a cartel of nuclear fuel providers, and is using the "nuclear threat" as a pretext to dominate the sole source of energy in the post-oil world. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/bush-proposals/
> Were you alive when Reagan was president
I'm ashamed to say that I voted for him twice.
But rather than try to discredit the allegation with the emotional smear of "conspiracy theory", why not deal with the substance of the charge that Reagan colluded with a hostile foreign country to keep Americans held prisoner and to undermine the foreign policies of a sitting American president?
Once those issues are addressed, then you can examine other related issues, such as Bush's bogus claim about where he was when he was meeting with the Iranians in Paris, or the crashed plane of Americans weapons going to Iran immediately after Reagan was sworn in, or the details in Carter's NSC guru's book, or even Reagan's other "arms for hostages" deals that he did with the Iranians which later resulted in the "Iran-Contra Scandal"?
> "I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." -- President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987.
Abdel Bari Atwan is hardly a reliable source. William Perry is a much better source, but even he isn't sure "I believe that the Khobar Tower bombing was probably masterminded by Osama bin Laden," Perry said. "I can't be sure of that, but in retrospect, that's what I believe. At the time, he was not a suspect. At the time ... all of the evidence was pointing to Iran.". At the time Prince Nayef absolved Iran of involvement relations were improving between the two countries due to the election of Khatami. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council official, states that by the time US and Saudi officials had evidence implicating Iran relations were thawing and they didn't want to rock the boat. http://www.amazon.com/The-Persian-Puzzle-Conflict-Between/dp/0812973364
Theres a great book on al this:
http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406506670&sr=8-1&keywords=porter+manufactured+crisis
Any nuclear program can be used to make nukes in the indefinite future. Right now 40 countries coud make nukes if they wanted.
http://www.rense.com/general43/nations.htm
Iran's nuclear program actually started at the behest of the USA http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2006/05/blasts_from_the.html
Thus far no evidence of any nucear weapons program has ever been found in Iran, which is why the US now phrases the issue in terms of "intention to obtain capabilities" - since conveniently there is no way to PROVE that something can't happen in the indefinite future so Iran is always "on the hook" no matter what it does. Iran even suspeded the enrichment of uranium for 3 years
See, the "Iranian nuclear threat" is a cooked-up pretext, that's all.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/02/21/iaea-conduct-complicates-iran-nuclear-deal/
This was the same shit they pulled with the invasion of Iraq - even when the Iraqis filed a 12000 page declaration proving they didn't have WMDs anymore, the US accused them of lying just by filing such a large document - but the US was careful to first remove the pages that implicated US and Western countries in Saddam's WMD program. http://www.projectcensored.org/3-us-illegally-removes-pages-from-iraq-un-report/
See, it really doesn't make a difference if there's any actual proof -- not if you can just say it over and over again until it becomes "true" and people repeat it. And the media help sell this bullshit.
How the "Iranian nuclear threat" was just a pretext to impose regime-change in Iran, just like "WMDs in Iraq" and brought to you by the very same people, and which involved the US deliberately ignoring multiple Iranian compromise offers that were BETTER than the current nuclear deal, but which ultimately not only failed to achieve regime-change in Iran but instead caused Iran to expand her nuclear program beyond what was initially planned, and which caused a nationalistic backlash among ordinary Iranians who overwhelmingly supported their govt on the nuclear issue.
>I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers.
http://www.newsweek.com/elbaradei-iranians-are-not-fanatics-80021
but
>They weren't interested in compromise with Tehran, but regime-change, by any means necessary http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/
https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/we-in-iran-dont-need-this-quarrel.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10007603/Iran-how-the-West-missed-a-chance-to-make-peace-with-Tehran.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flynt-and-hillary-mann-leverett/president-obama-should-be_b_592886.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen.html?_r=0
>This all happened because an Anglo-American alliance crushed Iranian efforts to self-govern and installed a puppet who would serve the interests of international petrochemical companies.
not even slightly what happened. that's not even close. lot's of people think they know what happened, but very few ever bothered to read a book or two about it.
anglo-persian oil never got back in to iran. they were done the moment it happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company
and the Shah is the one who led the oil embargo in the 1970s that lead to massive stagflation in the 1970s and 1980s.
the u.s. was involved in the coup, ran the coup actually, the brits were gone at that point, and basically only through money, about $1 million dollars, the rest was all popular Iranian support for the shah, and the u.s. and the CIA did it exclusively because of fear of the communist element (the Tudeh party that the shah had banned and Mosaddegh was courting) that was part of national front.
and the Shah was the modernizing element in all events. he and his father were the ones who pushed the reforms that gave women those rights in all events. not some grass routes iranian liberalism. his father went into the mosques and whipped the imams a one point. and then the shah pushed through the right for women to vote and other reforms in the 50s and 60s and 70s.
you have it both ways. that it us our fault for the shah, the modernizer in a 7th century world, and the backlash. it's retarded. and yall should read a book.
these are three diffrenet ones, all with varying viewpoints
https://www.amazon.com/Iranian-Revolution-Islamic-Reshaped-Middle/dp/1500657646/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484888299&sr=8-1&keywords=iranian+revolution
https://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/047018549X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484888299&sr=8-2&keywords=iranian+revolution
https://www.amazon.com/Days-God-Revolution-Iran-Consequences/dp/1416597778/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1484888299&sr=8-3&keywords=iranian+revolution
Sigh... sorry man. I want to keep going with this but you just don't know what you're talking about. You're just repeating "anti-war" rhetoric. My point is that if we had taken the "anti-war" route things would be worse for the Middle East.
Anyway, read "The Bomb in my Garden", or read this review of it. Or read Republic of Fear if you actually want to know something about Iraq.
One of the most comprehensive and recent books on the war dedicates a chapter, "The Slaughter of the Child Soldiers" to Iranian child soldiers. https://www.amazon.com/Iran-Iraq-War-Pierre-Razoux/dp/0674088638
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-Assassinations/dp/1400069718/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525069075&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=rise+and+kill+first+%2F+ronen+bergman
I feel that. I have a B.S. in Physics and have deliberately ignored most energy-related arguments on reddit so I don't have a stroke.
That said, it doesn't make you entirely wrong per se to suggest a call to action. But it is more nuanced than that - another poster in this thread discussed the frequent futility of active resistance in totalitarian regimes (of which Iran is not technically but some of the points apply). If you're genuinely interested in the subject of Iran, why it is the way it is, and why change there isn't going to happen overnight (even though it probably WILL happen), I recommend picking up a copy of The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. Quality read and a really good overview of the subject of modern Iranian culture with some insights into governance, civil society, feminist undertones, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404223942&sr=8-1&keywords=seige+at+mecca
Read that.
> is link to a conspiracy website about how Reagan fixed the election and...
The site is the web site of a prize-winning journalist who has written for some of the largest corporate mass media in the country. The journalist/author in question broke many of these stories and stories about the Iran-Contra scandal.
The claim is not that Reagan "fixed" the election. You're constructing a straw man to obscure.
The October Suprise claim is that Reagan and Bush were traitors and worked to undermine Carter's efforts of freeing the hostages held by Iran (their freeing would have given Carter an "October Surprise" boost in the polls just before the Nov. elections).
What do we know as unequivocal facts about this?
There is no debate on those points. Those items are all easily referenced, unequivocal facts.
Given those facts and what the journalist cites in the link provided, it is patently obvious that the Reagan-Bush election team arranged a deal with Iran to keep Americans held hostage by a hostile foreign power -- a traitorous act.
"I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." US President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987. ("Facts" and "evidence" are such pesky things.)
Edit: Clarity.
Don't make up facts to fit your argument.
https://www.amazon.com/Iran-Iraq-1980-1988-Schiffer-Military-History/dp/0764316699
4 star average. The most negative written review (3 stars):
>The book could have definitely used proofreading before being published. It's loaded with grammar and punctuation errors. It also uses many abbreviations that are not in the abbreviation glossary. Otherwise it is loaded with incredibly detailed factual information, which surely must have been a challenge to obtain. I wished it had more personal/first hand accounts from the pilots, but it didn't. I liked it though because it covered a subject I'm interested in, which is otherwise not covered in such detail, or at all, by other authors and publishers. I found the coverage of U.S. assistance to both Iran and Iraq to especially interesting.
The four-volume series he contributed to has one negative review for all four volumes:
>Very bad with little maps for battle and how battle evolve
https://www.amazon.com/Iran-Iraq-War-Khuzestan-September-1980-May/dp/1911096567
His two books about Iranian aircraft:
https://www.amazon.com/Iranian-Tomcat-Units-Combat-Aircraft/dp/1841767875/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491686344&sr=1-6&keywords=tom+cooper+iran
https://www.amazon.com/Combat-Aircraft-37-Iranian-Phantom/dp/1841766585/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491686344&sr=1-7&keywords=tom+cooper+iran
More History:
Europe: A History
Europe: European History
The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914
The Iran-Iraq War
Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law
They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide
Postmodernism and academic nonsense:
The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy
Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left
More Politics:
A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order
Human Nature/ Evolution:
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
On Human Nature
Clinical Psychology:
Introduction to Clinical Psychology (8th Edition) I'm not trained in psychology but I was told this one was quite good.
Ok, that's enough...
edit: double entry removed + sorting
> COLONIAL MODERNITY (COLONIALISM AND ITS AFTERMATH) OPERATED THROUGH THE CREATION OF RIGID DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN SELF AND OTHER...
Us vs Them.
A good quote came from the book The Persian Puzzle, where one British diplomat remarked to an American diplomat: "We English have had hundreds of years of experience on how to treat the Natives. Socialism is all right back home, but out here, you have to be the master."
There is a lot of deliberate misinformation as well as plain ignorance in the reporting since this is a highly polarized and legal/technical area. I suggest this book:
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare by Gareth Porter http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
More
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/top-myths-about-irans-nuclear-enrichment-program.html
But yes, the US encouraged Iran to go nuclear in the first place, back in the 1970s. Since then Iran's population has tripled, its oil production has halved, and it burns half of that at home instead of exporting it.
http://iranaffairs.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/15_billion_deal.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/14/opinion/14iht-edsahimi_ed3_.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
Note that the US doesn't accuse Iran of actually having a nuclear weapons program, but of "intending to obtain the capability" to make nukes. This is neither illegal nor rare, but is inevitable in having a nuclear energy program. As a former IAEA inspector explained:
>And so, clearly Iran has mastered many technologies in the uranium-handling and enrichment areas, such that if they wanted to go ahead, they probably could do it. That would make them a threshold state. We can name any number of other states in the world with the same level of technology and expertise. It's the intent that you have to worry about. We don't see intent to this case. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13286
The "Iran nuclear threat" is actually just a pretext to try to impose regime change in Iran just as "WMDs in Iraq" was a lie and pretext.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/
I recommend "All The Shah's Men" before this, but if you still want more info afterwards
https://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Iran-Ervand-Abrahamian/dp/0521528917/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
>I don't recall stumbling, though I do recall the chore of responding to someone who was being needlessly belligerent. As to why I indicated that the US was waging aggressive war, I did so because it is, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, neither the Taliban nor the Ba'ath party, declared war or initiated military hostility against the US.
Now we can say, "sure, but they were doing lots of naughty things the US didn't like," but that means very little in a world in which the one of the countries most actively engaged in doing non-war things that other countries do not like is the US.
Certainly you have a point in that overt military hostility was not probably apparent although it could be contested by the Taliban support of ALQ I would say the case there is much stronger than in regards to Iraq even if they were targeting the UN Jets in the north at the same time.
But again this here dichotomy arises in your argument you level against me: Either you fully support all US motives and rhetoric or you are against it all and the implications.
Its simply a false dichotomy: You can't say that someone must have been for Vietnam if they were for a post-Saddam Iraq in 2003. Therefore they are morally abhorrent. Its just frivolous reasoning.
Geneva convention states: Acts of genocide once evidence is found for must be prevented or if impossible punished. This is not some arbitrary reasoning to impose hegemonic rule. No one forced the US to sign the Geneva conventions yet they were in flagrant violation of it for leaving Saddam in power.
This is why Turkey and other nations allied do not want to admit to the Armenian genocide for instance because it opens up possibilities and obligations of litigation against the perpetrators who were a part of the official government.
You can decide for yourself which case is stronger--righting a flagrant wrong in reinstalling Saddam Hussein who was in direct violation of UN treaties and conventions. Or maintaining the status quo
>Interesting that when discussing whether or not the US should have invaded you get all realpolitik and suggest that the casualties of the war don't matter because the goals were worthy, but suddenly when actually detailing the direct known consequences of that same war, you want to pretend that the US has no or little responsibility for them.
Well if you want to have comfortable talking points of the likes of "Most casualties are caused by Coalition forces" you would simply be wrong its not to excuse or justify any criminal violence by stating facts of the matter.
And to the contrary the goals do matter because of the casualties of the disastrous policy before it which you have not taken into account.
"Estimates of excess deaths of children during the sanctions range from 100,000[7] to over 500,000.[8]" - Wiki
Those are only the numbers from the period where UN sanctions were leveled on the Iraqi people while Saddam built kingly palaces in the 18 provinces from 1991. Add al-Anfal and the Iran-Iraq war and you have well over a million dead Iraqis...
How many lives is it worth to waste to not reverse policy and intervene in a situation the US created? How many until you feel compelled to just say "Stop okay! You cannot murder your own citizens! People in the government before may have sat idly by but that time is over"
It's a personal answer but maybe you will see where I'm coming from
>I don't have to justify anything with my criticism. You've yet to support your initial claims
Well okay... I hope I've listed some reasons for my initial thoughts above
>You seem to misunderstand. You argument are not emotive because they are gruesome in detail, or because they are false, but because they seek an emotional reaction while explicitly failing to put that reaction in full context. If I went on and on about the children lying in hospitals with no limbs because of bombs dropped by US planes, without detailing the context of why that bombing took place and why that outcome might be preferable to the alternative, I would be making an emotive argument. You would be right, in that case, to set aside your emotional response to a maimed child who has been walking on their way to school when their life was destroyed by a "carefully targeted" bomb in favor of an analytical approach to exactly why the children were maimed and what would have taken place without the maiming. I'm only asking that you support your arguments, that isn't a lot to ask for.
Well since you think the Baath party and a well known dictator and criminal Saddam should be given the benefit of the doubt that's on you. I'm in no mood to have to force feed you well known information and history for you to see my point. I could kind of see how Halabja was analytical and can be contextualized... But that's only really through racism against Kurds :/
>This isn't how debate works. If you don't understand that the burden of proof is always on the individual making the claim, we can't build any kind of substantive discussion. Until you can at least acknowledge this very simple and widespread principle of philosophy and logic, I can't proceed.
Well of course you are correct on the burden of proof. But to me it's like arguing with a creationist who refuses to go to a natural history museum for his proof. I could try and bring the 'museum' to you but I think it will be disheartening if the only objection you can come up with is that the invaded regime's were simply being misunderstood and not "contextualized" enough against western hegemony. Not to sound rude but sometimes a spade is a spade :/
Edit: Recommended reading Republic of Fear (1989)
Gulf of Tonkin 1967: McNamara knew it was a mistake before LBJ used it as an excuse to escalate. Daniel Ellsberg’s firsthand account from inside the Pentagon: http://www.pbs.org/pov/mostdangerousman/excerpt-ellsberg-memoir/2/
(Gareth Porter says Mac kept the truth from LBJ: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/05/how-lbj-was-deceived-on-gulf-of-tonkin/ )
Cold War’s End 1988-1991: CIA so busy lying about Soviet power under Casey and Gates, they missed the USSR’s fall. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21487-no-tears-for-the-real-robert-gates
Iraq War I: 1990-1991: Lied about Iraqi preparations to invade Saudi, Iraqi forces murdering babies https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html
Kosovo: 1999: Lied about 100,000 Albanian Muslims slaughtered by Serbs
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/18/balkans3
Afghanistan: 2001: Lied that Taliban wouldn’t give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Iraq War II 2003: Lied that Iraq was making WMD, including nuclear weapons, was allied with al Qaeda https://medium.com/dan-sanchez-blog/16-articles-that-expose-how-they-lied-us-into-war-in-iraq-bedf2e47c0bc
Somalia 2006: The Islamic Courts Union government was not truly in league with al Qaeda as claimed https://www.thenation.com/article/blowback-somalia/
Libya 2011: Lied that there was an impending genocide in Eastern Libya https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/
Syria 2013: No Slam Dunk on al Qaeda false-flag sarin attack, they finally admit much later
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/10/neocons-red-faced-over-red-line/
Iraq War III 2014: Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar did not need rescuing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2014/08/13/5fdd3358-2301-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html?utm_term=.b2834d3b716b
Yemen 2015: Not really bad intel, but notably knew war would be “long, bloody and indecisive,” launched it anyway, just to “placate the Saudis.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-us.html
—Hasn’t led to war yet, but they’ve been lying for years about Iran’s intent and actions to make nuclear weapons, which never existed. https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338 https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/16/when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-nukes/ CIA did finally admit this was so in 2007 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/20071203_release.pdf —
Older phony casus belli:
1812: Impressment of sailors was the excuse when the Democrats really just wanted to seize Canada. https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/06/19/1812-the-war-partys-first-success/
1846: Mexico: U.S. invaded, called it defense from the Mexicans https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions
1861: Civil War: Keeping Ft. Sumpter open after South Carolina secession was a provocation. (Everyone’s got a different opinion about this one.)
1620-Current: Indian wars: Paid Napolean for the land. God says we can. And they started it anyway. http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/unit3/indians.html
1898: Spain: Remember the Maine was an accidental fire which spread to the magazine. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Maine.1898.pdf
1898: Philippines: Must Christianize these Catholics. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/blackboard/mckinley.html
WWI: Lusitania was a deliberate provocation, Zimmerman telegram threat of German-Mexican invasion of U.S. Southwest was a ridiculous joke. https://www.amazon.com/Lusitania-Colin-Simpson/dp/0582127076 https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann
WWII: Pearl Harbor: FDR Knew. https://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299
Korea: Syngman Ree’s forces’ provocations preceded Northern invasion https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/
Is "Rise and Kill First" biased? Is it worth reading? I read first couple of pages and it looks interesting, but I can't find anything about bias or how historically accurate it is.
I have similar question about Kissinger's "Diplomacy". Can it be read for the content of the book, or is it primary read to understand Kissinger and USA diplomacy?
yes i know about the mosque seizure , you can read this book The siege of mecca
>Also in December of 1979, the Soviet Union, an atheist state, invaded Afghanistan, an Islamic state.
Why do all of these tie in together?
and hence the saudis pakis and umerikans created the taliban
but pliss to tell me how is this guy a reformer ? and a great ruler ? and why the fuck should we mourn for this buffon ?
I would point you to this book. It's a great read that explains in detail why Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to achieve its regional goals. The conclusion argues that West has been itching to go to war with Iran and they are trying to scare the public into backing one. Iran knows this and they know that any action that could be seen as attempting to achieve weapons capability would be all the west needs to go in and destroy them. Contrary to popular opinion, Iran is a rational actor on the world stage unlike those who argue that they are willing to die if it meant taking down their "enemies."
http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8
This is a really good book on the subject.
ETA: I just got to that part of the podcast and had no idea this was the book he was referencing. This was a REALLY good book if you want to understand the roots of modern Islamic terrorism. The Saudis used French special forces and American pilots because none of the Saudis could do either. The Saudi military used American gear a REALLY buttfucked Mecca, like using TOW missiles against snipers in minarets.
There is an excellent book titled "All The Shah's Men" that goes into great detail concerning this coup d'etat. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (better known today as British Petroleum) had a lucrative deal with the Iranian government to share the vast majority of the oil earnings with foreign investors. But in 1951, the Iranian government voted to nationalize Iran's oil fields and more importantly, democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh who fought against foreign companies. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company begged Winston Churchill to help and he reached out to the CIA. The CIA started the coup under Operation Ajax and the SIS started their own operation titled Operation Boot. This CIA led coup ended in 1953 with Mossadegh being deposed by a brutal dictator; Mohammed Rezi Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran.
Fun Factoids:
President Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit Roosevelt Jr. was the CIA's Directorate of Plans and senior coordinator for Operation Ajax.
Maj. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Sr., grandson of Gen. Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. and commander in chief of United States Central Command during the invasion of the Persian Gulf War, was sent by the CIA to persuade the Shah to return from exile. In addition, Schwarzkopf Sr. also trained the brutal paramilitary police force SAVAK whose torture methods ranged from electric shock, pulling of teeth, and pouring boiling water down the anus. After the 1979 revolution, SAVAK was dismantled but it is highly likely the SAVAK command and its methods were simply implemented under the new name SAVAMA.
People like writer and former CIA agent Bob Baer have been advocating dropping the Gulf Arabs states for some time as allies. They treat us like shit and fund terrorism, not mention they are all despotic assholes perfectly comfortable with slavery. In one of his books he advocates moving towards Iran as the dominant regional power and makes a decent case for why an alliance with them might make more sense. With how the fight against ISIS is progressing, I've been wondering if he isn't on to something.
The books of Michael Axworthy and James Buchan's Days of God. :)
Elements of Murder: A History of Poison
Ignore the pulpy cover, there's a lot of depth here.
Also:
The Shadow Factory
The Ayatollah Begs to Differ
Just started that last one. Seems ok so far, but the Amazon reviews are promising.
Iran never betrays their allies unlike the US. They always support their allies no matter what, look at their support for Hezbollah - even while they were fighting a dificult battle with IDF, Hamas - despite being heavily outgunned by israel and Iran not achieving much by supporting them, Syria - even when it looked like Damascus would fall and the Syrian government will never win. Iran has always been consistent and in more cases than not turn out to be successful because of their perseverance. Check out former CIA operative Robert Baer's book about Iran; The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower
Because Saddam Hussein. If you agree that WW 2 was necessary to stop the holocaust against the Jews, you must accept that Iraq was necessary to stop cleansing of Shia and ethnic cleansing of Kurds. I've yet to meet anyone that has argued or would argue that the US and allied forces should not have gotten involved to stop the holocaust.
The exact extent of the murders in Iraq is still not fully known. The records were destroyed. However, the number of mass graves we've found proves demonstrably that mass killings took place in the hundreds of thousands, and there is no way to know how many we've missed. 1 million would be conservative based on all available evidence.
If you don't understand how Iraq was necessary, then you need to study the history of Iraq starting with the rise of the Baath party with the help of the CIA and the foolishly abandoned Gulf War. That war should have been fought--to the end--back in the early '90s, and Hussein should have met his fate at the hands of an international court for crimes against humanity.
Read this and make up your own mind. But Iraq was necessary, and the only types of people that could claim otherwise are sociopaths and the ignorant.
https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Fear-Politics-Modern-Updated/dp/0520214390
Read this then tell me Iraq wasn't a hellhole. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Fear-Politics-Updated-Edition/dp/0520214390
So crimes against humanity in the name of a religion are time sensitive? Or is there a statute of limitations on moral indignation?
There's a reason some of these people are very angry. We just typically see the end result and rarely how the atrocities began
I don't really see how Islam, as it is written, is any more violent than Christianity or Judaism, but for some reason, people separate the economic and political motivations from the religious ones, excuse the old motivations as being irrelevant, and leave a nice, neat little scapegoat with which the West can engage in a permanent war and gradual genocide.