All these politics and political games are such a shame. The Tehran that the author describes seems like a really vibrant city that I'd really like to visit and experience. But I never will for fear or something like this happening, becoming some tiny pawn in a much bigger game. And I wish that Iranians could come to the US and visit NYC or SF and see our culture. Then we might realize that the other side is something more than the strawman that media or government portrays them as.
I'm an American citizen and visited Iran back 2017 with no problems. I was nervous about getting questioned but surprisingly, it turned out to be one of the smoothest border crossings I've ever experienced - when entering Iran and the US I literally got no questions at all. (Getting an Iranian entry visa as an American without a government minder was bit trickier, but I was also pleasantly surprised by how smoothly that went - they even wrote me a check to reimburse me for a priority processing fee that didn't end up being necessary, which was a first).
That said - 2017 was, in retrospect, a pretty easy time to visit Iran, and I wouldn't risk it now given the events of the last few months. But I very much hope to be able to go back.
I can confirm what several others here are saying - Tehran is a cosmopolitan, fascinating city, and Iranians are wonderful, on the whole. Some of the biggest surprises for me were
1) the religious and cultural pluralism on display - I saw Zoroastrian temples, synagogues, and plenty of churches (with the prominent exception of Bahá'i, who are forced to live in the shadows). Not to mention that the vast majority of Iranians I talked to about religion were on the atheist-agnostic spectrum, although they participate in religious holidays and customs in much the same way that my lapsed Catholic family did when I was growing up.
2) How much Iranians like American culture, and how connected they are to it by friends and family who live in the US. I knew this from before, of course, but it was surreal to be, say, talking to an older couple in a tiny provincial village and end up discussing their favorite taquerias in Orange County (that really happened to me). Or the kids in a mall who insisted on taking a bunch of selfies with me when they found out I was from the US.
Anyway, I found the whole trip to be extraordinary and came away from it convinced that, on the level of culture and society if not our current governments, Americans and Iranians are natural allies. I hope for a future where that can happen.
Until 1979 they were. As quick as it changed it could change back if the poltical pressures change. All it would take would be Iran/Israel making peace which would push the Saudis into the bad guys role.
A worthwhile watch is the music video for Khruangbin's Maria También. It takes pre-revolutionary video of female pop stars and systematically erases them.
> Getting an Iranian entry visa as an American without a government minder was bit trickier
How did you manage that? I thought that it was required for American citizens to have a tour guide with them at all times. Did you get some sort of non-tourist visa that allowed that to happen?
Do they still operate or are they remnants of pre-revolutionary times? I don't see how they can operate in a state whose publicly stated goal is to "wipe Israel from the face of the Earth".
Iran's issue with Israel is not related to Judaism.
It's important to distinguish between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. Iran is the former but not the latter.
The article has several paragraphs on the synagogues and how they operate today. Jews were wearing skullcaps in the streets and there were apparently several operating synagogues.
The article also mentioned that the buildings are unadorned from the outside, and that the website for the synagogue he attended had text on it condemning the Israeli government for the 2008 Gaza atrocities, so it's not completely unencumbered.
Iranians I've talked to say they have no problem with Judaism. Their issue is Zionism. The distinction is lost in the West but not in the Middle East. Arab Jews who were forced to leave their countries for Israel had a hard time integrating into Israel and there are still problems in Israel over this as I understand it.
Tehran is a beautiful city with a wide range of smart, compassionate, cool people.
My cousin in Tehran introduced me to games like Counterstrike, Grim Fandango, and Battlefield, which got me into PC gaming, which got me into open source game scripting. We spent a few summers in Tehran, and there was this electronics bazaar called Paytakht[1] that I'd always beg my mom to take me to. They had everything from motherboards and CPUs to cracked versions of Photoshop to iPhone screen repairs.
Cosmopolitan Iranians are stuck in a strange situation: a majority resent the current regime for a litany of reasons (repressing religious minorities in Iran, regressive attitudes toward women, corruption, economic stagnation and inflation, the list goes on) - but they also resent the US and UK governments for denying them a chance at being a secular democracy[2]. They don't want to be the next Iraq, or the next Libya, or the next Afghanistan, either.
OTOH, because of this conflict between the people and their government, many Iranians see a country's actions as not representative of the sentiments of its people. This (plus Iran's hospitality culture) is why, despite the political tensions, Americans generally get treated very well in Iran. It's also likely why most people the author of this article interacted with treat him with an air of "I'm sorry, it's not personal." When it comes to Islamic fundamentalism in Tehran, only a vocal minority's hearts are really in it.
This mirrors my experience when I visited: incredibly hospitable, polite, and outgoing people.
As a US passport holder with no relation to Iran or Israel, it was easy enough to visit, although you are under the watch of your state-sanctioned minder the entire time as the author eluded to. Going through immigration on arrival, I was detained for about an hour while they presumably were examining my documents, but every encounter I had with police was fairly cordial if not a bit unprofessional.
Once inside, it is indeed a vibrant place. Tehran has a booming nightlife, and outside the gaze of the religious police people were living quite freely (especially in the Armenian or jewish communities). It seems they go to great lengths to do everything as privately as possible, as to not attract the attention of the morality police, allowing them to save face. Young people were quite adamantly secular, and apologetic for their theocratic government. You definitely get the impression that citizens feel the government doesn't represent them at all.
I'm not sure I plan on returning, but I'd certainly encourage curious people to visit as there is a lot worth seeing.
Yep, I get Christmas cards from my cousins in Tehran. They can eat pork, make and drink wine with no real issue. Iran has (for abrahamic faiths at least) probably the best religious tolerance in the region
I’m surprised at this. Have you spent time in Israel? I haven’t been to either but would have expected Israel to be better again.
Thanks for the comment.
Never been to Iran, but I live in Israel. Israel has its problems, but it is for the most part a western-style liberal democracy, religious tolerance very much included. There are plenty of religious minorities here, including Muslisms, Christians, and lots of other faiths, and they are not discriminated against for the most part.
(Note: I'm obviously leaving aside the issue of the Palestinians, which is not exactly about religion but about ethnicity/nationality/sovereignty.)
Because one is a theocracy, and the other one a liberal democracy. The expectation is not wrong, either, in my view (and I have been to both countries).
From various news sources I guess? I read about the region quite a lot, including from sources that are critical of Israeli state behaviour (eg Robert Fisk) but that’s no substitute for being there.
Thinking about it, I guess I assume US sources (nearly regardless of source) to be very unreliable on areas with clear policy bias, e.g. Iran & Israel. Given that I think I just assume "I have no idea, really" on a region like that if I don't have some more personal experience. I suspect this is due to earlier surprises, when my expectations were off by quite a bit, leading me to question the sources.
Regarding the lack of alcohol, this is true in public spaces, but an Iranian friend of mine says they drink just like everybody else at home, illegally, perhaps more so due to the forbidden fruit effect. And also, because alcohol officially "doesn't exist" in the country, there's no such thing as a DUI, meaning if you get caught driving drunk they'll have to charge you with something else.
The coup of 1953 consisted of the Prime Minister of Iran ignoring the shah's legal order dismissing him from office and attempting to seize pre-eminent power for himself. To the extent that the U.S. and the U.K. were engaged in Persian politics in 1953, they were supporting the legitimate government against a usurper.
The fact that this lie -- "Shah was installed in `53 coup overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh" -- is insistently propagated by Western and Iranian propaganda machines is a very distinct clue. (Same can be said by the embrace of MKO cult by the likes of Bolton, Guilliani, and the rest of that gang. They never ever say even a single positive word about the late Shah of Iran. Verboten!)
Even wikipedia admits that:
"A referendum on the dissolution of Parliament, the first referendum ever held in Iran, was held in August 1953. The dissolution was approved by more than 99% of voters."
"99% of voters". This was the coup of Dr. Mossadegh and that ridiculous number is exhibit A.
"The balloting was not secret and there were two separate voting booths, i.e. the opponents of Mossadegh had to cast their vote in a separate tent.[7][1] Critics pointed that the referendum had ignored the democratic demand for secret ballots."
Sounds democratic to me. (Actually reminds me of the referendum of Ayatollah Khomeini -- I remember it vividly. I went with my uncle to the polling station. Two boxes in the room, clearly marked for and against, with dear "brothers" from the Komiteh with the G3s assault rifles slung over their shoulders watching over the process.)
Care to guess how many of those who virtue signal by bringing up '53 are aware of the "democratically elected" Dr. Mossadegh's "emergency powers"?
Even fewer know that the good Dr. was a member of the aristocracy of the deposed and despised Qajar dynasty.
Of course non-Iranians are welcome to their opinions, but it is entirely reassuring to this former Iranian that "Pahlavi" has become the rallying cry of Iranian youth.
This apologist article damns the Shah with faint praise- perhaps there had been improvements under the Pahlavis in the latter days of the regime, but there were flagrant abuses under the SAVAK secret police in the early '70s to 1976- in engaging in such brutality, and in botching the land reform of the White Revolution, Mohammad Reza tied his own noose.
I have said precisely zero about the character of the late Dr. Mossadegh or the late Shahanshah of Iran. What I have pointed out is the curious case of canned narrative peddled by Western and Iranian propaganda organs.
But speaking of "angels", I'd say SAVAK was angelic compared to CIA, MI6, MOSSAD & KGB and their record of "brutality".
p.s. Regrettably you likely do not speak Farsi, but this BBC Persian show brings together a former SAVAK, National Front, and Fadeyeen Khalgh (militant terrorist Left) gentlemen including the historian who wrote a quite interesting book on Sabeti (SAVAK thinking end) and it is interesting how at the end of episode 2 they all wonder at how they agree that the poor "evil" "fascist" "puppet" Shah's regime was far far more civilized and gentle than the actual thugs of the so called Islamic Republic of Iran.
On the contrary, you've described the governance of the short-lived rule of Mossadegh compared to Mohammad Reza.
You know, to criticize the Shah does not mean to praise the ayatollahs. Nor does to criticize the ayatollahs mean one has to praise the shah. His misrule and cruelties, no matter how nominal when compared in a fit of whataboutism, simply emboldened his enemies and led to revolution. In some ways, you can lay the atrocities of the successive regimes on his bloody follies.
There is plenty to criticize about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's reign. You however are not expressing a 'critical' position. You are merely echoing propaganda.
What misrule? (Curious as to the lengths and depths of your studies of modern Iranian history.)
During the 50 years of Pahlavi dynasty, Iran went from being a basket case toy of England and Russia to a nation that was actually posing strategic problems for Western imperialists in the 70s (so he had to go).
It is not whataboutism to direct your gaze to the proverbial mirror. By what standard is this "brutality" of SAVAK measured?
Tell me: how many innocent civilians were killed during terrorist activity of leftist guerillas in the 70s in Iran? Do you have a clue?
Again, one does not have to defend the actions of any guerrilla or terrorist organization, in order to lament the brutality of Pahlavi rule. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to cast him as a victim of Western imperialism, rather than another Fulgencio Batista or Ngo Dinh Diem who overplayed his hand and failed to carry out the sufficient land reform to appease the working classes and the peasantry.
When I introduce Mr. X to an audience, I may choose a distinguishing characteristic.
To claim that the 'distinguishing' or 'characteristic', or 'essential character' of Shah of Iran was "tyranny" or "brutality" is egregious. Historical facts simply do not reflect that.
I once went on google maps and looked around Tehran. I found pizza shops and other very familiar things. I sat there with same conclusion: we're not that different. just trained to hate each other because a bunch of megalomaniacs want more power and money.
Hah. Came to post the same video :). He didn’t actually visit a lot of the “beautiful” parts of the country, but it does paint a good picture of the peoples’ attitudes (even in really harsh economic times under a brutal regime)
Tehran is a mostly awful place. The traffic and air pollution are something else. Though it is interesting and worth visiting.
Cities in the south and northwest are more pleasurable.
Take places like Shiraz, Tabriz (to name a few common examples) for example. They are something to behold! And in the north, squished between the Caspian Sea and the Alborz mountains, you will even find temperate rain forests.
I can't think of any examples where people in the US have erroneously conflated the Iranian public and government in recent times. That seems like a strawman. The green revolution a few years ago had widespread support in the US.
The recent pushback against the regime in the days following the recent soleimani killing should have led to more support from the public in the US. Sadly, since doing so would 'align' them with Trump's anti-regime rhetoric, many people who so eagerly donned green avatars on Twitter many years ago decided to stay silent and ignore it. I don't think people in the US think of the regime and public as the same entity, but I do think that the US's public support of Iran's counter-regime forces will be fickle as long as Trump supports those forces.
I was mostly speaking from my own experience earlier in my life. I was raised on pretty much exclusively conservative media for the first 18 years of my life and I would've sworn up and down that every or at the very least the majority of Iranians not only hated the US but went into the streets and chanted "death to America". I'll admit that a lot of this naivety is the result of youth but I think you might be surprised that a lot of US citizens still believe what I used to.
I disagree. I haven't heard anyone in the US say Soleimani was a good person. The liberal viewpoint is that killing him was an act of war, and there's no interest in war with Iran. Other complaints include a general belief that the killing made us less safe. Nobody knew what the short-term impact would be, and the long term impact is unknown. Also, increased tensions with Iran before the killing were directly caused by Trump's foreign policy, and the lack of communication and process involved in the killing meant we lost international support for future actions against Iran.
I didn't claim that anyone said he was a good person. I claimed that the public in the US had a muted response to the subsequent student uprising against the regime which occurred shortly thereafter. 10 years ago a similar uprising was met with words of support by the US public. This year, silence.
I don't think that student protests should be separated from the killing. Normally they should be supported. But right after the killing I think the most important goal should be reducing the probability of war. And besides, regime change in Iran initiated by the US makes me nervous.
The simplest explanation is that Qasem Soleimani beat ISIS. ISIS was a long-term project of the military-industrial complex, by which they looted a great deal of money from USA taxpayers. Had ISIS existed as a "credible threat" for a longer time, they could have looted more. So, MIC hated Soleimani. Nearly everyone in Washington is on MIC payroll, so very few of them could voice an authentic criticism of the assassination.
Iran has an incredibly rich culture that is (quite literally) thousands of years old and includes fantastic works in everything from poetry to painted miniatures to philosophy. The current political situation there is really a tragedy for world culture. I hope it becomes easier to visit within my lifetime.
I've driven from Alaska to Argentina[0] and right around Africa[1], and I've met a bunch of people that have explored a lot more of the planet than I have.
Without fail, every single person that has been to Iran rates it their number one country, and the one they most want to go back to. The people are so friendly, the culture so rich, the landscape and architecture so stunning.
I really want to visit Iran, as well. As an American, I love the look on people's faces when I tell them that.
I also think it's important to distinguish between the government and the people. It can be easy to see them as one and the same, but that would be a mistake.
Peter Santenello opened my eyes to Iran. I couldn't believe how pro-America so many Iranians are; the culture seems so rich, and the people so pleasant.
>I also think it's important to distinguish between the government and the people. It can be easy to see them as one and the same, but that would be a mistake.
To a degree they are one and the same though. The government still requires the consent of the governed.
In a 'if you really hated it why haven't you overthrown it/left?' way? Authoritarian regimes live and die by their ability to coerce/fabricate consent and quash discontent. Until something significantly weakens the government's ability to quash rebellion auth regimes usually stand.
The looseness of the restrictions could kind of help because it gives people an outlet so it's not so bad they're ready to take up arms but the regime still has a ready cudgel to charge people with.
I have. I am from one of those countries. After WW2 we were occupied by the Soviets as well. My grandfather spent a significant chunk of his life in gulags. You can't lay all of the blame of a country on the government alone, because the government doesn't work without the people. It doesn't matter whether you're dealing with a democracy or autocracy. Bombs don't build themselves. Armies don't feed themselves. Deportations don't happen because an official wills it. Somebody has to execute the orders.
I am not saying that the government and the people are entirely the same, but I am saying that you can't just divorce them from one another.
You’re ignoring that a small minority of people can effectively repress the majority. The majority of Persians have been resisting as best they can for decades. You’re right that it’s not just the government (every repressive regime has some level of public support) but it’s not true that everyone else is providing tacit approval.
> To a degree they are one and the same though. The government still requires the consent of the governed.
This is decidedly untrue. Venezuela, North Korea, and many other counterexamples exist.
Repressive dictatorships do not require consent of the governed. They leverage their monopoly on violence and control. Quite literally, the first item on their agenda while forming is to disarm their populace.
This way, non-consensual governance is easier. No people demanding rights and freedoms, backed up by their ability to impose their will through force of arms. Put another way, they would be able to challenge the monopoly on violence that the (repressive) government holds.
Curiously, this is why the US bill of rights, is so important in guaranteeing freedom. The consent is given, up until the government decides to try to take rights away. Then consent is withdrawn.
>The government still requires the consent of the governed.
government is violence (either actual or a credible threat of it). Application of violence doesn't require consent of the subjects of violence when the violence applying side is many orders of magnitude stronger than the subject.
> Without fail, every single person that has been to Iran rates it their number one country
Only heard similar opinions, which really makes me want to visit. Three female friends of mine went together and they loved it even though there is this omnipresence of the religious police, reminding them to cover up.
The stories they told me of how friendly people are and the things that go on behind closed doors makes it sound like a fascinating place.
"House parties"? That happens to be something I hear about a lot from young Iranians that come to the US for school. My understanding is "house parties" are essentially the only time young men/women can socialize together. I also understand sometimes even alcohol will appear at house parties which again I understand to be at least taboo if not outright illegal generally.
Alcohol in urban Iran is kind of like weed in parts of the US. Either you have a friend or family member who makes it at home, or you know a guy who delivers. In either case, if you want it, you can get it pretty easily - although the variety may be limited.
Indeed, house parties. Friends met a couple working in a coffee shop type place and they were invited back to their house, they told their neighbors they were siblings cause "informal" couples are frowned upon if not illegal. At home the blinds stayed closed, the conservative clothing discarded and they all had a wonderful night. But "if people find out we're in deep shit".
Apparently the hospitality is so "strong" in Iran you have to almost argue or tell lies to not end up in a different stranger's house every night.
A friend of mine here is an Iraqi refugee, when I met him I was amazed at how cosmopolitan and cultured he is. Like more so than anyone I know here.
It's very humbling to experience all that especially when all we see on TV is screaming religious nutbags.
> I also understand sometimes even alcohol will appear at house parties which again I understand to be at least taboo if not outright illegal generally.
I have a very strong aversion regarding breaking laws, especially if I'm at the mercy of a foreign government.
Having been to Iran, Indonesia, and several other majority Islamic countries, here's my theory on house parties in said countries:
Given that you're already crossing the line by going to one of these parties, and in trouble if you're found out anyway, you might as well go the whole hog. Cocaine is prohibited, and weed, but so is alcohol. Orgies and adultery and sodomy and BDSM are prohibited, but so is vanilla sex or just being alone with someone of the opposite sex that you're not married to.
The line is drawn so close that it's nearly impossible not to cross it. There are no moral graduations (no shades of gray, as it were) beyond that line anymore. And if you're a sinner anyway, you might as well enjoy it as much as you can.
The more repressed the country, the wilder the (unofficial) parties.
I sometimes used to get an alarming amount of grief entering the US because I had quite a few Turkish stamps in my passport as we used to go there a lot on holiday. I hate to think what would happen with an Iranian stamp!
The US government is very concerned about people who use Turkey as an entry point to nearby conflict zones in Syria and Iraq. When I applied for the Global Entry program the only interview question they asked me was why I had visited Turkey.
I have an Iranian visa in my passport, so I had to get a US visa to go to the US. I didn't have to talk to anyone when entering — the electronic thingy scanned the visa, and that was it.
I have a full page visa and entrance stamps from Sudan in my passport, and I've crossed into the US three times now with that in my passport and they've never said a word.
Seems you're not eligible to a Visa Waiver if you traveled to Iran or Sudan. Which means you need to apply for a visa at your US embassy [1] (which in my case was expensive and required a one day trip). Also it's not only a matter of having an Iranian stamp on your passport. You're not eligible for the VWP even if you visited this countries. I wouldn't try to lie about this!
"When can’t I use the VWP (ESTA) and need a visa?
Due to personal circumstances:
you traveled to certain countries (Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen on or after March 1, 2011)"
I think the issue is that Sudan has a very different dynamic with the US with respect to military intelligence/affairs. I don't really think Sudan is considered a sophisticated threat at the moment.
I think they (Iranian government) recently changed the rules and don’t stamp the visa into the passport. Not sure though, you better do a little research about it.
This is a bad idea. Just get a visa. I did that and had no issue with getting the visa nor entering. Do not try to break immigration law — you can easily get permanently banned from entry if you lie to immigration officials.
Of course, don't lie if you are asked but there's nothing illegal about getting a new passport. Better not have a stamp of a country that is in very bad relations status with the country you are going to visit. Iran is not the only example here.
Getting the new passport is not the issue. You have to answer the question "Have you been to Iran?" when applying for the visa waiver program, and this application is what you shouldn't lie on.
I went for a couple of weeks in 2000, tagging along with my dad who was working there in the oil industry.
I absolutely loved it - it's a large and often beautiful country, of which I only scratched the surface. The people were without exception polite and friendly, and the food was simply amazing.
I have heard very good things about Iran and had a friend who was a software developer from Iran. He hated the government/establishment though and had left for good in the 80s.
Friends that have been on expeditions there kayaking and trekking have been shot at and robbed, but but the pictures do look pretty. I did a self supported kayaking trip to the far east of turkey near Erzurum which is pretty near the border and I assume it would be pretty similar. Very friendly people, great food and scenery.
There was a spy TV show produced in Iran and pushed heavily on the state run TV networks there that they used to help justify detaining reporters, very clever propaganda:
I remember seeing a clip of an Iranian leader saying every journalist is a spy and if they aren't they should be because they "don't get paid enough". Gives you insight into their thinking, or what happens when you give the hyper-paranoid intelligence agency people way too much power (which the west isn't immune too).
On the one hand I'd like to encourage comments like this because I feel that thoughtful, introspective conversations are rare, it would be good to have more, and this seems like the sort of comment that might encourage such conversations.
On the other hand I also want to snark off by something something like "Hi, Eliza!"
So I guess I'll ask: was this a serious comment? (I genuinely can't tell)
I don't think it is a mystery that a member of the press could be a spy / some have been.
But I don't think that really means anything as to the post they were replying to when someone talks about the level of paranoia some folks have.
I see these kind of posts where someone mentions something and you get these sort of "look one time(s) this thing actually happened" info bit gets posted with no elaboration. I'm not at all sure what that is supposed to mean. Support for the idea that "every journalist is a spy and if they aren't they should be"?
If the intent is to justify that paranoia / those actions I'm not really sure that makes sense / you could justify just about anything then.
There was also a prominent spy show[1] produced in the US that seemed to be intended as propaganda for normalizing torture. That morally bankrupt practice was portrayed as effective, expedient, cathartic, and the only solution to all the bad men that will come get us, because they hate our freedom.
If you're looking for ethical integrity, you should probably stop turning to spy shows for it. They are loud, dumb, and tend to be sickeningly nationalistic.
Not even spy shows. It’s weird to see Blue Bloods (an NYPD show) celebrating their 10th anniversary season. I stopped watching after the first episode where a cop tortures a suspect and his father (the police commissioner) lectures his daughter (a district attorney) about the differences between torture and enhanced interrogation.
And the commissioners whole schtick is principled, conservative law-and-order...
Wow. Without some additional arguments backing that up, this looks really disgusting and misogynistic.
I look forward to seeing some evidence that Diary of a Future President is a cynical piece of propaganda designed to aid the fortunes of Michelle Obama, in order to restore a bit of my faith in humanity.
No, but saying "Diary of a Future President" must be propaganda for Michelle Obama does indeed smack of woman-phobia. "yikes, someone's giving girls the idea that they could be politically powerful. it's probably a secretive social manipulation cynically run by the most powerful woman I can think of off the top of my head."
Also, the only two people listed were Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton? All the powerful people in Washington that you could accuse of shadowy conspiracies to control the media, and they picked two women, and one of them is black (ooooh, I get it, the little girl in the TV show is cuban, so also a person of color?)? Considering the demographics of US politicians, yeah - that comes off a little prejudiced. But hey, maybe it's a huuuuge coincidence. /shrug.
I warned the other account rather than banning them because, even though they've broken the site guidelines badly on more than one previous occasion, we hadn't warned them before.
We've banned your account because you've broken the site guidelines badly on many occasions and because we've asked you more than once to stop.
funny how you didn't call out the OP and ask them for "some additional arguments backing" up their claim that the Iranian TV show was propaganda, but here you do when its American politicians.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
as for context, a good book on the subject is "manufacturing consent" by Noam Chomsky. In it he details how american media of all forms is used as a propaganda vehicle in order to shape and create the american public's politics.
The TV shows linked are just applications of that strategy.
You're trying to spread misogynistic conspiracy theories and comparing that to Iranian propaganda... That's absolutely a false equivalency. You had a chance to make an argument to support your position but...
Everyone has been spamming "Manufacturing Consent" like crazy recently. Just telling people to read it doesn't support any argument, it's just an attempt to appear high-brow because Chomsky. You need to specify how Chomsky supports your argument.
This sort of flamewar comment is unacceptable on HN, and I'm afraid you've posted like this in the past as well. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing that on HN?
That's because it's true from time to time. Journalists, diplomats, NGOs, academics, etc are the top spy vectors.
Do you really think russia is killing "journalists" because they are journalists or because they are spies or worse? Do you think the Saudi's killed kashoggi because he was just a "journalist" or because he was something else? Every major news/media organization in the world ( west, east, south , north ) are tied to the state. Whether you talk about the NYTimes or BBC or Xinhua or RT or Al Jazeera or [fill in the blank], they are all state organizations.
Of course this doesn't mean all journalists are spies. Most are just mindless grunts working for a paycheck like everyone else. But the journalists who are sent to iran, china, russia, etc are more likely than not tied to the state in one way or another.
That's how mafias work though. The mafia don has to keep his underlings paranoid and distrustful of one another. Otherwise they might conspire to overthrow him. It's a never-ending game of deceit, gaslighting, capricious violence, and palace intrigue.
It's also why these organizations are so dysfunctional. All of these machinations stand in direct contrast to the principles of effective management. Transparency, alignment of incentives, pooling of resources, cross-training expertise, and clear communication are all impossible to achieve in that kind of environment.
The difference between Tony Soprano and Jeff Bezos is that if you stab Tony Soprano in the back, you have a pretty good shot at becoming Tony Soprano. Same story holds true for authoritarian regimes. In democracies, the mandate to rule comes from popular approval. Simply conspiring to depose the ruler is not a viable path to power. Yet in Iran, China or Russia there's nothing to stop this besides fear and paranoia in the regime.
In a healthy org, it'd be nuts to have two divisions working at cross-purposes against each other. Yet in mafias, we see this kind of behavior all the time. For example, Hitler was notorious for giving different generals contradictory orders. Clearly it has some adaptive utility within that context.
As a detainee/possible hostage, he's in the category of a guest who is not free to leave, and not a prisoner who has been convicted of a crime.
It's very important in Persian culture to treat guests well, better than your own family members if possible.
What he describes, being put in a decent hotel, having his expenses covered, and being free to explore the city in a sort of mandatory extended vacation, is characteristic of Persian culture. I'm pretty sure he is aware of the protocol and thus was never too concerned for himself.
I don't think the start of it fits that description, let alone the danger hovering over it all considering the outcomes of other folks who were detained.
I think it is important to realise that most governments are not monolithic. There are many factions and agenda at work that are hard to understand from the outside.
The writer seems to exhibit copious amounts of Stockholm syndrome for his captors. From that standpoint it was a successful intelligence operation on their part. Iranian intelligence can likely count on him as an asset to answer questions over the phone for them in the future for some time.
Drawing empathy from the victim is a common technique in interrogations such as this. The victim is wholly unaware it's happening. This is clearly the case here, the author makes no mention of being self-aware of these techniques.
“The synagogues were packed. At 1am Iran’s largest synagogue still teemed with families. At 2am the congregation swayed in prayer for Israel and its people.”
Just disable javascript. The article loads fine without it. Most articles on most websites load fine without javascript; I find it productive to have uMatrix block all javascript by default.
Given that even in "civilized" western countries there are a few percent of the population who really don't like Jews, I doubt that only Iran's leaders want to get rid of Israel.
A final analysis then shows the extent of Antisemitism in different countries of the world, ranked by denominational groups, and based on the World Values Survey data. While in our 28 countries with complete data Protestants in Uruguay, Canada, and Argentina and Roman Catholic regular Sunday Mass Church attenders in Argentina, Canada and the United States are the major denominational communities with the lowest global rates of Antisemitism, Muslims in India, Iran and Iraq are the most antisemitic religious groupings of the world.
Thank you for providing a solid citation on public opinion. As someone who grew up in a heavily Persian neighborhood (mostly Jewish and Baha’i) I was rather surprised to see the number of Iranians who would not want a Jewish neighbor (guess that’s why my neighbors lived in America instead).
One thing to note is that the official policy of Iran is anti-Zionism - not anti-semetism. Jews have a long history in Iran and are afforded special minority rights. (The Baha’i not so much)
There are ~230,000 Persian Jews in Israel, ~70,000 in the US, and under 10,000 left in Iran. As a non-Persian Jew who grew up with lots of Persian Jews, I can tell you that 300,000 left for a reason.
Ah yes, that's something that always annoys me too. Sorry for that. But I think the implication in the direction anti-semite -> anti-zionist is pretty strong, so for this particular question I think that surveys about antisemitism provide a good basis for discussion. I'd assume that anti-zionists form an almost perfect superset of anti-semites.
edit: or maybe not, you could imagine someone who really doesn't like Jews and wants to send all of them to Israel.
Please reconsider this position.There are large numbers of Jewish anti-Zionists, whose motivations range from religious to Palestinian solidarity to just not wanting to be seen or treated as an extension of Israel. As well, there's a great many people who don't mind the existence of Israel as such but object strenuously to its expansionist settlement policy, including a large number of Israelis.
As well as that, there's a phenomenon called Christian Zionism that's popular among conservative evangelicals, which views the establishment of the state of Israel and a number of related milestones as a fulfilment of Biblical eschatological prophecy. Their enthusiastic support for the relocation of the US embassy (and others) to Jerusalem is rooted in a belief that it signals the End of Days and forthcoming battle between good and evil on the field of Armageddon. While a minority position, it's one that's in ascendancy at the moment and counts the US Secretary of State (by conviction) and the President (by transaction) among its adherents.
In short, it's complicated. This is not to say that everyone who's anti-Zionist is good or has valid reasons, many such are indeed anti-Semitic, from casual to virulent. Neo-Nazis often leverage ambivalence or antipathy towards Israel to convert people to anti-Semitism and recruit them, a technique known as entryism. And there are anti-Semitic currents on the left too, particularly among dogmatic types who think Stalin did nothing wrong (sometimes loosely referred to as 'tankies').
I think you may be reading the GP's implication in a different direction to me. While it's not completely controversial to observe that not all anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites (although I do hear some who would hold that view) it's more believable that anti-Semites would pretty much automatically also be anti-Zionists.
The more salient questions are, a.) why would they think that way, and b.) why would you characterize their stance that way?
Briefly, the anger felt by Iranians is due to their support for their fellow Muslims, the Palestinians, and their extreme mistreatment at the hands of the Israeli government. Note this support even though Iranians are Shia and Palestinians are Sunni.
To answer b.) both Israel and Saudi Arabia view Iran and an enemy due to a regional power struggle, where Iran stands in opposition to both. The promotion of Iran as Public Enemy #1 in the ME says more about maximalist Zionist power projection, and Natanyahu's lust for power than anything else. For example, Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, as verified by IAEA inspectors, while Natanyahu was inciting action against Iran, as rapproachment was not in his interests. The canard here is that Natanyahu was claiming Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons and that was unacceptable, despite the fact that Israel already has a well-known but never publicly acknowledged nuclear arsenal, and are famously not a part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Even with nuclear weapons it is ridiculous to think that the Iranians do not understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction vis a vis Israel.
"why would you characterize their stance that way?" Because it's the publicly stated intentions of the current government there. We should take their statement at face value.
No - I don't need to provide citations for widely publicized, factual information.
But why don't you take Khamenei's own words, literally from his Twitter account: "Our stance against Israel is the same stance we have always taken. #Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen." [1]
Or a random sampling of the same stated objective through the times:
"Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president" - The Guardian [2]
"Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, Admadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."" - NY Times [3]
"Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who leads the Basij volunteer force, made the declaration to mark Islamic Republic Day in Tehran on Tuesday. “Wiping Israel off the map is not up for negotiation,”" The Independent [4]
This is not a single statement or an off-hand remark - it's made consistently, publicly and empathetically by many representatives of the Iranian regime, without retraction or contextualisation afterwards, throughout the entire history of the regime.
These statements must be taken as a credible articulation of the objectives of Iran - and considered in the context of their goals of obtaining nuclear weapons.
As for the article, I would love to visit Iran, but they are grabbing Western tourists willy nilly, accusing them of being spies etc., so that won't be happening.
"Briefly, the anger felt by Iranians is due to their support for their fellow Muslims, the Palestinians, and their extreme mistreatment at the hands of the Israeli government."
Yes, we see how angry they are when the extreme mistreatment of Syrian Sunnis or Chinese Uighur. Ah, wait, they even take part in the former. They do a fine job of making it appear the real issue is religious.
"For example, Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, as verified by IAEA inspectors,"
JCPOA and UNSC 2231 included far more than IAEA inspections, and Iran was NOT abiding by the other issues (ballistic missiles, heavy water, keeping a spare set of nuclear tubes for Arak, etc.).
People mostly repeat IAEA because they are unaware of the other issues, or that the deal had time limits on most inspection issues. Some are aware but prefer to elide it.
"The canard here is that Natanyahu was claiming Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons and that was unacceptable, despite the fact that Israel already has a well-known but never publicly acknowledged nuclear arsenal"
Israel isn't threatening to destroy Iran, it's the other way around.
"Even with nuclear weapons it is ridiculous to think that the Iranians do not understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction vis a vis Israel."
Some Iranian don't[0]. If you want to entrust the safety of the world to that, well...
MEMRI is a well-known neocon propaganda outlet, so your arguments merely reflect this.
From Sourcewatch: "Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews."
Note how nothing at your 'source' has any evidence that MEMRI tends to mistranslate quotes or provide them out of context.
When it comes down to it, it seems the complaint is that the people Sourcewatch quotes don't like MEMRI's alleged politics, and therefore we should ignore all evidence. IMHO, an ideological echo chamber is bad for the mind.
Easy enough to find, here's an editor of the Guardian calling out the President of MEMRI for just that:
"The fact is that you gave evidence to Congress claiming that Gallup had found "a large majority of the Arab world" who believed the September 11 attacks "were the work of the United States government itself and/or a Jewish conspiracy". What you said is untrue, and Gallup has confirmed that. I trust you will now apologise to Congress for your false testimony. Finally, in the light of your most recent remarks about me personally, I will make clear now that your nationality and religion do not bother me in the slightest. What does concern me is your political agenda, and the deceitful way you go about promoting it."
Regarding the 'ideological echo chamber,' I fully concur. MEMRI's board has included such characters as Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Bolton, so the discriminating reader should take that into consideration as well.
Hmmm... looks like it was a Pew poll and indeed, most citizens of Arab nations don’t believe Arabs were responsible for 9/11.
When asked who was responsible, they said “America or Israel”[1]
So while MEMRI’s statement is not factually correct (it wasn’t Gallup and they didn’t ask the question of who did 9/11 to everyone), it’s not that far off base.
In that exchange, both sides agree that Carmon was referring to a poll whose details - even at the time of the exchange - were not publicly available on the net. Given that such finding would not contradict other polls of the time, it's quite possible that this is in fact what the poll found. So I'm not sure this exchange establishes what you think it does.
I do agree that readers should take into account possible biases of their sources.
These hollow giants are only held together by commone enemys. Irans most common enemy is gone- sadam hussein is no more.
Thus a new one had to be found - and the sia - saudi conflict flared up. Cause here, are two, who desperatly need one another to hold there own people in check.
Israel was always just a fallback, for religious indoctrinated hatred, again to keep the sheep together.
There are wulfes out there - you need those dogs to protect you, even if they eat one of you from time to time.
