The Green Revolution in Iran

Iran was now unprotected, and a new power came into being. The Arabs invaded and the quality of life changed. “People fell into poverty as the greedy court imposed ever-increasing taxes. Tyranny tore apart the social contract between ruler and ruled that Zoroastrian doctrine holds to be the basis of organized life” (21). The Iranian people couldn’t survive with a ruler who had no sympathy or respect for them. Their life was being over run by foreigners.

The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning

However, at that time to the American people the crisis invoked a feeling of national inferiority; for one of the first times, the US had been manipulated by a foreign country and could do nothing about it. However, the Iranian Hostage Crisis proved to be more than just an embarrassment for the country. It’s evident 33 years later that the Iranian Hostage Crisis had other significant effects on the political environment of the United States, including the negative influence on the 1980 presidential election, complete destruction of diplomatic US- Iran relations, and the establishment of a precedent for foreign, anti-American terrorism as an effective strategy against the US.

The “Preface to the 2008 Edition: The Folly of Attacking Iran”, highlights the decades that have followed the coup and reasons for the United States attacking Iran. It concludes by introducing the idea that Operation Ajax, which was the code name of this operation, brought tragedy to Iran, which led to the rise of anti-American terror, and weakened the security of the United States. The author explains how most Americans are unfamiliar with the history of what the CIA did in Iran in 1953 and the reason why the country had such hatred for America following the hostage crisis in 1979. The chapters begin with a clear overview of Iranian history and ends with explaining the effects of the countries because of the coup. This book is written like a thrilling story rather than a history book, which makes the information easier to comprehend, for those uneducated about the topic.

Iran cut all ties with the United States and lost its dominance in the area; it’s army was disorganized and weak. The Iranian Revolution created disorder in many Iranian military units and Iranian confrontation with the U.S. ensured it would be cut off from its primary weapons supplier. During the year after the fall of the Shah, many areas of Iran were approaching civil war; this frenzy in Iran made the country seem much more vulnerable than it really was, and led Saddam Hussein to feel he had his first genuine opportunity to make Iraq the dominant power in the area and the Arab world (Cordesman & Wagner, 1990).

The pragmatic revolutionary camp of President Hassan Rouhani and the ex-President Hashem Rafsanjani finished the Persian Year of 1394 in a good mood. However, the new year of 1395 started differently. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, entered the ring like a raging bull, looking for a fight and quickly knocked down Rouhani and Rafsanjani in a battle of words. In an unprecedented attack, Khamenei implicitly called Rafsanjani, either ignorant or traitor. Both, Rouhani and Rafsanjani, got the message and publicly conceded to the Supreme Leader’s supreme power. The incident, combined with the other recent developments, sends a clear message: with the sanctions gone, Supreme Leader’s patience and heroic flexibility are fading too.

The 2009 Iranian presidential election and its aftermath is characterized by a strange power dynamic between Ayatollah Khamenei's and the people where Khamenei is constantly testing their reaction to his dictatorial action, seeing what he can get away with. After choosing the president with no regard for the votes and levying threats at anyone who protested, Khamanei listened to what the opposition has to say, allowing them to voice their opinion in many circumstances. This pattern in Khamenei's action seems to reoccur in the elections' aftermath, creating a cycle in which he carries out an outrageously repressive action, and then is attentive to the people dissent towards it. This constant pushing and pulling dynamic

This documentary paints Iran in a one dimensional light that forces the audience to fear Iran and fear threatened by their presence. Iran’s involvement with Hezbollah and al-Qaeda was detailed thoroughly, specifically Iran’s explicit involvement in 9/11 and direct funding of Hezbollah. The film spent a substantial amount of time documenting the Iranian Hostage Crisis, during which Iranian students stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took 63 Americans hostage for 444 days. The documentary showed many clips of Iranian citizens chanting “Death to America” and shortly after chanting “Death to the Dictator”. Iranium documented the enriched plutonium and uranium deposits that have been found in Iran’s nuclear testing facilities and reiterates that Iran has not been complying with International Atomic Energy Agency regulations. Additionally, the film expressed that Iran claims to wipe Israel off the Earth. These claims and points made by the documentary for the audience to ally themselves with the Western world without the opportunity to hear arguments on behalf of Iran. Iranium fails to interview supporters of Iranian regime and to recognize any positive reforms accomplished by the government. The actors failed to thoroughly analyze and interpret the viewpoints of Iranian leaders, instead, the audience was presented with a superficial analysis that supported the opinions of the actors. Although the analysis and arguments presented in this film is backed by especially reliable sources, the one-sidedness of this documentary did not give the audience a full arsenal of

From then on until the end of the year, supporters as well as other causes operating in the name of the Green Movement took to the streets during national holidays and tributes to protest. The motto often spoken at these protests was “Where is my vote”. During the fall protests, the main focus changed from the election of Ahmadinejad to challenging the system itself as well as Supreme Leader Khamenei. With the change of issues the motto changed as well. Some examples are ‘“Death to the Dictator” and “Khamenei is a murderer. His rule is null and void.”’ (Milani, Abbas. “The Green Movement.” The Iran Primer, 27 October 2010, Web). On September 18th, known as Jerusalem Day, instead of normally shouting “Death to Israel” protesters shouted “Death to Russia” as it was the first government to acknowledge the election of Ahmadinejad. On November 4th for the anniversary of the U.S. Embassy takeover, instead

The Iranian Revolution was at its climax in 1979 with the Revolutionary goal being met by it’s supports. Supporters of the revolution stood mixed in their goals for a new Iran. The Islamic Extremist lead by Ayatollah Khomeini wanted to install an Islamic regime inside of Iran that would follow Islamic law. Religious clerics viewed the Shah as not being a positive leader of Iran and wanted him overthrown and the country left as is. Iranians such as the middle class and students wanted to install an Islamic republic in place of the autocratic monarchical society which the Shah created. All of these groups came together to follow Ayatollah Khomeini under the presence of overthrowing the Shah. Needless to say Ayatollah Khomeini overthrow the

The Iranian revolution in 1979 did not only collapse the ancient tradition of monarchy but it also produced profound change in domestic and foreign policy of Iran. Iran, which was, a prominent ally of the USA and Israel during Shah Dynasty, has become deeply antagonistic following the revolution. When we look at the course of the revolution, it can be considered a massive opposition to Shah dynasty rather than an Islamic revolution since the supporters of the revolution include many different circles ranging from liberals to moderate Islamists or from communists to radical Islamists. After the revolution, Islamic circles seized the power due to the Ayatollah Khomeini's charisma and ability After the revolution, the principles of the

Although America is quick to put the Shah back on the Iranian throne, the recent Iranian turmoil’s teaches the Shah a few lessons. The aftermath of the coup d’état results in the Shah arresting his opponents, dissolving parliament, electing government leaders to do his bidding, and the formation of the Shah's secret police organization called Savak. At first, the Shah uses Savak to eliminate all of his political opponents. Activists are imprisoned, tortured, and executed, and as a result, much of the opposition against the Shah was destroyed. All that were left who opposed the Shah, were waiting for the Ayatollah. The opposition would not re-emerge of a secular one, but religious. The Ayatollah is the main leader of the oppositions, and reveals in 1963 that the Shah's policies are a threat to Islam, and were created by a Jewish and American conspiracy. He is arrested on June 5th. The following days, protesters gather in the streets, and the Shah orders the army to shoot them down. For the first time, the Ayatollah gains national attention. In October, 1964, the Shah makes a deal with the United States, and the Ayatollah is released from jail because he is a religious leader. The Ayatollah continues to preach against the Shah. The deal the Shah has made with the United States, is immunity for Americans in Iran, in exchange for a two hundred million dollar grant to purchase American weapons. The Ayatollah made a case that this deal undermined the

Every political development that approaches the scale of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 is guaranteed to involve a number of moving parts whose collective impact eventually yields the end result. But with the Iranian Revolution, it can be useful to simplify this more holistic view down to two figures set in a dichotomy of sorts, with each representing the two different states of Iran, Iran pre and post revolution. These two individuals, Mohamed Reza Pahlavi and Ruhollah Khomeini comprised the leadership position of Iran before and after the revolution, and due to actions of those who were in favor of the revolution became directly associated with what was the old, and what was the new path for Iran.

The Iranian nuclear program has been one of the most challenging issues in the world for more than a decade. The struggle was mainly between Iran and six of the world’s most powerful countries, which included China, the U.S.A, the U.K, France, Germany and Russia. What’s really worth noting is that this controversy was not solely about Iran 's willingness to have a nuclear program, which to its own merits was completely peaceful, but it was about who got to have more influence and control in the Middle East as a whole. Both sides of the conflict took measures to further their goals. Iran put whatever resources needed into developing its nuclear program, and the world’s powers (P5+1)

The post-coup era was a flourishing time for American-Iranian relations. It was not that the people of Iran were particularly fond of the US, but rather the Shah’s relationship with the US. His power was essentially granted to him by both the US and Britain, and as a result he was to do as they instructed, causing him to become the “American puppet.” The US propelled him into becoming a “domineering leader over the Iranian government and masses,” which was the opposite of Mossadegh. Such a regime warrants itself to the hatred garnered by people. The greatness of these times defined the reasoning behind the enormous amounts of animosity that was generated when the relations began to fray.