How the CIA Used a Fake Sci-Fi Flick to Rescue Americans From Tehran (2007)
wired.com
wired.com
Without providing this context, the piece portrays American diplomats in Iran as hapless victims; In fact, they were active participants in the machinery used to oppress the Iranian people. Most Americans remain completely unaware of the events of the 1953 coup; This makes any mention of the '79 revolution without the context of the '53 coup propaganda, plain and simple. It is the direct moral equivalent of telling people that you were beaten up by some guy, while omitting the fact that you had raped his wife and shot his dog. The omission is as deceptive as any lie.
An article about a CIA exfil from Iran need cover the full socio-political context as much as a story about a Berlin entrepreneur need re-hash WWII. One of the strengths of the Wired article is that it presents the nuclear story and avoids the proximal drama.
The preceding comment, on the other hand, labels the six subjects of the article as "active participants in the machinery used to oppress the Iranian people".
No it isn't. This is not about why the events happened. It is about how one CIA operative mounted a brilliant operation to rescue a group of people from a hostile environment. It is all about facts, which is what journalism should really be about.
> Without providing this context, the piece portrays American diplomats in Iran as hapless victims. In fact, they were active participants in the machinery used to oppress the Iranian people.
Bullshit. Not one janitor, clerk attendant and marine soldier that worked on the embassy took part in any oppression of the Iranian people. Two wrongs don't make one right, and saying that the attack was in someway justified is just disgusting. So what's next? 9/11 was justified because a bunch of ordinary people are part of the imperialist machine?
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with a sneak attack the US did not storm the Japanese embassy, they did not hold Japanese diplomats hostage. They did not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies. Etc. That sort of boorish behavior is not and should not ever be tolerated. If you cannot tolerate the continued presence of a country's diplomats in your country then you eject them, you do not hold them hostage. Period.
Roughly 400 Japanese Embassy staff (including diplomats) were actually held by the FBI and used in trade for American embassy staff who were stuck in Japan. Same was done with German and Italian diplomats. They were reportedly held comfortably at resort compounds the government took over. While they were treated much better than other Japanese in the US at the time they were still held against their will, and were used as currency to recover American staff.
> They did not claim that the Japanese diplomats were secretly spies.
No idea about the Japanese but several employees of the German embassy were arrested for 'spying'.
If they are not provided to everyone else then why would diplomats expect these privileges? What is the philosophical framework that elevates diplomats above others?
If the people are subject to internment, why not the diplomats?
If the people may be killed by drones, why not the diplomats?
If the people may be held without trial, why not the diplomats?
Embassy immunity is like saying it is OK to shoot an and enemy soldier but not an enemy president? Why, because he real war isn't nation vs nation, but sociopolitical elite vs humanity.
Again, if you don't want diplomats in your country you eject them. It happens from time to time. You don't take them hostage, there is no excuse for that, not even all out war.
Not mentioning this fact to an audience that might be oblivious to it is inexcusable.
I wonder how the just released movie handles this fact?
I take issue with your thoughtless repetition of given "facts" via NYTimes and other interested parties regarding 53. The Shah of Iran was the Shah of Iran prior to '53 and after '53. Dr. Mossadeq was appointed per constitution of Iran and was dismissed per the same constitution by the monarch. He refused to accept his dismissal. Did you know he was a prince of the prior (deposed and alien) ruling family? Did you know he dissolved the parliament?
The counter-coup of 53 was initiated and carried out by the Iranian military officers who upheld their constitutional oath. The fact that NYTimes, and other "interested parties" to this day take joy twisting facts, rewriting history, and casting calumny on a man (that most certainly will be remembered as one of the greatest Persian Kings of Iran) is fully informative for the student of history/geo-politics ...
The article was published April 24, 2007.
The 1947-1953 government wasn't particularly stable on its own, though, and it's not like neighbors (or states anywhere) with massive natural resource finds tend toward good government, though. Reza Shah was probably the best government in modern Iranian history (although I'm not an expert).
Still, if I were there in 1954-1979 I would have been against the Shah, and 1979-now against the IR. (although my level of "against" probably would have been "GTFO and go try to start a business in the UK or US or even UAE".)
To be fair, many also consider them a "bad government" because they execute rape victims and homosexuals, torture prisoners, that sort of thing.
Btw, if the report you're linking to is the same one I read about then it uses highly questionable sources (I think it was MEK operatives, not sure though).
Any claim that HRW is part of a propaganda machine working against Iran is an extraordinary claim, and the onus is on you to back it up with evidence.
It's particularly difficult to have that claim stand on its own when it's so easy to get firsthand narratives of the brutality of the Iranian regime from other sources. It doesn't take MEK spies to reveal the stories of people tortured hung from construction cranes for writing subversive blog posts.
"the onus is on you to back it up with evidence." - funny how that burden never seem to apply to those making the actual accusations. Often someone makes a claim about brutality and it's accepted at face value simply because the accused is somebody we don't like politically.
Then there is the question of “bad” compared to what. Say e.g. Saudi Arabia or Bahrain? The crimes committed there by the state are far worse by all accounts. Somehow those governments are “moderates” and not “bad”. Go figure.
The argument I’m making is that there are no real concern for human rights in Iran. The only concern is to make Iran submit to western demands. Take the issue of sanctions. The purpose is to make Iranians suffer so that they will “get the picture” and overthrow their government.
Or how about the support for the terrorist organization MEK? Or supporting Al Quada in Syria? The nonsense that “the west” (whatever that means) really cares about “human rights” (whatever that means) makes sense only to those high on the propaganda coming from the mainstream media.
http://masoudbehnoud.com/weblog/s2.pdf (Real history)
If we had some real journalist rather than those sad bunch of propagandist working for the corporate/state interests, we might have had a better understanding of what is going on in the world.
This article was written in 2007 and tells a story I had never heard.
Today I read the article and thought "wow, what an interesting story. Might even make a good movie".
Then I came here and read the comments and found out it was made into a movie that was released last week.
Tomatometer gives it a 95% -- I'm probably going to see it now.
Are people in the US unaware of what really happened?
Just shake your head and move along.
Sheez. This whole thread is further evidence that off-topic articles should be ruthlessly extirpated.
Though this is a US site, and Wired is a US magazine, and the US seem to have something against Iran (or it's nuclear program anyway). You would be hard pressed to find many pro-Iran articles.
So where is the difference between propaganda and reporting?
Contrary to some opinions, propaganda is not just about making you dislike someone or something else. Montages of your own people/accomplishments/military force, accompanied by stirring music, for example, is propaganda.
I don't read Wired enough to know if this is the case.
(Btw, I am an Indian in India who has got nothing to do with USA and Iran.)
India was "non-aligned" during the cold war but was fairly tilted towards the USSR (cheap munitions, convenient ideology) and this was conveyed through the strongly controlled media.
Due to the size and volatility of the Muslim population in India there were many moves to appear (and push people to appear) allied with the Arab states and against Israel.
I wonder what, in general, the modern viewpoint is. Young people in India now are more into consumer goods and I think less political than they were 20 years ago, but I only get brief snapshots now.
Then can someone tell the hordes of Indians getting into the US since the 90's they were/are somehow confused and need to change direction towards Russia and India. Thanks!