When you study American foreign policy, you can’t help but wondering it’s indeed not the interest of USA to have once unconquerable empires like Persia to be thriving and realize their full potential. US would rather have dysfunctional corrupt extremists dependent on foreign aids rule an entire region than challenging its hegemony.
So next time you hear our media preach how detestable other foreign leaders like Erdogan or Modi or MBS is, think twice what the agenda there is. USA has had no problems supporting savage regimes for their own interests. I will pick WMD monster Saddam Hussein any day everyday over whatever there is left in Iraq today. History repeats itself. Nation state with media collusion saturating its own citizens mind with propaganda to serve their own interests (often just a very small group of people living north of Richmond) where the same group of people keep drumming the war machines for decades under different banners. Enough said.
This is rather conspiratorial.
Great Britian and Russia have been involved in Iran since the 19th century (example[1]). They both invaded during WW2[2]. Britian left after the war but Russia stuck around. As the cold war began, the USA also got sucked into the mess in the middle east because Russia already had a presence there[3]. The US involvement is often portrayed as the beginning of this mess (just like you did), but it really isn't.
I promise that at no point did anyone involved say to themselves "I sure am scared of a modern Persian Empire". The country was simply caught up in the geopolitical chess game between world super powers. That doesn't make it right, but that's what it is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuter_concession
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Honestly it doesn't sound like you've studied very much then. I would recommend you read up Ali Shariati who was the revolution's ideologue and someone who was extremely influential amongst those university students of 1979. He was also very influential among younger clerics as well as with Khomeini himself. His philosophy was that society would be guided by the intelligentsia instead of the clergy. His political philosophy was one that was intended to lead to a freer society. And indeed in the immediate aftermath of the revolution democratic institutions called "shuras" and "komitehs" arose which gave workers and the impoverished an economic and political voice. These were considered a threat to clerical power however and so power was consolidated and the revolution was highjacked. Your parroting of the just "blame the west" narrative is just plain lazy.
US actions don't remove the ability for their to be reliable observation that certain leaders are terrible. Kicking up hate for muslims is not a good thing long term for India. Killing your democratic enemies and cutting them up with saws in embassies is also clearly wrong. I feel completely empowered to point these things out, while being able to talk about the many problems in the US too.
It is tiresome to read again and again on the internet about how my country would be X or Y had the evil Westerners not "overthrown" the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953.
This false narrative is bandied around so much and so many fall for it with zero interest or curiosity to delve deeper to see if any of it is true.
Well, no, it isn't true.
Sadly, unfortunately, tragically, [insert adjective of your choice here]...
#Iran has NEVER been a democracy
Read that again.
While our future is bright and with the imminent the removal of the Islamic theocracy we will have the opportunity to have a secular democracy that represents and governs all Iranians, that will be a very important first for our ancient people, land and society.
What most ignorant people refer to in the above lazy copypasta are the events in and around 1953 with the appointment and dismissal of Mossadegh.
#READ THAT AGAIN
*appointment*
and
*dismissal*
Mossadegh was appointed, not elected, as per the 1906 Iranian constitution:
> ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Ira...
You and I may not like that article in the 1906 constitution. While we're free to have our opinions about it, we can not have our own facts. The facts are that just like previous PM's (which included him btw!) Mossadegh was appointed legally (in accordance with the enacted constitutional framework) and also legally dismissed as well.
Funny that no one mentions or even remembers the first time around that he was appointed and dismissed: 28 April 1951 appointed and 17 July 1952 dismissed (1 year, 80 days) but every ignorant person loses their minds re the second time in 1952/1953 !!
Furthermore, it is hilarious that Mossadegh is now seen by some ignorant people devoid of any historical knowledge as a symbol or champion of democracy.
Mossadegh was so "democratic" that his referendum to dissolve parliament so that he obtains absolute power won 99.93% of the votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_parliamentary_dis...
What did credible international publications think of his democratic zeal?
> TIME magazine: “Hitler’s best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja’s in 1936; Stalin’s peak was 99.73% Da’s in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.”
> NBC TV’s John Cameron Swayze announced: Mossadegh “has accomplished what Hitler and Stalin could not. He received 99 9⁄10 percent of the vote in a carefully managed referendum.”
> New York Times: “A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadegh in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country.”
> NYT, A Bid For Dictatorship, 7/15/52:”Having brought his country to the verge of bankruptcy,Premier Mossadegh is now trying to take it further along the road to ruin by demanding dictatorial powers for 6 months,on the plea that he needs these powers to pull Iran out of the crisis into which he has plunged it.What he proposes is in effect a legalized coup d’etat that smacks of Hitler’s technique.This is the legal device by which Hitler also acquired absolute powers he had no intention,of course, of surrendering them on termination of the ostensible period for which they had been granted, and there is no assurance that Mr. Mossadegh would act differently.”
> Melbourne paper, The Argus (8/21/53): “THE swift and violent overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh , Premier and virtual dictator of Persia, has been a complete surprise to the world, and a pleasant surprise to the Western half of it.”
The fact is many contemporary international news outlets referred to Mossadegh as a dictator because that’s what he was. There was nothing democratic about his reign (nor his coup attempt at overthrowing the Shah) Anyone who says otherwise is either naive or lying.
There’s only one reason a handful of Iranians have rehabilitated, re-branded, mythologized and continue to promote Mossadegh: their disdain for the late Shah.
Lamenting the loss of a Mossadeq because of democratic ambitions betrays a lack of knowledge of Iranian history.The most common misconception is that he was democratically elected. He wasn’t, he was appointed by the King.Another misconception is that he was a champion of democracy.
During his tenure Mossadegh dissolved the senate, shut down parliament, not once did he hold a full meeting of the council of ministers, suspended elections for the National Assembly, announced he would rule by decree, jailed hundreds of opponents, and the cherry on top of this "democratic" so called champion: he dismissed the Supreme Court.
This angered the National Assembly so he announced a referendum to decide if it should be dissolved. At the opening session he gave a speech aimed at intimidating dissenters saying only 80% of those present truly represented the people - for visuals think Saddam’s parliament speech with that cigar.
Our “champion of democracy” arranged that those voting for dissolution and those against voted in plainly marked booths. The signal was clear: anyone brave enough to vote in opposition would be beaten up by his street hooligans/Tudeh (Communist) supporters.
Dissolution won by 99% of all votes!
In one town with a population of 3,000, 18000 votes were cast in favor of Mossadeq’s undemocratic dissolution. His democratic ideals were so far reaching he allowed the dead to vote. Hundreds of people were killed during his rigged elections.
By the time of the counter-coup that toppled him he had 27 gallows put up on Sepah Square to hang his enemies in public. All but approximately 4 days of his premiership were under martial law/curfew. There was nothing democratic about his reign.
While a member of parliament he posed as a champion of the constitution, due process, representative govt, free press; but only in a few months did he do the things mentioned above. Khomeini promised democracy too. Had his revolution not succeeded he too would be touted a great democrat
From 1941-1979 Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi appointed & dismissed 22 PMs (incl. Mossadegh twice) in accordance to the 1906 Constitution.Yet, Mossadeq is the only 1 referred 2 as “democratically elected” despite the fact that all were appointed and dismissed in the same manner.
What set Mossadeq apart from the pack were his political ambitions.After becoming Prime Minister he successfully forced the Shah 2 appoint him Minister of War,granting himself absolute power.He soon replaced officers w/those loyal 2 him, consolidating power to obtain the throne via a coup
When the Shah finally dismissed Mossadegh in accordance with his legal authority under the Constitution of 1906, Mossadeq had the officer who delivered the dismissal decree arrested, his Foreign Minister published an editorial in Bakhtar-e-Emruz denouncing the Shah & called for his ouster.
It’s clear to the objective student of Iranian modern history that Mossadeq initiated a coup against the Shah and the events that followed & led to Mossadegh’s downfall should more appropriately be labeled a “counter-coup”
The Mossadegh that many promote is more of a myth like CheGuevara. People think he stood for things which were inconsistent with reality.
Also, it bears notice that Mossadeq's own Chief of Police & cousin, General Daftari, joined the royal forces to topple him. He was disliked by everyone except his communist friends.
My understanding is that Iran has among the greatest Urban-Rural divides in the world, and that the rural population is large enough to democratically force their conservative views onto the urban population. Turkey seems to be in a similar position, but their proximity to NATO and Europe keeps them somewhat grounded.
> small group of extremists holds the entire country hostage
I'm just not sure that the group of people we consider extremists are that small.
In the past decade, there have been massive nationwide protests almost annually, often with election fairness as a theme.
The Iranian military has a special wing, the IRGC, that is dedicated to the Supreme leader and used to crush protest or dissent.
These are not characteristics of a functioning liberal democracy. If Iran's regime reflects the popular opinion of Iranians (which I believe it doesn't), then that's in spite of their government, not because of it.
This video explains their methodology and results: https://youtu.be/YONfg85gPU4?t=4341
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/iran-secular-shift-g...
It is possible the general population in Iran support this. All I know is that in countries where the people are allowed to voice their opinions freely, they generally oppose raping and torturing prisoners.
The conservative majority likes having an Islamic Republic, and has a lingering "memory" of the corruption and such of the Shah's regime, but that doesn't necessarily mean they like what the current regime has become. And as another poster said, the majority of the country, whatever their social/religious views, seems to be fed up with the country's rather dire economic state. It's been that way for the past like 5 years at least.
Think the prize is politicized and corrupt? Whatever - it's not about you or your opinion.
Hmmm. Well. I don't quite see how formenting revolution fits the bill, but the Peace Prize has been very strange of late in general.
By its own lights, I don't see a single person or entity who would deserve the prize this mad year. Maybe there's some ethicist somewhere...
There have been a few, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
And Maria Ressa seems anti-Duterte, and pro-US if I read correctly.
Here's a visual representation of why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#/media/File:Bill_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%AA_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_Th%E1...
It's pretty farcical.
See also: all of the winners whose pasts include revolutionary actions that killed innocents.
Did the US really admit that or was it something that was exposed by NGOs and investigators?
Snowden defected to Russia, see above about supporting ISIS. Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families who were working against AQ, another regime that openly oppresses its people's civil rights.
I think you might need to have a hard look at what you think peace is.
So far, the most civil rights a person can experience is under Western governance, flawed as it is.
To add context, Snowden became trapped in Russia when the US State Department decided to cancel his passport while he was at an airport there on the way out of Russia.
> Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families
Exposure like the footage they revealed of US drones killing innocent civilians?
> The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 432,093 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.
Right, Assange is the problem, not the US military operations he exposed.
How do you come to the conclusion that Russia and China support ISIS?
Tawakkol Karman (2011) has been a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia.
Willy Brandt received his prize specifically for increasing ties with the Eastern Bloc.
In terms of prizes giving for those working against particular regimes, anti-apartheid activists have received the most (1960, 1984, 1993).
A lot of people end up making assumptions based on their own personal biases.
The evidence strongly suggests that the Nobel committee doesn't like giving the prize against anti-western dissidents until they absolutely have to, i.e. when not giving the prize would raise more eyebrows and damage the Nobel's reputation. The two anti-western dissidents that come to mind are Nelson Mandela and (arguably) Martin Luther King. Again, they received the prize after achieving global fame and recognition.
ElBaradei won the prize for his work in the IAEA (whose primary focus has been on non-western nations) -not for his opposition to the Iraq war - whose primary focus has been on non-western nations.
Tawakkol Karman (2011) is another dissident against a non-western country.
Willy Brandt wasn't a dissident of the West. Far from it in fact - known for fierce anti-communist domestic policies , support for right-wing governments, the Vietnam war and for promoting greater European and western integration.
Nobel prizes given to anti-apartheid South African activists seem to be a laudable counter-example to the rule though.
Snowden exposed civil rights violations and constitutional violations but I wouldn’t say it contributed to the avoidance of war or conflict.
This should not be about “activism” but about political stabilization and the promotion of peace.
"[t]he recipient is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway. Since 2020 the prize is awarded in the Atrium of the University of Oslo" [0]
The winners are basically selected by a subset of retired Norwegian MPs, and even Alfred Nobel's living heir has become opposed to the politicization of the Nobel Peace Price [1]. So it's reflecting the values of a subset of the Norwegian elite
The comment above should NOT be viewed as a rejection of Narges Mohammadi's work.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
[1] - https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/i/wP6y1/i-strid-med-nobe...
Equivalent awards given out by dictatorships or theocracies around the world can be just as easily seen through the same lens of hypocrisy and cynicism.
Obviously there is a bias in the awards, but is there a way to not be biased? Also, there is space to create better Nobel prizes for sure so blaming Nobel prize is in a way linked to the world incapacity to promote something better?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian?wprov=sfti1
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee?wpro...
No. Only a handful of elite Norwegians, as the committee is 5 former MPs selected by the Norwegian parliament.
Apartheid South Africa's leaders were Judeo-Christian westerners as well, but the award was given to their foe Nelson Mandela
It is said many churches/cathedrals in Europe are now appreciated more for their historical value than as places of worship
Much more specific
But this ship has sailed, apparently.
OTOH it's really understandable that many people value fighting for a just cause higher than peace. The easiest way to peace is often to just surrender, and have peace on the terms of an evil aggressor. But it's not a kind of peace many people prefer to live in.
imho the nobel peace prize should take into account what is peace, not just focus on the absence of war. this is an outdated idea. Polemology vs. Irenology.
There are so many people contributing greatly to peace who are invisible. only the ones 'fighting against war' are made visible. and with those, like other commentors suggest, its often simply an opinion. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and one mans soldier is anothers terrorist... they are all fighting, killing or destroying (destruction can be non-physical here). it should atleast be a nobel anti-war prize or something. not a peace prize. it doesn't do justice to the many people contributing actively to a culture of peace in one way or another.
Rigoberta Menchú (awarded 1992) was an activist against the abuses of US allied regime, which abuses were aligned with and arguably a manifestation of US geopolitical priorities, and the Rev. Dr. King (awarded 1964) was an activist against the abuses of the American regime itself.
Also take into consideration that any head of state, prime minister or cabinet member in any government can nominate people for the prize (A lot of other people can do that too)[2] . So it would be always interesting to know who our governments officials nominated over time
[1] https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/07/09/...
Norway
> So it would be always interesting to know who our governments officials nominated over time
There's a list of nominees [0].
The Pakistani Senate nominated Erdogan for this year's prize, for example [0].
That said, most nominations seem to be done by Norwegian MPs trying to message to their own constituents (eg. Abiy's nomination and the large Ethiopian diaspora voting bloc in Norway and Sweden) [1]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nobel_Peace_Prize
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/world/africa/ethiopia-abi...
Martin Luther King Jr got one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...
I’ve always views the Nobel peace prize as a political body. Designed to highlight and reward people of a certain persuasion.
Iranian oil was nationalized; in 1951 the National Iranian Oil Company took control, and retained it even after Mossadegh’s ouster (even up to today).
> The UK (and US) sought the support of right-wing mullahs, then overthrew the prime minister and replaced him with a dictator.
First, by this point in time Mossadegh had dissolved parliament and was ruling by fiat based on a rigged plebiscite (he claimed that 99.9% of Iranians had voted to give him control of the country[1]). Second, he wasn’t replaced with a dictator. The Shah had been in power since the Soviet Union and the U.K. had forced his father to abdicate over a decade before, and had been in a power struggle with the Majlis for quite some time by that point.
> Eventually even the right-wing clerics and bazaari grew tired of foreign interference and threw the western powers out.
The Shah was (mostly) friendly with the West, but he was hardly a puppet. He was the one who got OPEC to double their prices during the 1973 oil crisis, which hit the West pretty hard. Here's how PBS put it[2]:
> The final blow came in December when the Shah of Iran, ostensibly a U.S. ally, took advantage of American impotence and persuaded the rest of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to more than double the price of a barrel of oil from $5.11 to $11.65.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/04/archives/mossadegh-gets-9... [2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06...
But I am grateful for them helping Ukraine even if it for their own geopolitical goals.
Surely Xi Jinping, MBS and Khamenei deserve the award for actual peace?
Yeah, that is three people we are told to hate. But they achieved actual peace.
Instead we get this Iranian woman that nobody had heard of before today.
Something is not right.
It wasn't a peace deal - it was a normalization of relations (aka they've reestablished diplomatic contact) [0]. Iranian and Saudi proxies are still killing each other in Syria and Iraq.
> We haven't heard about Yemen since.
That's because of Oman acting as a mediator between the Houthis and Saudis [1]
[0] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/12/saudi-iran-rapprochemen...
[1] - https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yem...
You mean the guy who has sworn allegiance to Putin and takes an anti-Ukraine stance on Twitter to save his neck? A guy who has made millions peddling 'his story' and lives a life of luxury in Moscow? Yeah, surely he should get a Nobel prize
Iran had a parliament in 1953, when the US and UK launched operation Ajax after the prime Minister nationalized Iran's oil. The prime Minister was ousted, a dictator replaced him - who returned to Iran on a flight with Allen Dulles. The conservative mullahs were western allies in removing power from the parliament.
Then this structure the west put into place fell out of alignment with the west in 1979, and we suddenly hear an enormous amount of stated sympathy about "women trapped in these regimes". Sympathy that we didn't hear when the CIA was handing SAVAK lists of progressive, secular women to arrest or kill. It's farcical.
You also fail to note that the PM in question had a “99%” referendum during his tenure. You also fail to mention that the said PM refused his constitutionally valid dismissal by the Shah and then proceeded to launch a COUP against the constitutional monarchy.
You fail to mention all this because NYTimes and CIA and the rest of the Western world is perfectly happy with the narrative of Kermit Roosevelt getting off the plane with a suitcase of dollars and then taking over a “99%” supported regime overnight! CIA is sure impressive!
The facts are that the PM in question began to alienate his allies — the Islamists — so they withdrew support, and very substantial chunk of the nation absolutely did not agree with his coup and his program of unilaterally changing the outcome of the 1905 Constitutional Revolution of Iran which do grant certain powers to the monarch. This includes dismissing the PM.
So, now that we have a more ‘rounded’ historic context of what actually led to ‘53 counter coup encouraged and supported by US and UK (which failed) and the next day’s Army’s counter-coup (which succeeded), the topical point remains:
Whatever CIA, or “Anglo-Saxons” or this or that evil empire has done in NO WAY excuse or elucidate the dictatorial regime of the clergy and their very open trampling the rights of women in Iran.
I am not sure what is the Islamist version of “Tankee” but you are it.
[and a ps for Iranians in the audience]
If you continue to repeat the ridiculous NYTimes/CIA version of the story you are denigrating our great people. The idea that some flunky from CIA with a suitcase of cash managed to unseat a “99%” PM overnight mainly says that Iranians are mindless chumps who are trivially manipulated. This is neither flattering or accurate.
This is a prize awarded by the 2023 Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. The oldest member of the committee was 4 years old in 1953, and all five are Norwegian, not American or British. The person who received the award is an Iranian woman.
Why the hell is the bad behavior of the CIA in 1953 relevant to this discussion? "The West" is not a monolithic entity that should be held accountable as a single unit indefinitely for evil things done by two countries 70 years ago.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06...
Regardless, if we don't like dictators or power grabs, then we certainly shouldn't like the current regime in Iran.
Anyone old enough to vote in 1979 is probably pretty close to retirement now. Almost everyone in a position of power in 1979 is probably dead. Obviously Biden was a young senator, but that's about it.
The fact is, the mullahs torture and kill anyone who speaks up. That's happening now, not 71 years ago.
"women trapped in these regimes" does not need quotation marks, unless you think there are NO women trapped in these regimes.
Here's a hot take -- I think all the Nobel Prizes, not just the Peace Price are politicized, corrupt, pop-culture-ish, and basically just in-group accolades! Similar to the Academy Awards.
Nice can also mean silly and ignorant, as any well-aged dictionary would tell you. [0] We are reflecting, on the corruption and politicization of our institutions.
> Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through, the sacrifices they've made, and the bravery they show to try to make things better.
Essentially the same Bush-era "plight of the Afghan women" kind of appeal to emotion to justify corruption, interventionism, and war [1].
Also, I'm pretty sure you don't really know much about the political situation in Iran. Mohammadi belongs to a political faction called the Reformists [2], which is filled with regime apologists and charlatans. More specifically, she belongs to a particular branch which is sometimes called Neo-Shariatism [3]. Shariati himself was the "ideologue of the Islamic Revolution" [4], and a full-fledged charlatan who used to falsely claim to have a PhD in sociology from Sorbonne [5].
Mohammadi is currently a political prisoner, but that obviously isn't something which merits a Peace Prize. I'm sure that there isn't a shortage of political prisoners in the Islamic Republic.
[0]: https://www.websters1913.com/words/Nice
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attack...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Reformists
[3]: https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/6b552565-6ff8-45a0-a0e...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shariati
[5]: http://www.shariati.com/bio.html (Compare this with the Wikipedia article, which says he got a PhD in Persian. Even that is dubious.)
Narges is one of the most inspiring women in confronting the inhumane regime of the Islamic Republic, which never stops committing crimes. A regime that sent a 16-year-old girl into a coma just a few days ago because of her hijab [1]. Narges spent most of her life in the most dangerous prisons in Iran for her activities, and I think this award was not only for her, but also for the all oppressed women in Iran in the last four decades.
[0] https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-peace-prize/about-the-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/iran-activists...
I am posting this again because my first post has been shadow banned.
To name one: Hume & Trimble (1998) was considered ironic because it was viewed as kind of reward for ceasing violence they initially caused. Similar remarks were made in 1993 about Mandela and De Klerk. It can even be argued that Gorbachev and Carter had blood on their hands before becoming saints.
Maybe this kind of ambiguity is simply rooted in the fact that the monetary price is paid by the deeply ironic invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel.
' Guess "contribution to peace" is less about ethics and more of a political concept.
Note that net-net, the invention of dynamite probably saved many lives. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite invented by Nobel isn't very useful for military purposes, and has never been in wide military use. It can't be safely stored for long periods or in hot conditions, making it ill-suited for battlefield logistics. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite is primarily used in mining and earth-moving.
Properly stored, dynamite is both much safer and more powerful than the black powder or liquid nitroglycerine that were primarily used in mining and earth-moving before the invention of dynamite.
Much later, "military dynamite", a more stable dynamite substitute devoid of nitroglycerine and more suited to military use was developed. While more stable, it's more expensive, and less commonly used. I don't believe Nobel had anything to do with the development of military dynamite.
And then he proceeded to bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Syria, etc.
Neither of them started the armed resistance against it, either, though Mandela obviously participated in that.
Oppressive regimes like to use these sorts of rhetorical ploys to discredit social movements. Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency? Or are they just puppets to foreign machinations?
LOL, try harder. NGOs paid by the westerners are a thing, but you sure know that. If these people did not get free money for their actions, they would be silent.
"Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency?"
"Authoritarian regimes" usually have popular support since a huge majority supports the ruling party.
Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.
Would it surprise you if she won Nobel prize for chemistry for advocating freedoms ? It would surprise me
Remember when a man received the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush?
So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.
But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.
Remember when he started droning civilians all over the Middle East anyway, just because they might have been linked to Al-Qaeda?
The same Al-Qaeda US supported and trained a couple decades before that.
It is very clear that it is just another political tool used by the west - Gandhi did not get the award because the British government lobbied hard against him. Imagine, the man who advocated for peaceful political resolutions throughout his life, who was the architect of the non-violent political movement that inspired 100's of millions in his own country and other foreign leaders to embrace it too for their local political cause, is considered "not worthy" of the very thing that this "Peace" prize seeks to bestow recognition upon.
The founders of the Non-Aligned Movement also deserved the peace prize for refusing to get involved in the cold war politics (a very black and white way of looking at international politics). I am sure there are many more good examples, around the world, of people who deserved this prize but weren't seriously considered (or deliberately omitted) because of western politics.
It seems US is learning it's lesson but only takes one president to declare a war. Iran and Afghanistan were massive failures and trillions of tax payer dollars wasted.
Even US supporting Ukraine has resulted in failure. Failure in the sense of millions of lives lost and displaced, no victory for Ukraine and Russia is still destroying their infrastructure.
I support US helping other countries when a victory is swift and definitive.
The IRGC is not a 'special wing' of the Iranian military. They are a completely separate organization which has no equivalency in Western societies or defense departments.
The IRGC is tasked with protecting and spreading Khomeini's brand of Islamic theocracy throughout the world. This is why you see Iranian proxies in Yemen, Nigeria, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, etc.
The Iranian military is tasked with protecting the Iranian nation and people. The military is a lower priority and less funded that IRGC, especially since the IRGC is a major actor in Iran's economy via various bonyads.
Are you speaking about Iran or the USA or Israel?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/08/george-floyd...
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/05/un-experts-d...
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/rachel-corrie-ac...
The problem is, if you asked Jews 200 years prior about "Judeo-Christian values" they would have laughed you out of the ghetto. It's solely the product of an assimilating Jewish population trying to make a claim to American identity, like Italian Americans and Columbus Day. It's also totally entangled in debates about Zionism, as Judeo-Christian comes to mean "Abrahamic but not Muslim." Actually, you hear Abrahamic get used more often as Muslims in America stake a similar claim to America.
Literally adding insult to injury. No wonder the US kills so many foreigners if it only values them at six thousand dollars a piece.
https://www.dw.com/en/nobel-prize-winner-grass-under-fire-fo...
It's only clear that civilians were intentionally targeted by ISIS and AQ. It's also true that civilians who opposed Western military forces were killed. That's expected, because opposing a military force is an official enlistment.
Assange is the problem. You don't get a peace prize for aiding in civil rights oppression.
I don't think "MLK won" is a complete story.
He said: "Peace is in our interest: as only in an atmosphere of just peace shall the Palestinian people achieve their legitimate ambition for independence and sovereignty."
Narges Mohammadi's fight is a peaceful one as well.
Arafat's decision to pursue his goals with political means is neither pro- nor anti-Western/Israeli. It was meant to be pro-Palestinian. Hardliners on both sides hated the idea and unfortunately they have prevailed.
You can read about the Iraqi Insurgency for more information.
But more generally, US, China, Russia have all been fighting/arming proxy wars over there for around 50 years.
> But more generally, US, China, Russia have all been fighting/arming proxy wars over there for around 50 years.
But supporting terrorist groups is not something Russia nor China does on this level.
Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent. But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.
The West represents civil rights. That's just as fact. Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations? Obviously not.
I'd say that the way Dalai Lama or MLK or even Mahatma Gandhi fought for their causes is rather different from the way Nelson Mandela or Abraham Lincoln fought for their causes. In either case, the cause was just and noble, and sometimes even the same.
Where would that be?
> In 2014, historian Ray Takeyh conclusively showed that the US-led coup attempt was unsuccessful, with the CIA writing to Eisenhower that "The move failed […] We now [...] probably have to snuggle up to Mosaddeq if we're going to save [our influence in Iran];" the demonstrations that led to Mosaddeq's resignation took place some weeks after the Roosevelt-organized ones, and were composed of average citizens, not the thugs-for-hire that the CIA and MI6 had recruited.[64]
It was disappointing, but unsurprising that 2009-20?? has gone down more or less the same road.
Control of oil sales reverted back to British Petroleum (and the Seven Sisters) after the US/UK ousted Iran's prime Minister with Operation Ajax. Not all of Mosaddegh's changes were undone as it would gave destabilized the Shah.
> Second, he wasn’t replaced with a dictator. The Shah had been in power
The Prime Minister ran the government like a modern western government, the Shah was a figurehead. What you're saying is the US and UK wanted to remove the modern parliament to revert to an older, anti-democraric, conservative, traditional government. Which is what happened, and now the Swedes and westerners are whining about the traditionalism the west foisted on Iran, now that it is no longer western aligned.
Aside from mullahs and the dictator, the CIA gave money to criminal elements in Iran to help regain western control.
The Shah was a figurehead and left for Italy. He did not want to run Iran or even go back but was convinced to by westerners. He flew back to Iran with Allen Dulles.
> had forced his father to advocated over a decade before
Forced his father to advocate? Advocate for what?
This is simply false. If you want an example, look at the 1949 Iranian constitutional assembly where the Shah was able to successfully change the Iranian constitution to increase his political power. A lot of people are only interested in the U.S. involvement in ousting Mossadegh 1953, and frankly don’t seem to understand (or seem interested in understanding) anything else that was happening in the country at the time.
> Forced his father to advocate? Advocate for what?
Sorry, that should have read "abdicate."
> What you're saying is the US and UK wanted to remove the modern parliament to revert to an older, anti-democraric, conservative, traditional government.
No, the Majlis had been dissolved by Mossadegh after they threatened to oust him, and then he used a rigged plebiscite to take full control of the country[1]:
> The Iranian Majlis, the lower house of Parliament, which last month threatened to oust Premier Mohammed Mossadegh with votes of no confidence, was declared today to have been dissolved as the result of the referendum completed this week, in which 99.94 per cent of the voters using non-secret ballots took the Premier's side in his quarrels with the chamber.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/16/archives/mossadegh-terms-...
Moreover, this is a superficial view of the story if we think that what annoys people in Iran is mostly economic. This can be seen even in the slogan of the biggest anti-government demonstration that started last year, "Women, Life, Freedom", the three things that has been oppressed in the last four decades. Yes, economic issues have put a lot of pressure on the people, but people's wishes should not be reduced to it.
But the Shah was overthrown for a reason (and his overthrow was good and just even if what succeeded it didn't pan out well), and was a pretty popular event.
In the absence of the Regime's latest round of oppression, where they really turned it up a notch, and in the absence of economic turmoil, I doubt there would be much by the way of serious protests. I don't believe that absolutely everything can be reduced to economic factors, but I think that's usually a pretty big motivator in terms of getting most of any population to care enough about something to risk life and limb to protest.
Seems like a “no true Scotsman” argument. Naturally, the winners are going to often be prominent individuals.
> Tawakkol Karman (2011) is another dissident against a non-western country.
The previous poster specifically said “I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes,” so I brought up a recent activist that has been against the Saudi government (and I guess Malala Yousafzai could be viewed as critical of many parts of the Pakistani government).
> ElBaradei won the prize for his work in the IAEA (whose primary focus has been on non-western nations) -not for his opposition to the Iraq war - whose primary focus has been on non-western nations.
It was pretty obvious to everyone at the time that this (as well as Obama’s prize) was a direct rebuke against Bush’s foreign policy. Here’s the opening paragraph of the New York Times article about his award[1]:
> The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded Friday to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, whom the Bush administration tried but failed to remove from his job just months ago.
> The award was a vindication of a man and an agency long at odds with President Bush and his administration over how to confront Iraq and Iran. It could strengthen the agency's position as conflicts loom over preventing Iran from obtaining fuel it could use for nuclear weapons and disarming North Korea.
> For most of the last year, the Bush administration had tried to block Dr. ElBaradei from assuming a third term as chief of the agency, a part of the United Nations, arguing that he would not be strong enough to face down Iran and the covert nuclear weapons program it is suspected of having. But the United States had no support from any of its allies, and ultimately had to withdraw its objections to Dr. ElBaradei's reappointment.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/front%20page/world/atomic...
I would argue that the majority of recent Peace Laureates (including this years) became internationally prominent after winning the prize. Did you know of Narges Mohammadi before this announcement?
> The previous poster specifically said “I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes,”
I really wasn't defending the OP's assertion. In fact, I don't agree with it at all. These are largely transactional western alliances. While the Nobel Committee might want to avoid a confrontation with Saudi Arabia, I doubt it has too many qualms about awarding prizes to dissidents from Pakistan. You already mentioned Yousafzai. My point was really that the Nobel Prize is rarely awarded to western dissidents (including journalists or activists) and is almost exclusively awarded to dissidents in non-western countries.
> For most of the last year, the Bush administration had tried to block Dr. ElBaradei from assuming a third term as chief of the agency, a part of the United Nations, arguing that he would not be strong enough to face down Iran and the covert nuclear weapons program it is suspected of having. But the United States had no support from any of its allies, and ultimately had to withdraw its objections to Dr. ElBaradei's reappointment.
Your post already has my rebuttal. The United States was the sole objector to ElBaradei's appointment- with the rest of the west and in-fact the rest of the world backing him. The Iraq War was universally unpopular by 2005 ( with a case of mass amnesia by supporters from pre-2003) Hardly a controversial choice.
Even Obama got one.
Everyone in Iran, including the Shah, wanted Iran’s oil nationalized. It was the economic consequences that tempered others. The Good Dr. had to go hat in hand to US and beg Eisenhower to aid after oil revenues stopped. That was his bright idea.
Also your story is not the propaganda narrative that is repeated. This is the single paragraph story:
Iran did have a democratic government, but because the PM nationalized the oil, US did a coup and installed a dictator, the shah.
And that is entirely different from your “US helped in the process”. That would be accurate because that is all it was: in the main political support. Then, we in fact had a decade were Generals were powerful, until the Shah, finally in 60s (without CIA and to the great annoyance of the Kennedys) assumed all the power after having disbanded the Communist party and defanged the National Front. The “dictatorship” began 10 years later and it was far more benevolent than say a psycho killer like Mao who murdered millions. But Mao was a “great man” and the Shah is a “dictator”. Go figure.
How about the mothers still today protesting about their sons/daughters who disappeared (1,248).
Al-Qaeda was formed after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US did not support and train al-Qaeda as such.
US has been at the root of a lot of this century's problems..
Henry Kissinger, 1973?
edit: I think Wilson (1919 Nobel; 1913-1921 presidency) is also a contender, if anyone has the patience/stamina to count all his conflicts and classify them. (I.e. what counts as "starting a war" and what's better described as a continuation of an existing conflict).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Woodrow_Wilson#F...
> Hitchens presents Kissinger's involvement in a series of alleged war crimes in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor.
They are tied for the record for number of nations they committed war crimes in. Although if you include CIA backed coups I think Obama pulls ahead.
No, but probably not the best way to run science, academics, medicine, long-term civil projects, etc.
To be even more fair, Mandela wasn’t the first anti-apartheid Nobel Peace Prize award, and Albert John Lutuli (awarded 1960) and Archbishop Tutu (awarded 1984) got it for fighting apartheid when the US and UK were tacit (active, of the regime if not the apartheid policy specifically, in 1960) supporters of the apartheid regime (Reagan’s reversal on his “constructive engagement” approach came inmediately after Archbishop Tutu's address to Congress and subsequent meeting with the President after the award.. And Dr. King (awarded 1964) got it for his opposition to the parallel policy in America.
The same with Arafat - he was conciliatory to Israel and its western support at Oslo, with Hamas and the PFLP being less so.
Both were not fighting when.they got the prize, but being conciliatory.
True
>Maria Ressa seems anti-Duterte, and pro-US if I read correctly
Duterte is/was a Trump style figure in a country that houses U.S military bases. If Pakistan counts then the Philippines must count as well.
Yes he did for a moment before completely reversing course.
https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/11/dutertes-dalliance-with-ch...
Pakistan's various leaders on the other hand have criticised the U.S far more harshly and far more persistently over the years. They have also had close relations with China for decades.
Of course I want a source for that.
> Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent.
How are "we" supposed to be better then?
> But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.
Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Taliban etc are civil rights activits for the US (sold as "moderate rebels" in Syria by German media at least). Of course they are deemed terrorists in other countries. I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.
> Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations?
I ask myself if I do enjoy civil rights if I hold dissident opinions in western countries. Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries, while it's obvious that we target 3rd world country standards for human rights?
This makes me feel like you didn't read my replies. If you read even a little bit about the Iraqi Insurgency you wouldn't be asking for a source. It's on Wikipedia, a bunch of sources at the bottom. It's on other encyclopedia pages. Plenty of articles. Etc. I don't believe that you didn't find it.
>How are "we" supposed to be better then?
Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights. When the US helped AQ it was under the premise that they would support civil rights. When they didn't, the West labeled them terrorists.
>I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.
I see, but ISIS and AQ are deserving of awards in that department? That's laughable. These are groups that televise beheadings, and treat women worse than the West treats animals. And this is glamorized. Is anti civil rights behavior glamorized in the US? Of course not. The very definition of civil rights is at odds with non Western society. And that's true whether or not you believe that the US is committing acts outside those values. The point is, if it's done, then it's done in secret, which is at the least preventing its promotion in society.
>Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries...
Obviously. Less worse = better. Why would you want it to be worse? What did you mean by "supposedly?" Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? That's ridiculous. Does the US stone women for adultery? Jail women for showing their body? Amputate limbs for theft? You can't be seriously pushing for that to be called civil rights. Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.
Hitchen's Razor; argument dismissed.
> Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights.
You implied it and you are doing it in your last paragraph again.
> Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? [...]
I am trying to say that you are hanging the bar so low, that you can get away with 3rd world standards (for civil rights). With your question series you are just describing islamic countries and not all 3rd world countries are islamic.
> Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.
Motte-and-bailey for civil rights and you again try to sell me that we are better. The west is not better and we should stop meddling in internal affairs of foreign countries. I can't blame them for anti-western sentiment.
Publicity can lead to results but can it be measured in this case?
Truth is, the most peaceful transitions are usually military coups. 'Peacefully' won transitions are often the bloodiest. Fear is a terrible thing, but it does lead to effective peace.
With the Nobel Peace Prize, it's usually a coin toss between moral martyr, future genocider and someone who did impactful work towards peace. The best example of their schizo-ness is Gandhi. They didn't award Gandhi when he lead a peaceful resistance. But, awarded it posthumously in the aftermath of the bloodiest & nastiest population exchange in the history of humanity.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/mahatma-gandhi-the-...
I'm not seeing the problem here. Some non-Western regimes seem to think it's fine to deny people their human rights, e.g. Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, China. There is no moral equivalence between Western and those.
Venezuela's bloodiness is in part because of CIA funded violent opposition. Venezuela while a basket case now, is still a "what if" in a world without CIA interreference and unilateral sanctions.
China is odd. It is an autocratic repressive regime with their recent founder having the 2nd highest body count of any leader. But, it is also the most impressive story of raising an slice of humanity from poverty into a strong middle economy.
Western countries think about peace & human rights in isolation. What recent democratic nation has managed to elevate itself from abject poverty to being a strong middle economy, with no natural resources ride to infinity. India might have something to show over the next 30 years, but as of today, they started off richer than China at independence and find themselves miles behind. All of Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand & Japan had their growth occur under incredibly repressive govts. They might seem peaceful countries today, they certainly weren't that during their growth.
> moral equivalence
Moral equivalence can only exist when all other variables are the same. Norway might claim moral high ground on account of being an egalitarian nation, but its entire economy is oil. Remove the oil, and you might see their claimed unwavering morals waver.
I cannot say which peace the Nobel awards, or even if it awards to the same sort of peace year to year. But if anyone can do something about the Iranian government, then maybe they do deserve the thing. I doubt he ever meant it to become the "successful eternal subjugation of humanity" award.
Iran, China, Afghanistan et al are welcome to start their own prize.
I see that China’s Confucius price seems to be disbanded after getting offside with their government.
Recipients include Putin.
This argument makes about as much sense as the following one:
>Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.
The defining characteristic of an authoritarian regime as opposed to a democratic one is that it does not derive its power and legitimacy from the people - i.e. popular support. It may be stable and "popular" and still terrible, North Korea comes to mind. But as out of touch as you seem to be, you probably belong to that strange group of people who think NK is actually an anti Western paradise.
Have a fair election, where both sides are permitted to make their case to the voting public. No candidates or supporters would be imprisoned or legally harassed, before or after the election.
Then have another one a year or two later, since "your vote actually counts" would be a teaching moment for people who aren't used to it.
You mean, like currently in the "most democratic country" in the world.
So yeah, please do have a fair election. No vote stealing either, and no voting dead.
It is so apparent that they actually discredit the idea of opposing authoritarianism. Democracy is a tough sell if you know your local democratic movement is paid for by other countries which do not have your country's well-being, or existence, as a motivation.
So there are a lot of people discontent with lack of options and restrictions to freedom of speech and expression, but they do not have a voice. People who have a voice are universally paid agents of NGOs. They get good money to film expensive produced youtube videos and get cited by world press all the time. There is significant mismatch between two groups, but they get compounded and written off by the majority and the regime.
So he is non-Russian, non-democratic, non-pacifist non-journalist.
He is just a proud Ukrainian fighter all along the way. Great for him. Have we got any Russian opposition? Give me a name, I challenge you.
I also wonder how great it for low-level activists who were supplying Mediazona with information in order to raise awareness of Russian soldier deaths on Ukrainian fronts, that they are now liable to get high treason charges for offloading that data directly in hands of an enlisted AFU fighter.
That is by nature. You can't make every person in a country happy. There are millions of homeless people, discontent people, depressed people all around the West. These people have been mercilessly oppressed by the cruel practices of neo-liberalism and profit-oriented capitalism. Imagine what world-wide sanctions and isolation would do to them.
Are there any NGOs that promote their plight? Of course not, since other countries either can't pay or are not interested in them. In the best case, there is a few under-paid organizations that are (cleverly) not getting the media attention.
apparently you were born after 1980. Who cares about their oil?
> Venezuela's bloodiness is in part because of CIA funded violent opposition.
Oh, I see. So Chavez & Maduro are because of the CIA? What a world we live in, where the CIA has such awesome power such that everything "bad" is their fault. I suppose now they're powerless until Maduro is finally gone, and then it'll be their doing.
Yet they still can't get rid of Castro, predict the fall of the Soviet Union, keep the Shah in power, or stop 9/11. They're only powerful when something you don't like happens.
Maybe you should move to one of those people's paradises. It sounds like you'd be happier there.
Not if you happened to be a person in Libya/Syria/Afghanistan or a few other middle eastern countries.
> shored up the self-image of the Western world
Which tells you everything you need to about the Nobel Peace Prize.
Pray tell, how did Trump clean up anything in the middle east?
