Hi Please explain: We apologize for the inconvenience. This offering is currently unavailable in your region. You can find more information about the policy at https://learner.coursera.help/hc/en-us/articles/208280116-International-restrictions
I guess you’re actually in Iran. There are currently sanctions imposed by the US government on Iran which means there are a whole load of goods and services it would be illegal for US companies to provide to you there. Presumably some of the courses on this site are included within the scope of the sanctions (or they think they might be) so the owners have put regional blocks on them.
Was it only an embassy or a house of spying? It shouldn't have helped overthrow Mosaddeq in 1953. Be fair! We hade no hostility towards your fathers
it was an embassy. would you have sat back and smiled if we invaded YOUR embassy and took your personnel hostage?
No But have we ever overthrown your govt., causing many people to be jailed and executed? returning to post #1, what does it all have to do with students that were never there? - - - Updated - - - So you could stop soviets, not overthrowing PM Mosaddeq. I think it's a made-up excusation
Document No. 2: State Department, "First Progress Report on Paragraph 5-a of NSC 136/1, 'U.S. policy regarding the present situation in Iran'," Top Secret Memorandum, March 20, 1953 Source: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Record Group 59, "Records relating to State Department Participation in the Operations Coordinating Board and the National Security Council, 1947-1963," Lot 63D351, National Security Council, Box 68, Folder: "NSC 136: U.S. and Policy regarding the Present Situation in Iran" One of the points of interest about this memo is that it is a progress report from the Eisenhower period on a policy adopted by President Truman. It is of particular importance because it focuses on a series of specific covert measures the U.S. planned to take in the event of "an attempted or an actual communist seizure of power" in Iran - one of the aspects of US policy that long remained out of reach for historians because it was classified. In fact, the section under discussion, paragraph 5-a of NSC 136/1 (see previous document), was redacted in the policy document itself but has been included - and of course elaborated on in detail - in this follow-up report.
The U.S. supported the coup, however it would not have been possible without many key Iranians, including in the police, military and the Shah himself. And, yes, it was out of fear of a communist coup. It's strange how one of the deadliest, most expanison-ambitious countries in the history of the world escapes so much culpability. The Soviets were the ones trying to expand their brand of tyranny across the globe. The U.S. was the only force that could stop it. Most of our policies were to contain the spread of communism. There were many nations both negatively and positively affected by the Cold War. The Cold War was bigger than Iran. Many people want the narrative to be about the U.S. and British seeking control of Iran's oil. Ok, even if I concede that, it would've still be better than the Soviets controlling it.
OK, you feared soviets. Do you think it is a good excuse for interfering in a country, spreading lies about a government and causing riots?
Because successive leaders in both Iran and the US are too arrogant and too scared of losing face, at home and abroad, to actually do anything about it.
Dude the same people who over threw the shah would have done the same to Mosaddeq and for exactly the same reason. there wasn't a reform that Mossadeq ran on that the shah didn't enact. All it goot him was grief from the same nut jobs that currently run your country.
What do you mean?? Do you think a few Mullahs overthrew Shah? All the political activities, strikes, closure of universities, .... was done by them?! Do you think Mosaddeq was such a dictator as shah to eliminate all parties? It is easy to say they 'would' do the same in a time that was past
Yes, we feared the Soviets, because they were cunning and ruthless. But we feared communism more, because there were two main competing world views at the time, two super powers. This is pretty basic history. I'm not sure if it was a good idea, or if the idea of such operations are good or bad. It's all sort of playing out now before our eyes. Let's start with the post-Ottoman Empire and post-European colonial time periods and work our way forward, not at all to disparage or minimize the rich Persian tradition nor history. By 1953, colonialism was dead, and with the help of Europeans, for good or bad, most of what we know now as Middle Eastern countries were created, facilitated mainly by the U.N. That was the official, non-clandestine, and democratic way to resolve boundary and sectarian disputes at the time. At the same time, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were both secretly and overtly trying to manipulate governments all over the world in their favor. Some would say this is why Arabs and Persians resent us. Fair enough. Many would argue that without the influence of the West many of the monarchies and others would turn to communism. The result could've been worse than what we are now experiencing. But who really knows? Many think President Obama, who undoubtedly shares the sentiment that the West's interference in the affairs of Middle Eastern and African and Asian nations, has disengaged the United States, purposefully and as a result of a long-held anti-Western, anti-colonial disdain. What are we left with? Chaos. For now. In The Pentagon's New Map, Thomas PM Barnett describes a global strategy to force extremist, anti-globalist into various regions of the world, where technology and globalism will be least possible or useful. If you look at what's happening now, Syria and Iraq could very well be that place, although I would've imagined more desolate places like the Phillipines or Afghanistan. Wait, Afghanistan is being affected. Hmm. I don't think Iranians have much to worry about. Clearly Sunnis are more of a threat to us and other Muslims. Clearly Arabs are more of a threat than Persians. If the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq in order to create a Western democratic ally, I just think that was a poor choice based on the Iranians are more likely to accept secular, democratic reforms, as they have in their past. But we've had our experience changing regimes in Iran, and decades of anti-American education by the Iranians would've made it very difficult. Still, I believe there are more Iranians who would choose freedom over a theocracy.
Yes sir, the Ayatollahs were behind almost all of that along with a few other conservative elements. Why do you think it took such a short period of time for the Ayatollah and company to take over after Carter forced out the shah? And let's not forget the first things the new leadership did was to cancel all of the reforms Mosaddeq asked for and the shah installed.
You are gonna teach me? Most of Iranians were religioous, no doubt, but there were non-religious groups. And what were Mosaddeq reforms?! Nothing other than the nationalization of oil industry
