5 Things You Must Know About Iran
By Adam Graham
With conflicts in Syria winding down, tensions with Russia easing, and North Korea seemingly pursuing peace with their southern brethren for the first time in years, one would hope that America might see an opportunity to bow out gracefully and give some much needed focus to domestic concerns. But, sure enough, the reneging on the JCPOA “Iran nuclear deal” along with the revolving door of the State Department bringing a number of Iran hawks into higher ranking positions has inevitably led to a renewed focus on Iran. I know that many may not know much about Iran or the sordid history of US-Iran relations so I set out to put some important points together to help you learn just that.
1. Human Rights and Jewish Relations
In light of the sheer amount of anti-Iranian statements being made lately in the political sphere, it can be very difficult to understand exactly what Iran is actually like. Most of the oft-repeated slights against Iran’s character do not touch on the actual conditions or makeup of the population there.
One such statement, loosely based on Iranian anti-Israel sentiment, is that Iran is anti-Jewish or otherwise seeks to eradicate Jews. So you might be surprised to know, for instance, that Iran has a sizable Jewish community – 25,000 or so – which is actually the largest in the Middle East outside of Israel. Given Iran’s theocratic leanings, the Jewish minority, like other non-Muslim minorities, lack some level of representation in army and government positions. But they have an elected representative in the Iranian parliament, they are free to worship in synagogues, and can travel freely, even to Israel. And despite some programs and campaigns meant to encourage Jews in Iran to emigrate to Israel, very few historically have.
Many human rights objections levied against Iran also center on women’s rights. Often, the requirement for women to wear the Hijab is mentioned. It should be noted that the hijab is a scarf-like head covering, NOT the full length black outfits that many may envision from pictures of women in other Middle Eastern countries with even more restrictive laws. Obviously, the notion that a state should impose a dress code of sorts as a rule is repugnant to a western democrat. But there is good news in this area. The current Iranian leadership, PM Rouhani as well as the Ayatollah, support softening of restrictions on the hijab and in Tehran the police have even gone so far as to no longer arrest women for failing to adhere to the dress code. There have also been protests recently against such rules. This momentum shows a slow and steady native reaction against current norms.
There are some other positives for women in Iran with regards to equal rights such as very high primary school enrollment rates and comparative rights between men and women that have been reported to outpace other Middle Eastern countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Syria and Turkey. They are allowed to drive personal vehicles, even professionally, and hold public office.
This is not to imply that Iran should be held in high regards for human rights in general. But the question that should be asked is, given the above facts and positive differentiators over other problematic countries, as well as the direction that progress seems to be heading on its own there, why constantly malign Iran for human rights abuses in the same breath as those calling for war or economic sanctions or regime change? Surely women enjoying relative freedom in an Islamic society is preferable to thousands of dead women. Surely brave women, and men, who strive toward equal rights against their own government and their own peers is more effective than the mere empty criticisms of foreigners.
2. Mossadegh Coup
For over a year now after the 2016 US election, rumors and accusations of Russian interference in the election have been constantly on and off of the news cycle. The notion that a foreign entity could or would subvert the otherwise democratic US election process has motivated Americans to outrage and threats of violence against our old Cold War rival. But what if I told you that the United States has experience with this same activity. In fact, it has not only subverted elections, but it has actively overthrown the democratically elected leaders of other countries. This is exactly the case with Iran.
Prior to the 1950’s, throughout the World Wars and the prevalence of British colonialism throughout much of the Middle East, Britain possessed a corrupt contractual claim to Iranian oil. But in 1951, Iran elected one Mohammad Mossadegh. He was highly popular among Iranians and nationalism was sweeping the land in much the same way as it had in other nearby countries after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. That nationalism ultimately brought Mossadegh to his plan to nationalize the nation’s oil reserves and drive out the British foreign presence and control.
Naturally, Britain was not in favor of this plan and began to seek American assistance in seeing Mossadegh replaced. President Eisenhower, motivated by lies of Mossadegh being a Communist and playing to early Cold War anti-Communist sentiments, approved the CIA to secretly subvert Mossadegh. That coup was ultimately successful, installing the Iranian monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah, and domestic leader of the coup, a retired general Fazlollah Zahedi, as Prime Minister. Now, how is that for interfering with an election?
3. Iranian Revolution
A proper understanding of the Iranian coup of 1953 is necessary to understand the landscape of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. With a US-friendly Shah successfully installed as ruler of Iran, arms sales to Iran skyrocketed to the tune of billions of dollars. For much of the ‘60s and ‘70s, the US viewed Iran as its friendly bastion of stability against communism in the Middle East. Indeed, by 1978, the US even agreed to provide Iran with nuclear reactors, a fact that should lend a hypocritical air to more current statements regarding Iran’s possible nuclear capabilities.
But while the US was enjoying unprecedented influence and economic benefits from the regime, the Iranian populace found itself in a very similar situation as before, one in which a foreign power sought to use them to their own advantage, working through a political lackey beholden to contrary interests. The Shah, plagued by a history of corruption, was faced with mounting protests by 1978 and after responding both with concessions and crackdowns, fled the country. Those opposed to the Shah organized themselves around Ruhollah Khomeini and he soon assumed power.
This frustration also set the stage for the Iran hostage crisis. Many Iranians had seen their popular leader overthrown once and they did not wish to repeat it. That Fall, the Carter administration permitted the deposed Shah to enter the US for medical treatment and this gesture was interpreted by some Iranians as an indication that a coup was afoot once again. Iranian students overran the US embassy in Tehran and held the staff hostage for 444 days. This was done without government provocation by Khomeini, though he eventually supported their actions.
But perhaps the most tragic side effect of this political fallout was the decision soon after by President Carter to look for locations for the establishment of other US bases in and around the Persian Gulf. As if the US was not already sufficiently present in one way or another in the region, the establishment of yet greater presence and power has had devastating consequences to this day.
4. Iran/Iraq War
Many Americans are familiar with and indeed many have lived through the Gulf War of the early ‘90s. However, just as many will be unfamiliar with the very first Gulf War, that between Iran and Iraq, waged for eight years from 1980-1988. It may seem impossible to millennials but Hussein, while playing the role of modern Hitler during the early ‘00s, played the role of Stalin prior to the ‘90s. Following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, then ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, saw Iran as vulnerable. With this in mind, he invaded Iran with the purpose of grabbing oil-rich land along the Iraqi/Iranian border. Initially obtaining his goals, he was soon opposed by the more fiercely nationalistic Iranian forces.
Though the US at first feigned neutrality under Jimmy Carter, by 1982, with Iraq having been pushed out of Iranian territory and Iran poised to gain a more prominent regional position, Ronald Reagan was to ally the US to Saddam. Iraq, who had previously held a spot on the state-sponsor of terror list, was quietly removed and diplomatic relations were slowly fostered. The US officially followed a policy of preventing Iranian influence and engaged in a confused arms race, allowing non-US arms dealers to supply Iraq while publicly preventing arms from being sold to Iran and secretly allowing Israel, of all nations, to supply Iran with arms, effectively allowing both sides to continue their war effort far longer than would otherwise be possible.
The ins and outs of the conflict are too numerous to list here but suffice it to say that the US strategy and folly during the Iran-Iraq war set the stage for Cold War and terror war tensions against Iran that still reverberate into the present day.
5. Hezbollah and the Beirut Bombing
There is often much mention of, along with demonization of, Iran in association with Hezbollah. Hezbollah was initially formed during the summer of 1982, following the Israeli invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon. Lebanon was a notable exception to other more chaotic regions of the Middle East despite its quite diverse population of both Shia and Sunni Muslims along with Christians and Druze. Lebanon had not been wrecked by the sectarian struggles between its Muslim sects like other regions.
That all began to change as the conflict between the Lebanese and Israelis grew to include Syria and the US and continued to devolve into a civil war, one in which the US was eventually party to. On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber drove into the makeshift US Marine barracks in Beirut and detonated the explosives it was laden with, killing 241 US military personnel and wounding another 100. Hezbollah assumed responsibility. They went on to carry out thirty-six suicide terrorist attacks against American, French, and Israeli political and military targets within Lebanon through 1986. After the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, Hezbollah primarily shifted to a defensive role for Southern Lebanon but the damage to their reputation and their legacy was done.
Regardless of the nature of Hezbollah’s past terrorist acts or targets, the more relevant question is to what extent Iran bears responsibility for those actions, if any at all. Iran’s camaraderie with southern Lebanon makes sense given their common Shia heritage. But Robert Pape attributes little credit to Iran’s support of Lebanese resistance fighters during the occupation to the rise of Hezbollah, stating that “the rise of Hezbollah and large popular support for the movement were directly caused by…Israel’s massive occupation of Southern Lebanon in 1982”, not by some outside encouragement. Iran has continued to support in some measure groups like Hezbollah, which has become a democratic majority within the Lebanese parliament. But to vaguely claim that Hezbollah represents a modern terrorist threat, and that Iran is complicit by extension, which often seems to be the implication being made, is spurious at best.
________________________
Watch Adam’s video on 10 Things You Must Know About Iran
________________________
5 Things You Must Know About Iran was written By Adam Graham, and originally published by No King But Christ
_______________________
Find it on 
