With all the talk about whether this is a Twitter, Facebook, Bush or Obama revolution going on in Iran, the story of Neda's assassination seems to fit in a broader context of a rising women's movement: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202387.html
Interestingly, Iran used to me among the most "Western" of Middle Eastern countries under the Shah. The Iranian Revolution is a case where "Change" wasn't always good. Surely, the corrupt regime of the Shah deserved and needed to be overthown, but a Theocracy wasn't the answer. Let's hope this time, Iran gets the truly democratic government they deserve. The repression of women under the guise of religion is an obscenity.
More interesting is the fact that the CIA helped to overthrow a burgeoning Iranian democracy in 1953, all to help BP maintain it's oil interests in Iran. Imagine a world where Iran was allowed to profit from its own oil (rather than ship it west for next to nothing) while growing that democracy up. This is a part of Iranian history that gets glossed over in the West and that's a mistake. Here's a link to a great Smithsonian Magazine article (modern history is more on pages 3 and 4): http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/iran-fury.html
Mook, thanks for the post but I disagree that Iran was the most "westernized" in terms of women's rights under the shah. The shah himself said (in an interview with the late Oriana Fallaci) that "women are nothing, have produced nothing, nothing, not even a great chef". He outlawed wearing the veil in an attempt to appear "western" to foreign powers/investors, and ordered the police to tear the veil off any woman wearing it. But for many women the veil was either a sacred religious symbol and/or what they had been taught all their lives was necessary for modesty. Many women would not step outside for fear of being assaulted and undressed by the cops. Daughters by law inherited half of a son's inheritance, and custody of minor children in case of a father's death passed to an uncle, not the mother. Under the shah, women required a father's or husband's permission to hold a job, drive, or travel outside the country. Women made up a significant portion of the political prisoners and were tortured as severely, or more so, than the men; Vida Hadjebi Tabrizi was the most famous but there were thousands. Women technically had the right to vote but the shah's party was the only one on the ballot. One big difference we are seeing now, in 1979 women participated in the uprising but they marched in separate contingents, covered head to toe, at the back of the demonstrations. Now you see men and women marching side by side and many of the women wear only the headscarf, not full veil.
Yes, very good point. Iran was not Westernized under the Shaq. I believe Iran would actually have been more Westernized under Mossedeq, but like Hugo Chavez, he made the mistake of crossing American/British business interests in the name of his people. I saw the video of her death, and it was really horrific, this is precisely why I get so angry when I hear people supporting the war. They are Chicken hawks, as Jesse Ventura calls them.
It's not glossed over by me. The bottom line is that in the Cold War, we suppored brutal dictatorships because they were easier to control than democracies. Also, the book "Dictatorships and Double Standards" by Jeanne Kirkpatrick is a terrific read about this very topic, even 30 some odd years later.
I would think that the world would be much worse, actually. At least from my perspective as an American. Ed O.
?? Prior to the CIA's actions, the U.S. was well thought of by the Iranian people. You seem to assume Iran would still be a radically fundamental country, but it might well have grown into a democracy if it had been given the chance.
Theocracy's are never the answer. Once again, it is just another religion, using and abusing it's followers for the purpose of political control. After all our history, I do not know why anybody would expect anything different.
It was a democracy. The monarchy had been overthrown and a republic established, with an elected parliament and prime minister.
It might have. I'm not at all commenting on the fundamental nature of Iran, though, and whether they would have been our friends or our foes if we had let them do their own thing. What I know what would have happened is that we would not have had cheap oil for a few decades, and without that cheap oil I do not believe our country would be as wealthy as it is. It's also possible the a "free" Iran would have been dominated by the Soviet Union and they would have had access to the cheap oil instead of us. I'll take hegemony with a few hot spots (the way it is today) to almost any "what if" scenario that people raise from the Cold War era. Ed O.
