Targeting Iran

This book provides a straightforward, simple case against America's policy towards Iran. It consists of an introduction by David Barsamian and interviews with Noam Chomsky and two Iranian born specialists teaching in US colleges, Ervand Abrahamian and Nahid Mozahffari. The book provides a completely opposite perspective from the imbecile fear mongering and juvenile jingoism that our two great political parties embrace. Americans, most of all the patriotic punditry and advocates of humanitarian intervention, cannot comprehend that Iranians might have the slightest reason to be suspicious of American motives. Barsamian notes in his introduction the interesting tidbit that Mohammed Mosadegh is mentioned only four times in the book on the 1979 hostage crises by the patriotic Mark Bowden. But as Abrahamian says in his interview, Iranians have been struggling to gain control over their own resources for centuries. When the British had semi-colonial dominance over the country before the 1950's they forced Iran to limit its economic development. When Mohammed Mossadegh came around in 1951 and declared that Iran's oil resources should benefit Iran first and foremost and not looted off to Britain, the US and British overthrew him and restored the Shah to absolute power. Then the Shah exercised his tyranny with US weapons and training until early 1979 when an Islamic-nationalist revolution installed a government that, whatever its horrible crimes, refused to be a loyal American puppet. A few months before the hostage crises, Jimmy Carter sent NATO general Robert Huyser to Tehran to try to encourage the remnants of the Shah's military to launch a coup. It didn't work. Abrahamian notes that as Iraqi chemical weapons were deployed against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war, the US claimed Iran staged such attacks on its own troops. In 1988 the CIA claimed Iran conducted the Halabja massacre. Abrahamian stresses that there is rather lively debate within Iran on the possible negative consequences of starting to build a nuclear program. Abrahamian explains that Iranians really do desire to make use of nuclear power for energy sources. They are a major producer of crude oil but their refining capacity is rather meager and so they have to import much of their refined oil. Iranians thus view the nuclear issue as a case of asserting national sovereignty against imperialist attempts to dominate the country. The Bush warmongering on the nuclear pretext has strengthened the hand of the hard-liners who argue that moderates are playing into the hands of American attempt to re-colonize the country. ABrahamian notes that anti-regime Iranian exiles of any stature are very careful to keep their distance from the United States. The Shah's son has even avoided involving himself in efforts by the Bush administration to create the basis for a future puppet government. Chomsky argues that the U.S. is not particularly concerned about Iranian nukes. Quoting Zbigniew B

The war drums in Washington beat ever louder, to the accompaniment of saber-rattling rhetoric toward Iran. Although daily talk of the Islamic Republic fills our newspapers and TV screens, many vital questions remain unaddressed in the mainstream media. Is the tough talk merely an instrument of diplomatic pressure, or is the Bush administration planning a military intervention? What is the historical context of the U.S. relationship with Iran? What internal dissent and debate exists among Iran's intellectuals, artists, and young people? Finally, what consequences can we expect should U.S.-Iranian relations continue to deteriorate? Targeting Iran contains incisive interviews with three notable scholars--Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian, and Nahid Mozaffari--covering each of these questions and more. Author and Alternative Radio host David Barsamian's introduction provides a primer on the historical legacy that is indispensable in understanding the current tension between the two nations. The legacy of the 1953 U.S.-led coup of the democratically elected Mohammad Mosadegh, who had gotten the unfortunate notion that Iran's oil belongs to Iran, remains a source of bitterness among Iranians. Though all but forgotten in American collective memory, Iranians recall the coup and subsequent installment of a tyrannical but U.S.-friendly shah each time President Bush speaks of "spreading democracy." Noam Chomsky highlights the contradiction between Bush administration fearmongering about a "nuclear threat" and U.S. encouragement of Iran's nuclear development during the shah's reign. "MIT, where [I teach] now," he says, "made a deal with the shah of Iran, pretty much to sell him a large part of the nuclear engineering department." Chomsky explains these discrepancies in memory: "The people who hold the clubs typically like to forget history and say it's irrelevant. But the people who are hit by the clubs tend to remember history, for good reasons, because it teaches you something." Barsamian's interview with Baruch College professor and leading Iran scholar Ervand Abrahamian continues along similar lines. After adding his own historical insights, Abrahamian speculates on likely consequences of U.S.-Iran tension. While hesitant to assert that the Bush administration is planning an attack, he raises a crucial point about the militant rhetoric: "once you start using the language, you eventually become committed to it." Should tensions escalate into an American attack, Abrahamian warns of dire ramifications for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nahid Mozaffari examines a different angle, discussing women's rights, dissent, and the power of poetry and literature in Iran's political landscape. While writers and intellectuals face a difficult plight in a country rife with censorship, men and women alike continue to add to a rich literary tradition. Iran is a youthful country--a third of the population is under thirty--and the youth are pushing for democratic

I found the book of Iran quite eye opening. I remember vividly the interference of the CIA in Iranian politics prior and during the Shah of Iran dynasty. The Islamic republic currently in power seems to be shown that American bungling helped it to flourish. Also, current circumstances in Iran are described and it puts a human face on a people that we should try to help, not trying to blow another country apart.

It is so refreshing to learn the accounts of historical events that has shaped United States relationship with Iran without any polotical agendas. Targeting Iran is an excellent resource for interested individuals in middle east crisis. Mr. Barsamian has done an outstanding job in presenting the main factores in US and Iran relationship during the past 60 years or so. He poses very direct and relevant questions to the three experts and their response is to the point and filled with historical facts and analysis which is very hard to find in the main stream media. This book illustrates the hypocrisy that exists when describing Iran. Iran was the main US ally when we entered Afghanestan in pursuit of Talaban. Iran has been keeping the peace in southern Iraq. In fact the book expains how Iran has been and is the most stable country in this troubled region. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested to learn more about Iran's immediate past history, present polotical and cultural state, and it's polotical importance to the world.

This compact little book is an excellent introduction to the developing conflict between Iran and the U.S. It is comprised of three interviews with Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian, and Nahid Mozaffari by author David Barsamian. The authors are clearly all left leaning, but despite this, I found the book to be a fairly objective and sober analysis of the situation. Although they clearly portray the US as the more belligerent and dishonest party, their arguments for doing so are hard to refute. Chomsky gives a good background of the half-century "relationship" between the US and Iran and then gives his take on the current predicament and how this might end. Abrahamian's interview and his conclusions are very similar: Both countries are equally stubborn and self-righteous and they both refuse to back down. Iran is a repressive regime but ironically has been more willing to negotiate. The US has consistently rebuked any such overtures with snubs and insults, which has further enflamed the situation. The war hawks in the Bush administration are itching for war with Iran but know they can't invade. They are definitely contemplating air strikes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and seem to be indifferent to the repercussions of such an action. Abrahamian rejects the notion that if attacked, Iran would strike Israel or American forces directly, but instead argues that all they would have to do is give the green light to their Shiite allies in Iraq (al-Sadr etc.) and warlords in Afghanistan who would then attack US forces in their respective countries. This would likely be a nightmare for Americans. They could also cut off the oil supply at any time. The 1953 American backed coup that overthrew democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh remains a sore spot for Iranians and understandably so. There is also the issue of America's support for Saddam during his eight-year war against Iran and the overall bad faith they have shown towards Iran over the years. On the US side there is the 1979 hostage crisis, which many Americans still resent. Iran's more current involvement in terrorism is not discussed. Abrahamian says on pg 116: "So the present crisis in Iran is being seen as a replay of the oil nationalization crisis with Mossadegh, and Iranians are drawing parallels to Iran in 1951-53, when Iran wanted to be a self-sufficient, self-respecting nation and have sovereignty over its resources. The Americans and the British offered these ultimatums: if you don't give up your oil, we're going to destroy you. And Mossadegh was a hero; even though he didn't succeed, he stood up for national rights. Iranians are seeing a similar thing, except now it's the question of nuclear technology." The last essay by Mozaffari is more about the internal workings of Iran; culture, dissident groups, status of women and the like. According to Mozaffari, there is a widespread, yet disorganized movement pushing for a host of reforms including a secular, democratic state. What