Iran’s exceptional reaction to 9/11 attacks (2015)

https://photosiran.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/irans-exceptional-reaction-to-911-attacks-candlelit-vigils-for-the-victims-and-60k-soccer-fans-respected-a-minutes-silence-2/

by puyask • 10 years ago

292 175 10 years ago

photosiran.wordpress.com

forgotpwtomain2• 10 years ago

Iran is also far better on Human rights than say Saudi Arabia, that the media, important political figures and companies [0] consistently tie 'enemy' and 'ally' labels is such a complete farce.

Edit (example):

[0] https://www.palantir.com/2010/05/iranian-influences/

ars4• 10 years ago

If Iran would just stop verbally attacking Israel and Jews, and stop putting on holocaust denial shows it would be a lot easier to change the labels.

coldtea2• 10 years ago

Well, if Israel also stops claiming its surrounding land.

vkou• 10 years ago

If Israel would stop physically attacking Palestinians, and stop running an apartheid state, this complaint would have some merit.

Measuring every Middle Eastern geo-political question as "But how will this help Israel" is both short-sighted, and will lead you to support gross violations of human rights.

axiom_ny• 10 years ago

Jews? There are Jews living in Iran and by their law, there must always be a Jewish member of Parliament. They have no problem with Jews.

spikels4• 10 years ago

I would say both Saudi Arabia and Iran have terrible records on human rights.

And in some cases Iran is clearly worse. For example Iran executes far more people each year than Saudi Arabia - something like 3 times as many.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-a...

astrodust5• 10 years ago

This is one of the saddest legacies. The amount of empathy for America was shocking, absolutely staggering, after 9/11. There were countries with every reason to hate America, but they too joined in the vigils and were respectful of the loss.

I doubt you'll ever see anything like that again.

That enormous stockpile of goodwill, like the US budget surplus, was uselessly frittered away within years and everyone was back to hating America again.

If there's another attack of this magnitude I think the whole world will be so afraid of what America will do in retaliation that they won't have any strength left for empathy.

allendoerfer7• 10 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gACIsz_vSXE

locusm• 10 years ago

Good to see Jim having success in the U.S.

MichaelMoser1233• 10 years ago

the people of Iran also have every reason to dislike their own dictatorial government [1]; empathy towards the USA might also be a way to display attitudes towards their own system of government, such a display would otherwise be suppressed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Re...

rhizome4• 10 years ago

Then again we could just believe what they're saying and doing as a genuine expression without imputing ulterior motives.

j_koreth• 10 years ago

Although it was the CIA=led coup of the democratically elected government that led conditions to go so extreme with the Islamic Republic and Anti-Western sentiments

lancewiggs• 10 years ago

The second line of the article states: "President Muhammad Khatami condemned it, as did Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei"

karma_vaccum1233• 10 years ago

You're mistaking token affection and photo-ops for a real change in foreign policy. Honestly your comment just seems naive.

astrodust5• 10 years ago

Honestly, people were too shocked to hate America, and for once, perhaps the only time in recent history, America seemed humbled. It was hit with something so big, so nasty, that the usual bravado fell away and America, as a collective, was left reeling. The whole world was in complete shock.

In that moment we were all willing to let history go away, to embrace America for the victim it was.

It was, briefly, a return to the America that the world loved: The one that built a country from the "wretched refuse" of other countries, that made the working class something less than serfs, that made enormous sacrifices to liberate Europe from tyranny.

"Photo ops"? It wasn't that. Change in foreign policy? There wasn't time for those changes to go into effect before America was back to its old self, only instead of fighting some endless war against "communism" the new enemy was "terrorism" and instead of Vietnamese it was "Muslims". Of having "Freedom Fries" because France wouldn't buddy up and invade a sovereign country for no reason.

There was a very short gap between vigils in the street around the world, in places that had boundless hate for America, because 9/11 is not the sort of thing you'd wish on your worst enemy.

Call it naïve if you want, but we were all willing to be naïve that day.

jgalt212• 10 years ago

That enormous stockpile of goodwill

That was bound to wear off anyway. That being said, we certainly did not help ourselves by invading the wrong country.

ars4• 10 years ago

Is this really so surprising? The enemy (US) of my enemy (Saudi Arabia) is my friend.

This has nothing to do with the US, and everything to do with SA.

alan_cx• 10 years ago

No. Its everything to do with common human empathy. Does that has nothing to do with the US?

aikah2• 10 years ago

What ? KSA is hardly US government's enemy, on the contrary. KSA is US biggest ally in the middle east after Israel. KSA is not on the list of terrorist states in US and Saudi princes enjoy a wide access to politicians like the Bush family or the Clinton family which they actively finance. But it is interesting one would ever think it isn't the case.

yannickt• 10 years ago

I think the GP was saying KSA is Iran's enemy.

Edit: brain failure on my part.

jonathankoren• 10 years ago

TL;DNR: A stable oil market motivates everything. The KSA is a means to an end.

I think the real question is about the realpoltik of the American alliance with the House of Saud, versus Saudi Arabia as a whole. Lest we forget, 15 of the 19 were Saudis. Lest we forget, Saudi has the reputation of funding ultraconservative and politically reactionary movements around the world, that aren't exactly considered aligned with American political policies and values.

But that doesn't answer the questions about why the KSA is not listed as a terrorist financier and why the Saudi royal family enjoy easy access to the US government.

The first one is simple. If the US called it a terrorist financier, it would probably fatally damage the alliance. So what does the alliance give? Well, for the KSA it's a security guarantee. The US guarantees the acidity of the kingdom, and the Saudi family in particular against Iran. Also, the US gives political cover for maintaining a sphere of influence over the Arab world.

So what does the US get out of it? Well, two things. The primary goal is a stable supply of oil to the global market. (It's not about actual barrels of oil, but rather the global price of oil.)

Maintaining a reasonable supply of cheap oil is one of the two axes that all US Middle Eastern policy revolves. (The other is security for Israel.) The reason why oil is important is self-evident in a society reliant on petroleum products.

We should always remember that the initial reason why the US decided they had a national interest in Saudi Arabia was with the foundation of ARAMCO, which was originally known as California-Arabian Standard Oil.

So what's wrong with Iran? Iran? Well nothing at first. Iran, like Saudi Arabia was a an irrelevant backwater of international relations until the discovery of oil. After that, the Cold War intervened.

Well, the US pretty much poisoned the relationship with Iran when the CIA overthrew the democratic government and installed the autocratic Shaw, In an effort to stymie Soviet interests. When Kohmehni overthrew the Shaw, he lined up with the Soviets to put a needle in the Americans' eye. In response, the Americans strengthened the military relationship with KSA to counter Soviet influence in the region.

tominous2• 10 years ago

It's sad that it is seen as "exceptional" to mourn (and not celebrate) the deaths of innocent people.

AsyncAwait• 10 years ago

I don't think that was what was meant, rather it was "exceptional" given the past relationship of the two nations. Also, is the only other option of not mourning to celebrate?

tominous2• 10 years ago

True on both points. Thanks.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 10 years ago

My feeling is that Iran is a far better natural ally of the United States than Saudi Arabia. The average Iranian is probably far more amenable to western liberal values than the average person from Saudi Arabia.

ars4• 10 years ago

My feeling is that Iran is a far better natural ally of the United States than Saudi Arabia.

That's probably true except for Israel. The government of SA is more or less neutral toward Israel, not so the government of Iran.

Interestingly the exact opposite is true of the people of Iran vs SA. I believe the average person in Iran hates Israel less than the average person in SA.

ekianjo4• 10 years ago

Funny how the whole agenda for the region is set by Israel and not the US themselves.

handedness2• 10 years ago

That's probably true except for Israel.

Jews and Persians are natural allies, and have been allied in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_relations

It's not out of the realm of possibility that as shale production diminishes the importance of both the House of Saud and the declining declining value of Russian energy exports, Israel pivots back to Iran. Many sharp analysts predicted the US's pivot to Iran for over half a decade before it visibly started to happen, and many of those same analysts don't subscribe to the prevailing media narrative that Iran's religion necessarily constrains it to alignment with Arab nations, rather than Israel or the US.

wcummings• 10 years ago

The government of SA is more or less neutral toward Israel

And SA opposes Hezbollah.

lottin• 10 years ago

I have the same impression. Unfortunately the Saudis have the oil and that makes them valuable allies. Whereas Iran is basically at war with Israel, which means the US will never be able to be in good terms with them.

travmatt8• 10 years ago

To be fair, Iran is the largest exporter of religiously inspired terrorism in the world, bar none. No other country has a deep institutional commitment to cultivating and supplying terrorism that can match Iran.

Edit: I'd encourage all the downvotes butt hurt by this truth to learn a little more about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the Quuds forces. No other country has a special forces dedicated to cultivating, training and supply in terrorists worldwide (groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are only two examples out of many). We're not talking a one-off phenomena, rather a multi-decade program that has split the world into sectors and has dedicated special forces in each area. This is why you have IRG trying to cultivate Islamic extremism in Venezuela, and bombings of Jewish community centers in Argentina. It's literally not a contest; Iran has been the most skilled and successful sponsor of religious terrorism in the world.

travmatt8• 10 years ago

Iran is the inverse of most middle eastern countries. The elites in Iran hold anti-western sentiments while the common people are a little more liberal in their views towards America. Most middle eastern countries have the situation reversed.

Camillo• 10 years ago

Not quite. Fundamentally, pre-revolutionary Iran had (and modern Iran still seems to have) the same pattern as other middle-eastern countries: a Westernized, liberal-friendly urban middle-upper class, and a traditionalist, Islam-focused lower-class and rural population. And, as is also typical, the westernized component overestimated its own strength. Many of them actually supported the revolution, expecting that it would bring a democratic or perhaps socialist government (remember, socialism is also a Western ideology). Instead they got swept over by the Islamist faction, which had the support of the masses.

This happens over and over in the Middle East. Syria is the most recent example. The urban middle class revolted against Assad hoping for democracy, but instead their war got completely taken over by the much more powerful islamists. Now they are between a rock and a hard place.

If you have any middle eastern friends, they are probably quite modern, liberal and friendly to Western values. I know mine are. But there is a strong selection bias there. The real "common people" don't go to study in a European university.

hguant2• 10 years ago

Iran was THE ally of the United States until the Revolution. We didn't trust the Israelis, who made it very clear they were in it for themselves, the Saudis in the 60's and 70's were not very amenable to US interests - Iran was a stable, regional power with a westernized populace and enough power to counterbalance Soviet influence and Middle Eastern stubbornness. They were such an important ally that when they elected a moderately socialist president who didn't want to play the Cold War game, the US and UK freaked out and installed a monarch.

tamana5• 10 years ago

So, Iran was more trustworthy, even though the US felt it necessary to depose their leader? How does that make sense?

Chathamization• 10 years ago

That's not accurate. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah in 1941, after his father was forced to abdicate by the British and Russians. The CIA certainly worked with the Shah to remove Mosaddegh from power (in 1953), but this didn't happen right after he became prime minister (he wasn't elected per se, but appointed by the Shah and approved by the legislature). Rather, this came about after a long and complex political struggle (both internal and external), the end of which saw Mosaddegh dissolving the legislature and gaining emergency powers including the power to personally create laws by fiat.

eternalban3• 10 years ago

The US and UK freaked out and installed a monarch.

This propaganda story of the West needs to die. (They never forgave the Shah for being critical of them in the 70s and to this date their media lists this poor man as one of the "worst tyrants of 20th century". Same century that gave us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, PolPot, .... The man was a saint compared to most world leaders, then and now.)

No one installed a monarch in Iran. The late Shah of Iran, who very much cared for Iran, was indeed permitted to succeed his father, Reza Shah ("the great"), by the occupying Alied powers (who had invaded the neutral Iran). This 'transition' to nominal power 'permitted' by external powers that occupied the entirety of Iran is a fact of Iranian history. (In fact, before accepting CIA/NYTimes account of '53 and the Shah of Iran, you may want to read up on the history of Iran from 1850 to 1950.)

From that date, until the counter-coup of 1953 in which US and UK participated alongside quite a substantial subset of Iranian society, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi stayed well within the limits of Iranian constitution's limits on royal power. One noteworthy aspect of being the Shah of Iran under the constitutional regime was the ability to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.

Dr. Mossadegh, a member of the Majlis (people's assembly) was indeed put forward by that body as the Prime Minister and the Shah did formally appoint him. After the good Dr. managed to alienate most of his internal allies -- the Mullahs and the Communist Party of Iran -- he assumed dictatorial powers. He even ran an election with "99%" yes vote for his assuming such powers. That is the famous "election" the propaganda organs of the West keep mentioning.

The Shah dismissed the Dr. from his office. The Dr. refused to accept this, contrary to the constitution of Iran. The Shah feared for his life, and fled. And meanwhile back in Iran, elements of Iranian military, landed gentry, Mullahs, etc. who no longer supported the (dismissed) Prime Minister organized a counter coup. So, New York Times notwithstanding, little Kermit Roosevelt did not all by his lonesome and a suitcase full of dollar bills create a coup to "install" the legal, standing, Shah of Iran.

What happend to the Shah after '53, was that he had decided to push for stability in Iran and began to overstep the constitutional limits. It was during this period that Iran went from helpless victim of the insatiable greed of the British and ambitions of the Russians to a healthy state. It was only then that Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi accepted coronation.

And the apparently alarming development of Iran actually got to the point that Iran began to loom as a strategic threat to Western hegemony in the Persian Gulf, having taken over the security role of British in the Persian Gulf with America's blessing and material support; establishing OPEC as a power player; and having publicly announced in '73 that "in 1979" when the oil contracts forced on a bankrupt Iran in '53 reached their term, that Iran would no longer accede to the aggregious demands of the Western Oil Cartel (the famous "seven sisters"). Surprisingly enough, it was precisely in 1979 that "revolution" broke out in Iran and BBC Persian service kindly began announcing the Ayatollah's messages and demonstration schedule. (Fact.)

No one installed our King. Good and bad, warts and all, he was OUR King, our Shahanshah, and we Iranians accept full responsibility for the matter.

amckinlay• 10 years ago

Iran is effectively our ally already. Both of us are aiding the same Shia militias in Iraq (the US through the Iraqi government).

madengr• 10 years ago

I agree. I got along fine with the Iranians in school. The Saudis were lazy and worthless.

user982• 10 years ago

And then they up and joined the Axis of Evil.

Meta: Too subtle?

zaroth2• 10 years ago

Meta: No, too cute.

london888• 10 years ago

And the US & Coalition fell right into the trap by invading Iraq. Probably quite a few people still think Iraq was behind 911.

toomanybeersies• 10 years ago

Apparently 69% of Americans in 2003 believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-po...

In 2011, this belief persisted, with 38% believing that "the US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda" and 21% believing Iraq gave support to Al Qaeda: http://themoderatevoice.com/ten-years-later-belief-in-iraq-c...

joezydeco• 10 years ago

In my travels to Europe post-2001 it became pretty clear to me that the citizens there could separate the American citizen from the American government.

They knew, as they did before 9/11, that the American people were generally peaceful and generous, which was in direct contradiction to the actions of the US Government.

johansch• 10 years ago

Quite a lot of this goodwill went away after GWB was re-elected. We all thought you made a childish mistake at first (do the downvoters of this comment even remember that campaign? perhaps they were in kindergarten), but the second time.. that was what burned bridges.

mindslight3• 10 years ago

There were many people who voted for Bush II the first time, believing his marketing of no "nation building" etc, and were then completely appalled at what he proceeded to do. Unfortunately, the number of blind war-cheerleaders was far greater - tell people they're under attack, and they fall into line. Furthermore, it's not as if with the other party now in power, USG has actually stopped attacking other countries.

I think another thing other nationalities (especially Europeans) need [0] to understand is that USians view the necessity of government differently. I believe you see the Democrats as being the reasonable bunch because their rhetoric is more compatible with what you generally expect from politicians. Whereas the Republicans' rhetoric is mainly opposed to the Democrats' version of "progress" rather than proposals of their own top-down solution. So you end up seeing it as progress vs anti-progress, while domestically we do not implicitly assume government structure is even needed.

(This is certainly not an endorsement of either party's actual actions after they take office, but only analysis of how their marketing is perceived)

[0] if you want to analyze US politics, that is.

wyager• 10 years ago

Actually, many non-US countries had extremely high approval of GWB. http://www.pewglobal.org/2008/12/18/global-public-opinion-in...

Bush was very generous with food aid to Africa, for example, which won him a lot of support there.

zaroth2• 10 years ago

It's almost sad to think how history will peg GWB as the best US President in the first quarter of the 21st century.

allendoerfer7• 10 years ago

And yet, look what kind of candidate is still in the race to become president. The American government is voted into office. At least parts of the American people are also partially responsible. I am not saying, they could have known entirely, but the US is involved in the Middle East making it worse and worse since the early nineties, well before 9/11.

Edit: Actually since after WW2, but the Iraq wars started in the nineties.

ekianjo4• 10 years ago

Candidates are selected in primaries which represent only a tiny bit of total american voters. So thats it.

at-fates-hands2• 10 years ago

> but the US is involved in the Middle East making it worse and worse since the early nineties, well before 9/11.

I think we've found out people want freedom in the Middle East, they just don't want to have to fight to keep it anymore. We gave Iraq freedom and look what happened. We toppled several dictators in the Middle East and what happened? It created a power vacuum and ISIS stepped into the fold and look what they're doing. The pseudo democratic governments we set up were rotten to the core. How soon we forgot that here religion and family ties means nothing to the people voting. There, your family and religious views dictate everything you do - it turned into a huge dumpster fire because of our nativity in thinking all we have to do is give you this incredibly powerful thing (freedom) and you'll be fine keeping and protecting it.

Even in this country we had a fairly long revolution and a very nasty civil war in order to get where we are today - something these countries are now having to go through and endure the pain and misery of doing so. I won't touch on how having several global super powers running proxy wars between these countries involved in civil war isn't help them figure it out at all either.

danjayh• 10 years ago

Unsure which candidate you're talking about (both?)? They're both equally awful in different ways.

tomjen32• 10 years ago

The U.S. Government is crazy generous. As a European I live in zero fear of being invaded by any other country. We receive huge military subsidies in the form of NATO protections.

turar• 10 years ago

Would you say that someone living in, say, Argentina, or Mongolia, also lives in zero fear of being invaded by any other country?

ionised6• 10 years ago

Generous implies the US is benign in maintaining military forces in countries all over the world. It's not.

fit2rule5• 10 years ago

Alas, people are responsible for their governments. You can't have all the rights of citizenships without any of the responsibility. I would say (having lived in both regions) that 'most people in Europe' wish that Americans would take a lot more responsibility for the crimes of their state than they currently do ..

ionised6• 10 years ago

They knew, as they did before 9/11, that the American people were generally peaceful and generous

The American people strike me as incredibly schizophrenic overall because half seem to be, as you say, generally peaceful and generous, whereas as the other half seem dangerously self-serving and gung-ho aggressive in their views of the rest of the world, the poor, women, foreigners, science etc.

It's this half that tends to support the US governments destructive foreign policies.

tn133• 10 years ago

If USA can have Saudi Arabia as an ally white house can even call Devil their ally.

I never understood Iran-USA hatred for each other. Iran is not worse than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan from any angle.

hessammehr• 10 years ago

The 1953 coup [1] probably has something to do with that, followed by the hostage crisis in 1979 [2], and the downing of an Iranian passenger airplane by the US [3].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

adventured2• 10 years ago

Along with Iran supporting the killing of US troops in Iraq via proxy war during the occupation and the Khobar Towers bombing.

tn133• 10 years ago

The coup was an American failure caused by meddling into other people's affairs. This is not the first time nor Iran is the only nation where Americans have tried that.

Iran-USA relationship seems complete irrational to me. It is as if the establishment in Washington and Tehran have some sort of gain from keeping things as bad as they are.

dominotw• 10 years ago

the queer compassion of the poor for the relatively well-off is quite an amusing thing. You can see many examples of this in everyday life too.

mahranch3• 10 years ago

That's nice and all, but I vividly remember people dancing in the streets of Iran celebrating the attack. I will never have that image removed from my mind.

While I'm sure there are people who were upset at the attacks, there was a sizeable chunk of people who weren't. They were in fact happy. Enough to form crowds dancing in the streets holding signs and chanting. I'm old enough to remember that stuff pretty vividly (I was 22 years old on 9/11) so historical revisionism isn't going to work on me...

blackoil• 10 years ago

Were you in Iran and saw it in person, or through so source?

mahranch3• 10 years ago

Does it matter? It happened, you can google it. It's literally a 30 second google search away.

Spooky23• 10 years ago

You have no idea what you saw -- clips like that are often propaganda or just crap. Big news sites like Drudge would post fringe nonsense for cheap hits.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the NY Times was running stories about babies being tossed from incubators directly lifted from WWI accounts of the Hun.

I was working in a network operations center at the time, listening to radio and seeing CNN 18 hours a day for weeks post 9/11. There were all sorts of bullshit stories, from foiled plots against facilities to whatever else that made it broadcast. People were jumpy and craving information.

mahranch3• 10 years ago

Listen up kid, (I'm calling you kid because you're acting like one; telling me "I don't know what I saw". Who the hell do you think you are?) I'm not some naive nobody who was being swayed by paranoia, the media or anything else. I'm also not going to fall for any 9/11 conspiracy nuttery.

I looked up what I saw and you can see the videos yourself, right now, with a quick google search.

I was working in a network operations center at the time

I simply don't believe you. I don't believe you are over the age of 25 in fact. More importantly, everyone was glued to their TV back then. And yes, there was this thing called "the internet" back then too, where people could validate and check information. They could also get their news from sources outside the U.S. Many of us were doing just that.

wyldfire• 10 years ago

[nice vignette] ...
[another nice story] ...
“Last week, for the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution, there were no chants of ‘death to America’ at weekly Friday prayers around the country[…]

Wow. The folks who think "bad things should happen to those people in the US" take a break from saying that when bad things happen? This is less of a "nice story" -- more like "Y'know, we shouldn't say 'Death to America' this week because as much as we seem to enjoy the results, we don't want to get the blame."

neves• 10 years ago

These kind of post helps us to remember our common humanity. The world isn't a simplistic us vs them.

bobsil1• 10 years ago

Surely some part of this is from Shi'a rivalry with Sunni AQ?

Iran’s exceptional reaction to 9/11 attacks (2015)

Related Stories