Why Does Iran Hate America?

Why Does Iran Hate America?


Earlier this month the United States assassinated senior Iranian General Qassem Suleimani
claiming he was undermining security But does the United States really care about democracy and good governance in the middle east? Suleimani was Iran’s second most prominent
public figure and was the commander of the Quds Force, the extra-territorial wing of
the country’s revolutionary guard or IRGC. a bit like the SAS, just a lot bigger, with
its own ballistic missile program and…. aviator sunglasses, lots of them. Suleimani was killed because the United States
claimed it had information revealing imminent attacks against American targets. And yet there’s little to confirm that – indeed
the hit has so far only escalated tensions in the region – but you might have noticed
that even those critical of the action did a lot of throat clearing regarding
Suleimani saying he was ‘not a good guy’. I’m not here to deny that. After all this
is a career soldier who specialised in proxy wars and covert operations – he was loved
and revered by some, hated by others – think Napoleon, Alexander or jack nicholson in a
few good men. You can’t handle the truth! What is more he was an extension of Iranian
foreign policy in the region which many view as being at
odds with democracy and human rights. But here’s the thing: Suleimani might have
been a ‘bad guy’ but he wasn’t all that different
from any of about five dozen current and former American politicians and bureaucrats
— indeed if anything,
he was considerably more restrained in the use of force.
Yes, he was involved in a lot of bloody wars —
but so has every US president since 2000, and besides,
most of the wars he fought in were started or fuelled by America.
If he is liable for extra-legal execution where would we draw the line?
Hypocrisy? You bet. But does that explain why so many Iranians
dislike the West? Iran has experienced significant protest in
recent months, but the response to Suleimani’s death has
been nationwide mourning in a huge display of Iranian nationalism..
One which is far stronger and more anti-colonial in content than many on both sides of the
Atlantic can begin to comprehend. The question is why? To answer that you have to go back 1901 when
William Knox D’Arcy first negotiated an oil concession with the Shah of what was then
called Persia, Mozaffar al-Din. In exchange for exclusive rights to prospect
for oil across most of the country for the next six decades, the Shah received £20,000
(£2m in today’s prices), an equal amount of equity in D’Arcy’s company and 16%
of any future profits. By 1908 it had become clear that this was
an astonishing deal for the Englishman and within a few decades the refinery at Abadan,
in south Iran, would be the single largest in the world. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company,
the predecessor of today’s British Petroleum, was now a global energy giant. But despite tapping such extraordinary abundance,
the people of Iran saw little return for this geological good fortune. By WW2 the British
exchequer received more money through taxes paid by what was then the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company than Iran itself did in royalties. This is for oil in their own country – it’s
kind of like a football agent demanding they represent the next bright thing and then taking
home more of their paycheck than the player themselves. Oh come on! This is important when considering the post-war
welfare state, because while Britain could have built it
without foreign oil, as was the case with Sweden for instance,
it would have been unable to do so whilst both maintaining its global military
reach and reducing it’s national debt. Furthermore the strategic importance of Iran’s
oil went beyond just the UK. A report published by the US state department
in 1951 noted that the loss of the country’s oil on the world market would significantly
impact Europe’s economic recovery, which was a problem given the prospect of Moscow’s
rising influence on the continent. Of even greater concern, however, were projections
regarding a crisis based on the loss of Middle Eastern oil altogether – a very real possibility
given growing nationalist sentiment in the region and the demise of Europe’s empires.
For Washington this would make European rearmament, something of critical importance in arresting
the spread of communism, impossible and would force “profound changes” in the economic
structure of key allies in the recently formed NATO. Little of this concerned Iran’s new National
Front, a political party led by Dr Mohammed Mossadegh that fused national-popular, liberal
and social democratic forces around nationalising the country’s oil. When word reached Tehran
in 1950 that the threat of precisely that had persuaded the Arabian American Oil Company
(ARAMCO) to a profit-sharing agreement of 50/50 with Saudi Arabia, it seemed inarguable
that Iran should follow suit. But there was a problem: with far less money
than the US, Britain had no interest in a similar arrangement regarding what was then
the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. With defence spending above 10% of GDP, and domestic politics
requiring greater government intervention than nearly ever before, Britain just couldn’t
afford to renounce these massive resource revenues. In February 1950 Mossadegh, along with seven
other members of the National Front, were elected to the Majlis – Iran’s parliament.
That November the Majlis’ Oil Committee, now headed by Mossadegh, recommended the rejection
of the ‘Oil Supplemental Program’, a proposal designed to defuse the argument for full nationalisation. Mossadegh’s manoeuvring was opposed by the
new prime minister, Ali Razmara, an establishment voice who was against national ownership.
In March that year Razmara told the Majlis that Iran was incapable of running its own
oil industry – three days later he was assassinated by a young militant attached to the Fada’iyan-e
Islam. From there events moved quickly with the impetus shifting behind the nationalisation
movement decisively. That march, the Majlis overwhelmingly approved the ‘Oil Nationalisation
Plan’ before the Senate ratified it two days later. By late April Mossadegh had been
chosen as the country’s new prime minister. Oil nationalisation and Mossadegh’s elevation
should have been a founding moment for a modern, democratic Iran. Here was the emergence of
something that Britain and the United States have always since claimed that they want:
a democratic government based on principles of constitutionalism and national sovereignty.
There was still a monarch, Shah Reza Pahlavi, but he was subject to the rule of law and
constitutional monarchy – a bit like the Queen is in Britain today. Furthermore Mossadegh, previously a lawyer,
was secularly minded and would in time oversee land reform, the introduction of social security
and a deeper separation of powers. Yet the response from Britain’s Labour government,
which had embarked on a pretty similar agenda at home, might sound familiar: they threatened
legal action against anyone who purchased oil from and refined in Iran. As a result
the country’s industry came to a halt and after several failed attempts to reach a compromise
Dean Acheson, then US Secretary of State, concluded that the British were “determined
on a rule-or-ruin policy in Iran.” American indifference meant Iran’s fragile
experiment in self-government briefly endured, but that changed with the election of Dwight
Eisenhower in 1952. After entering the White House the following January, Winston Churchill
persuaded him that Mossadegh – while a secular liberal – would have to work with the country’s
Moscow-aligned Tudeh party. Consequently the two men agreed to remove him through what
would be come to be known as ‘Operation Ajax’, an ultimately successful coup funded
and coordinated by the CIA with British involvement. That meant re-centralising power in the unelected
monarch Shah Reza Pahlavi, unwittingly laying the foundations for the country’s Islamic
Revolution that would remove him in 1979. Confronted with a rising nation, whose pursuit
of self-government and public ownership was perceived to be at odds with their national
interests, Britain and America removed an elected leader and empowered an autocrat.
It wouldn’t be the last time. And Mossadegh? He was sentenced to three years
solitary confinement in 1953 – after which he remained under house arrest until 1967.
Because of fears of how his funeral might be politically received, he was denied a public
funeral and buried in his living room. To understand the revolution in 1979, which
brought to power a repressive regime which, yes, is anti-colonial in nature (you can be
both things) you have to understand the removal of Mossadegh by the great powers two and a
half decades earlier. Britain and America demonstrated that self-government would not
be tolerated and that their calls for democracy in the middle east were hollow and hypocritical. So when people say Suleimani was a ‘bad
person’ – maybe. The thing is, the west undermines, removes and even kills the good
ones too. Until that ends it has no moral high ground and rather than serve the cause
of democracy it will sabotage it.

Author:

67 thoughts on “Why Does Iran Hate America?”

  • Thank you! So many people, even in politics, media and public office, know so little of this history! And we wonder why the Iranians don't want the west on their doorstep.

  • I'm English. I've written to my Minister of Parliament and find the mindset is still deformed and broken. I protested against Trumps sanctions of Iran as I consider it should not be followed by th UK. I'll write some more.

  • The question should really be why does anywhere like America? It's not like what they did to Iran wasn't business as usual for them. From the native genocide to the Monroe Doctrine to their metastasis across the globe in the name of "spreading democracy" they (along with Britain and the rest of its settler colonialist offspring) have been the chief source of misery in the world for centuries. The sooner the US fucks off and minds its own the better for everyone.

  • Its simpler than this. Its because everyone in power else wants their oil so they can sustain their economies for another 10 years, before they are forced to move to invade or more likely become 'peacekeepers or advisors' to a toppled venezula for their oil, to sustain themselves for 20 more years. Before the eventual collapse or reform of corporatism away from fuels we dig out of the ground. I mean there are those who love selling bombs and bullets, true, and they love their murder for-profit wars, but its still mostly about the oil

  • 2:27 Why does the map of Persia also cover modern-day Iraq? Not sure if this is just a mistake or if I have something to learn. I thought Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire at this point and the modern borders for the country (which looks like what is being used here) were only first conceived of in the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916?

  • Highly recommend the book All The Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. . Vital historical context for our current relationship with Iran/the wider region.

  • I've seen pictures of iran in the sixties! women dressed in mini skirts hair uncovered! men dressed in suits just like American's. sad what the British and American government did.

  • Martin Valentine says:

    Political parties are owned by corporations, there is no democracy when the parties only represent their benefactors. If you want to get democracy back then you need to democratise the work place and the rest will follow……..

  • "Might have been a bad man but…"

    Understatement of the year. What's next, Hitler wasnt so bad because we didnt like Churchill's racism?

    I know you guys think Stalin was the hero of that story….but c'mon, Islam, and religion generally, is the commies biggest enemy after capitalism.

    Is this another, enemy of my enemy, thing….

  • It doesn't hate America, some of its people led by its leader hate America, put most Iranians hate their leadership and don't hate America.
    Next question, why do you hate the West and love the Middle East?

  • Thank you from me too! That was most enlightening, and has given me added reason to continue rejecting the UK and US involvement in the Middle East.🙏

  • Please dump the annoying music. It’s so distracting, I almost stopped listening. I’m glad I didn’t, ‘cos I understand 100% more about what happened, having had only a vague idea until now, apart from being sure the west, US & UK in particular, were the bad guys, ‘cos we almost always are. I’d really like to listen/watch again, but to be honest, I can’t cope with the fact that I have to strain to hear you over the bloody music, it’s unnecessary. Otherwise, awesome explanation Aaron, thank you.🌸

  • There's another bizarre twist, most people are unaware of. The Guadeloupe Conference. The Iranian revolution is not initially an Islamic revolution. There are very diverse groups who wish to the overthrow of the Shah. Women who wanted equal rights, liberal democrats, communists, religious nutters. The Shah's dictatorship was strange, it was a liberal dictatorship, the state's liberalism backed up by torture and murder. Ayatollah Khomeini, was before the revolution hiding out in France (one of the parties who attend Guadeloupe). Khomeni had gotten into a little jam with the Shah, Khomeni had been outraged by the Shah allowing and encouraging women into the workforce, Iran wasn't big enough for the both of them, Khomeni left for France. The French groomed him, and financed his entourage, this was going to be their guy. The Shah's regime was collapsing, everyone hated it. At the Guadeloupe Conference the powers US, UK, France, Germany, discussed what would happen in Iran. The French said we've got our guy; the plan, US included, was to install a socially conservative shithead as dictator, and create a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia. The Shah is told to step down, and Kohemeni is flown into Iran, the Iranian public are told he is simply a symbolic office holder and constitutional democracy will follow. khomeni is well behaved for the first few days, then he starts with the crazy shit, proclaiming things like, women should not go to work naked. He completely hijacks the revolution, and now it becomes an Islamic Revolution…….Iran is the result of the British and Americans and some others pulling a coup on the Iranian people, installing a dictator, and it all going horribly wrong.

  • Iranians may have historical reasons to hate the US and UK but only if you think that on the same basis the US and UK have a far greater reason to hate Germans, Japanese and Italians.

  • If the question in the title isn’t rhetorical, is the answer: because they’re amoral, warmongering liars, with a determination to pursue economic and cultural hegemony.

  • I'm an American Patriot, military vet HOWEVER I learned about Operation Ajax back in college by a Professor who was a Vietnam veteran and ironically politically right wing, the USA originally couldn't care less about "Persia" and thought the increased petroleum royalty share to Persia made sense, USA did the same with Saudi Arabia- the USA could afford the 50/50 split, the UK could not, this was revenue issue and Winston Churchill cynically turned it into a political one by calling in the chits on his Anglophile buddy Ike, the butterfly effect resulted in the tragedy we have in 2020. Charles De Gaulle did same with Vietnam, whisper in USA ear not to hold talks with Ho Chi Minh- who was open to talking with the USA- butterfly effect resulted in Vietnam War.

  • TheMystery Gamer says:

    I was thinking too, if Suleimani was "a bad guy", what does make of our warmongering politicians and soldiers who have invaded illegally on lies murdering civilians and arming terrorists for regional dominance and to steal these nations' natural resources?

  • TheMystery Gamer says:

    "They're trying to steal our freedom" to…terrorise? Mass murder? Rob? And who is "our"? The politicians and their soldiers willing to murder for a few coins?

  • @Novara Media: Who says that Iran is oppressive regime? Stop USA+UK propaganda against that country! And if it is an oppressive regime, what is to you? Do you see other countries attacking UK because people there live under capitalist regime (anti-democratic) or because people there are oppressed by government? What would UK said if someone starts "democratizing" it by military attack?

  • Less than 5% went to university from my school says:

    My guess is that if and when Trump finally attacks Bernie Sanders he will (like attacks on Jeremy Corbyn) try to paint Bernie as not being insanely violent enough to be President of the USA. I base this on narcissistic behaviour I have seen in real life: typically narcissists go after easier targets, but push come to shove they will either attempt to emasculate people who threaten them or arrange a violent encounter. Trump at the moment seems to fit the bill of classic narcissistic behaviour under threat. Concern.

  • Woah. Maybe the most revelatory and interesting videos you’ve done Aaron. Can totally understand why many foreign leaders think we’re full of sh*t. We’re not truly leading the way are we.

  • The title should be "why do the left always support terrorists and terror organisations?" Your ex leader has made a living by kissing terrorist arses, how did that work out for him and your party? 🤭🤭🤭

  • Awesome video. I’m from the US, so my interest in Novara’s exercise of their hard-earned platform may be a bit different than that of UK resident, but I love love when you guys cover international issues. Going back 100 years while tying together the fossil fuel industry, the CIA, imperialism, and globalization to explain the current crisis in the Middle East?… yes please. YouTube and the world need more of these kinds of videos. Thank you NM! Good work.

  • The coup against Mossadegh set the grounds for the Revolution & its anti-Americanism, but the Iran-Iraq War is the main source of it today. People have a much greater memory of when their families were killed by US manufactured chemical weapons than they do Mossadegh.

  • RightHonourable Zeus says:

    Iran is dirt poor. They're not victims but rather like a dwarf with severe arthritis getting lairy with a heavyweight boxer…And has delusions of creating a shia empire. Afghans, Iraqis, Saudis, Lebanese people know their game is played out.

  • Nice video, little heavy on the US and UK hatred and little mention of Irans barbaric practices around the middle east. But that is you politics i get it.
    When you guys doing a video on the Asian grooming gangs? You have done Iran a lot and the royal family but nothing that i've seen on reports that 20,000 per year and still happening today?

  • Chucky Goldstein says:

    No need to tell what the name Quds means and what the goal of the Quds brigades ever was? I would really love to like Novara Media, but everytime you post an "information" video which has something to do with antisemitism, you just fuck it up.

  • What Bastardi gets wrong time and again is the the public generally don't give a fig about Iran, or Palestine or Yemen or Syria. You just keep talking to the tiny minority of hard left activists while the majority of the electorate walk away from you, as they have been doing for the last two years, in droves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *