US to Blame for Sour US-Iran Relations

The United States largely has itself to blame for the history of tensions and animosity between itself and Iran.

It goes back to the 1950s when a democratically-elected government was ousted—this might have been one of countless instances where the US helped engineer the overthrow of a democratic government—and, in the aftermath, the US helped engineer the assumption of power by the Shah ('king'). The Shah turned out to be a hated ruler because he was tyrannical and despotic, and his secret police imprisoned and tortured dissenters.

Later, in the Iran-Iraq War, the US supported Iraq and in fact armed Sadaam Hussein's Iraq, on the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Iranians don't want to forgive America for that because it was a bitter, bloody, and costly war.

Actually, suspicion of the US and of the West by Iranians goes back even further because of Western—perhaps more British than US—actions and intervention in the Middle East during and after World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. To a degree, in this case, Iran's animosity should perhaps be directed more toward Britain than toward the US because the former was the bigger player, doing much to advance its interests and secure its influence in the area at that time. (For one thing, Britain was looking to protect the Suez Canal, which was jointly operated by Britain and France, but also, as one of the superpowers of the time, may have been moving into a power vacuum).

Update, February 1, 2012
I should add that the overthrow of the Iranian government of Premier Mossadegh in 1953 was due to OIL (surprise, surprise). He had nationalized Iran's oil production, which did not sit well with the US.
Also, two other reasons why the Shah was disliked had to do with his lavish lifestyle and his having offended conservative Iranians by embracing the West and western things.

Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein

Money, Greed, Materialism, Capitalism

The other day I ran into someone I used to know a long time ago (he said something about it being 20 years). I'll call him N.

This guy is maybe the gentlest soul I know. And he doesn't "got" anything. N. doesn't own a computer, he told me, and I wasn't really surprised. Either he's poor or he's an apostle of the simple life. Maybe both.

How much in contrast with the avarice and acquisitiveness that's prevalent in our society. And those who've got the most (money, possessions, whatever)—how did they get where they are?

Look at British society. Who are their landed gentry? How did they get to be what they are, with their estates and very large houses? Often, by being more rapacious than their fellow man. Chances are, they were on the winning side of some battle and their winning side seized whatever they could: land, livestock, etc.

And in America? I think we're starting to see more clearly that there's a lot of greed in America. For the sake of their personal financial gains, some aggressive, hungry young bucks on "Wall Street" engaged in one or another type of chicanery—and imperiled the entire U.S.-–no, the world—financial order.

Large corporations often focus on their "bottom line" to the degree that they deceive the public, the consumer, maybe withholding information on the dangers of the drugs, toys, baby accessories that they make and sell.

I used to say that "business ethics" was an oxymoron. Well, I no longer would say that every nook and corner of the business world is immoral or amoral. Businesses have now and then been good guys. In particular, I've gained more respect for small business. The typical small business owner works very hard and takes risks—to make a success with selling his ice cream or soup or cupcakes.

And, some people have had a good idea. The right idea at the right time and place, or some useful invention. These people deserve the success that they achieve.

However, look at this: How many big business tycoons have started foundations? From earlier times, there's the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation. Now we have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. These foundations have enormous sums of money to give away. Also, many wealthy families and individuals give away money and in return get their names on auditoriums, libraries, and so forth--and get more gratitude heaped on them than just bronze plaques.

All the money that these companies and individuals and foundations have—where did it ultimately come from? From you and me, from our pockets. Now, a really revolutionary idea: How about these guys charge less for their products? Let them make less money, let you and me keep more of our money. Rather than Bill Gates having obscene billions of dollars to give away, maybe you and I could have kept some of that money, and then we could decide where it should go.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

The British Are Invading--Again!

It's generally recognized that British English and American English have significant differences--mainly in pronunciation and vocabulary. Winston Churchill famously called the U.S. and Britain "two countries separated by a common language."

Of course we live in an age of instantaneous global communication. The British have been viewing our movies for decades, and an enormous volume of such exchange should serve to "level" (in the jargon of linguists) the differences. And I think that the British now are acquainted with many terms which had been Americanisms.

However, the influence can work both ways. Americans have come to use a few terms that had been mainly British in their use.

First, fridge for refrigerator. This is now so common in America that we hear it and don't give it a thought but (trust me, I can remember!) there was a time when this was used only in Britain.

Another is to go missing. News broadcasts in America seem to be full of stories about a person or a pet who has "gone missing." Now, here's the interesting part: What did we say before we used that expression? I don't remember. It's funny how that works, once a term becomes well-established, we don't even remember how we got along without it.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein