There's no persecution of Gays Plain Ol' --- *Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender* (*LGBT <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT>*) *people* can face violence motivated by hateful attitudes towards their sexuality <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality>or gender identity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity>.[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#cite_note-1> Violence may be executed by the state, as in laws prescribing corporal punishment for homosexual acts (seehomosexuality laws <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws>), or by individuals engaging in intimidation, mobbing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing>, assault, or lynching <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching> (see gay bashing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bashing>, trans bashing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_bashing>). Violence targeted at people because of their perceived sexuality can be psychological or physical and can extend to murder <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder>. These actions may be motivated by homophobia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia>, lesbophobia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbophobia>, biphobia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphobia>, transphobia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia>, and may be influenced by cultural, religious <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexual_orientation>, or political mores <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores> and biases.
Currently, homosexual acts are legal in almost all Western countries <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_countries>, and in many of these countries *violence against LGBT people* is classified as a hate crime <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime>,[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#cite_note-williams-2> with such violence being often connected with conservative or religious leaning ideologies which condemn homosexuality, or being perpetrated by individuals who associate homosexuality to being weak, ill, feminine, or immoral. Outside the West, many countries, particularly those where the dominant religion is Islam <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam>, most African countries (excludingSouth Africa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa>), some Asian countries (excluding Japan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan> and Taiwan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan>), and some former-Communist countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, such as Russia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia>, Serbia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia>, Albania <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania>, Kosovo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo> and Bosnia and Herzegovina <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina>, are currently very dangerous for LGBT people because of discrimination against homosexuals <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_homosexuals> which influences both discriminatory legislation and physical violence.[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#cite_note-3> In Europe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe>, the European Union <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union>'s Employment Equality Framework Directive <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Equality_Framework_Directive> and Charter of Fundamental Rights <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights> offer some protection against sexuality-based discrimination. Historically, state-sanctioned persecution of homosexuals was mostly limited to male homosexuality <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_homosexuality>, termed "sodomy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy>". During the medieval and early modern period, the penalty for sodomy was usually death. During the modern period (from the 19th century to the mid-20th century) in the Western world, the penalty was usually a fine or imprisonment. As of 2009, there remain under 80 countries worldwide where homosexual acts remain illegal (notably throughout the Middle East <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East>, Central Asia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia> and in most of Africa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa>, but also in some of the Caribbean <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean> and Oceania <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania>) including five that carry the death penalty <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment>.[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#cite_note-4> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 10:28:31 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > There's no persecution of Gays Plain Ol'. Right now, you have "Additional > Rights" and this is fundamentally wrong. Because of your sexuality, you > have now claimed that you're entitled to: (1) Redefine the term "Marriage"; > and (2) Based on who you choose to crawl in the sack with, "marry" a > person outside of the confines of what a marriage is. > > This is wrong, and it will be addressed soon. > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:40 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > I do disagree with Plaino though as far as Sir Bernard is concerned, > sounds like a very decent human being to me. > --- > he sounds like a fucking You Norker barking like a dog to me ... and so > does Trump. > Do you really want either of these men representing America? > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 7:55:24 PM UTC-6, pluto of brougham wrote: > > the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI > that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or > Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall > ever > be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the > United States.” > > Full marks to Plaino for that interesting essay, surely the above should > disqualify that woman who refused gay marriage licences from holding > a govt. post, as well as the judges on the high court bench to put aside > their religious beliefs in considering different cases, however, I > recognise that very few of us can be so totally dispassionate, unless we're > Vulcans of course. > > I do disagree with Plaino though as far as Sir Bernard is concerned, > sounds like a very decent human being to me. > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:01 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > [email protected] > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/politicalforum/topics> > Google > Groups > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> > > Topic digest > View all topics > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/politicalforum/topics> > > > - [grendelreport] Colonials > > <#CAN2xbf9d24d0zfVu6Z+bEQNwWnMhycHfDzJnRRdbKQcNWM-5=g@mail.gmail.com_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_0> > > - 5 Updates > - [grendelreport] What If Iran's Guardian Council Managed U.S. > Elections? > > <#CAN2xbf9d24d0zfVu6Z+bEQNwWnMhycHfDzJnRRdbKQcNWM-5=g@mail.gmail.com_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_1> > > - 6 Updates > - [grendelreport] Who Is Bernie Sanders? > > <#CAN2xbf9d24d0zfVu6Z+bEQNwWnMhycHfDzJnRRdbKQcNWM-5=g@mail.gmail.com_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_2> > > - 4 Updates > - [grendelreport] NY SHOOTOUT: Devout Muslim AMBUSHES, FIRES at 8 NYPD > Cops, Two OFFICERS Injured > > <#CAN2xbf9d24d0zfVu6Z+bEQNwWnMhycHfDzJnRRdbKQcNWM-5=g@mail.gmail.com_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_3> > > - 2 Updates > - [grendelreport] Cops are asking Ancestry.com and 23andMe for their > customers' DNA > > <#CAN2xbf9d24d0zfVu6Z+bEQNwWnMhycHfDzJnRRdbKQcNWM-5=g@mail.gmail.com_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_4> > > - 2 Updates > - [New post] If you’ve never seen Islamic ‘halal’ slaughter, force > yourself to watch this, then share it with those who haven’t > > <#CAN2xbf9d24d0zfVu6Z+bEQNwWnMhycHfDzJnRRdbKQcNWM-5=g@mail.gmail.com_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_5> > > - 5 Updates > - [grendelreport] Border Walls > > <#CAN2xbf9d24d0zfVu6Z+bEQNwWnMhycHfDzJnRRdbKQcNWM-5=g@mail.gmail.com_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_6> > > - 1 Update > > [grendelreport] Colonials > <http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/t/bf451f2b69b8bc43?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> > > plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 09:49AM -0800 > > but we do remember when they persecuted everyone with different religious > beliefs (or no beliefs at all). > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:41:28 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 01:21PM -0500 > > I will probably regret asking this, but who is it that you are alleging > are, "They", and when did this allegedly happen? > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:49 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 10:30AM -0800 > > America's True History of Religious ToleranceThe idea that the United > States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and > utterly at odds with the historical record. > > > In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came > to > America aboard the *Mayflower* in search of religious freedom in 1620. The > Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious > dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their governor > John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the > same, > coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which > everyone was free to practice his or her own faith. > > The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real > story > of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently embarrassing > and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school texts > either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent > conversation > about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this > comforting tableau. > > > From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has > often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the > foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” > natives > already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of > early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between > various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and > Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion > that America is a “Christian nation.” > > First, a little overlooked history: the initial encounter between > Europeans > in the future United States came with the establishment of a Huguenot > (French Protestant) colony in 1564 at Fort Caroline (near modern > Jacksonville, Florida). More than half a century before the *Mayflower* > set > sail, French pilgrims had come to America in search of religious freedom. > > The Spanish had other ideas. In 1565, they established a forward operating > base at St. Augustine and proceeded to wipe out the Fort Caroline colony. > The Spanish commander, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, wrote to the Spanish King > Philip II that he had “hanged all those we had found in [Fort Caroline] > because...they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these > Provinces.” When hundreds of survivors of a shipwrecked French fleet > washed > up on the beaches of Florida, they were put to the sword, beside a river > the Spanish called Matanzas (“slaughters”). In other words, the first > encounter between European Christians in America ended in a blood bath. > > The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England in > the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious > dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the > Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing > religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no > dissent, religious or political. > > > The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams > and > Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and > policy. From Puritan Boston’s earliest days, Catholics (“Papists”) were > anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other non-Puritans. > Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently > returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs. > > Throughout the colonial era, Anglo-American antipathy toward > Catholics—especially French and Spanish Catholics—was pronounced and often > reflected in the sermons of such famous clerics as Cotton Mather and in > statutes that discriminated against Catholics in matters of property and > voting. Anti-Catholic feelings even contributed to the revolutionary mood > in America after King George III extended an olive branch to French > Catholics in Canada with the Quebec Act of 1774, which recognized their > religion. > > When George Washington dispatched Benedict Arnold on a mission to court > French Canadians’ support for the American Revolution in 1775, he > cautioned > Arnold not to let their religion get in the way. “Prudence, policy and a > true Christian Spirit,” Washington advised, “will lead us to look with > compassion upon their errors, without insulting them.” (After Arnold > betrayed the American cause, he publicly cited America’s alliance with > Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so.) > > In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws > regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold > public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing > papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics > from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics > had > full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming > belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South > Carolina, had official, state-supported churches. > > In 1779, as Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that > guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those of > no religion—in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously > wrote, > “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or > no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But Jefferson’s > plan > did not advance—until after Patrick (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”) > Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for “teachers of > the Christian religion.” > > Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully > argued essay titled “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious > Assessments,” the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid > out > reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. > Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison’s argument became a fundamental > piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the > secular state that “should be as familiar to students of American history > as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” as Susan Jacoby > has written in *Freethinkers*, her excellent history of American > secularism. > > Among Madison’s 15 points was his declaration that “the Religion then of > every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every...man to > exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an > inalienable right.” > > Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should > understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a > threat to religion. “Who does not see,” he wrote, “that the same authority > which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may > establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in > exclusion of all other Sects?” Madison was writing from his memory of > Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia. > > As a Christian, Madison also noted that Christianity had spread in the > face > of persecution from worldly powers, not with their help. Christianity, he > contended, “disavows a dependence on the powers of this world...for it is > known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the > support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.” > > Recognizing the idea of America as a refuge for the protester or rebel, > Madison also argued that Henry’s proposal was “a departure from that > generous policy, which offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed > of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country.” > > After long debate, Patrick Henry’s bill was defeated, with the opposition > outnumbering supporters 12 to 1. Instead, the Virginia legislature took up > Jefferson’s plan for the separation of church and state. In 1786, the > Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, modified somewhat from > Jefferson’s original draft, became law. The act is one of three > accomplishments Jefferson included on his tombstone, along with writing > the > Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (He omitted his > presidency of the United States.) After the bill was passed, Jefferson > proudly wrote that the law “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its > protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the > Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” > > Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went > to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed in > Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI > that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or > Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall > ever > be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the > United States.” > > This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention > God or a deity (except for a pro forma “year of our Lord” date) and that > its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would > infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders’ resolve > that America be a secular republic. The men who fought the Revolution may > have thanked Providence and attended church regularly—or not. But they > also > fought a war against a country in which the head of state was the head of > the church. Knowing well the history of religious warfare that led to > America’s settlement, they clearly understood both the dangers of that > system and of sectarian conflict. > > It was the recognition of that divisive past by the founders—notably > Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison—that secured America as a secular > republic. As president, Washington wrote in 1790: “All possess alike > liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship. ...For happily the > Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to > persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its > protection should demean themselves as good citizens.” > > He was addressing the members of America’s oldest synagogue, the Touro > Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island (where his letter is read aloud every > August). In closing, he wrote specifically to the Jews a phrase that > applies to Muslims as well: “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who > dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other > inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and > figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” > > As for Adams and Jefferson, they would disagree vehemently over policy, > but > on the question of religious freedom they were united. “In their > seventies,” Jacoby writes, “with a friendship that had survived serious > political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction > on what they both considered their greatest achievement—their role in > establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be > required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views.” > > Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: “And > I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one > has > done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, > the less they are mixed together.” > > While some of America’s early leaders were models of virtuous tolerance, > American attitudes were slow to change. The anti-Catholicism of America’s > Calvinist past found new voice in the 19th century. The belief widely held > and preached by some of the most prominent ministers in America was that > Catholics would, if permitted, turn America over to the pope. > Anti-Catholic > venom was part of the typical American school day, along with Bible > readings. In Massachusetts, a convent—coincidentally near the site of the > Bunker Hill Monument—was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic > mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent > school. In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic > sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the > Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches > were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed. > > At about the same time, Joseph Smith founded a new American religion—and > soon met with the wrath of the mainstream Protestant majority. In 1832, a > mob tarred and feathered him, marking the beginning of a long battle > between Christian America and Smith’s Mormonism. In October 1838, after a > series of conflicts over land and religious tension, Missouri Governor > Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be expelled from his state. Three > days later, rogue militiamen massacred 17 church members, including > children, at the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill. In 1844, a mob murdered > Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum while they were jailed in Carthage, > Illinois. No one was ever convicted of the crime. > > Even as late as 1960, Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy felt > compelled to make a major speech declaring that his loyalty was to > America, > not the pope. (And as recently as the 2008 Republican primary campaign, > Mormon candidate Mitt Romney felt compelled to address the suspicions > still > directed toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Of > course, America’s anti-Semitism was practiced institutionally as well as > socially for decades. With the great threat of “godless” Communism looming > in the 1950s, the country’s fear of atheism also reached new heights. > > America can still be, as Madison perceived the nation in 1785, “an Asylum > to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.” But > recognizing that deep religious discord has been part of America’s social > DNA is a healthy and necessary step. When we acknowledge that dark past, > perhaps the nation will return to that “promised...lustre” of which > Madison > so grandiloquently wrote. > > *Kenneth C. Davis* is the author of *Don’t Know Much About History* and *A > Nation Rising*, among other books. > > > > Read more: > > http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/#70lZu2DqhQhfYm66.99 > Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv > Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:21:51 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 01:42PM -0500 > > So your little abridged historical story pretty much buttresses what I was > thinking: In general, we are a tolerant accepting culture founded upon > Christian principles and tenets, and accepting of all who want to be a part > and parcel of this society. > > You should probably read your little abridged historical story, it would be > a good thing. > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 10:57AM -0800 > > So your little abridged historical story pretty much buttresses what I was > thinking: In general, we are a tolerant accepting culture founded upon > Christian principles and tenets, and accepting of all who want to be a > part > and parcel of this society. > --- > history says otherwise ... can't you read, lawyerboy? > Jefferson and Madison put religious myth believing asshole like you in > their place. > take your religious persecution to israel or iran where it will be > appreciated. > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:42:44 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > Back to top > <#CAN2xbf9d24d0zfVu6Z+bEQNwWnMhycHfDzJnRRdbKQcNWM-5=g@mail.gmail.com_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_digest_top> > > [grendelreport] What If Iran's Guardian Council Managed U.S. Elections? > <http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/t/42cd656023cd9bf2?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> > > Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 12:21PM -0500 > > Most Progressives like Plain Ol" conveniently "Forget" the USSR's > involvement in the region, and what was the causation of the United States > involvement. > > Not that Plain Ol's post has anything remotely to do with the initial post, > but it's "*Typical*": > > > > > https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/age-reagan/essays/iran-and-united-states-cold-war > > Both of these circumstances—Iran’s location between the USSR and the > Persian Gulf, and the presence of major oil reserves—guaranteed the > country’s importance during the Cold War. In addition, a third factor came > into play: the emergence, even before the end of World War II, of the > global military and ideological competition between the United States and > the Soviet Union. Fear of losing influence in a vital part of the world to > Soviet-led Communism motivated much of American foreign policy for the next > several decades. American sentiment about competition and democracy was > spelled out, sometimes in almost Biblical terms, in conceptual documents > like NSC-68 and in numerous policy papers over the years. > > In two key incidents in Iran from the post-war period these precepts were > plainly evident, and produced consequences for the United States that were > in some ways utterly unanticipated. At other moments later in the Cold War, > described further below, Washington’s fixation on the Soviet threat left it > unprepared to deal with crises of local origin that were equally > significant for America’s standing in the region. > > The first of these earlier episodes unfolded at the end of the Second World > War when the USSR threatened to abrogate its agreement with Britain and > Iran to remove its large troop presence from Iran’s northern province of > Azerbaijan within six months of the cessation of hostilities. Anxious to > gain an oil concession that would balance Britain’s privileged access in > the south of the country, as well as to create a buffer zone in a > vulnerable border region, Joseph Stalin planned to solidify Soviet > influence in the southern Caucasus region—perhaps even to annex part of > Azerbaijan province, according to Soviet archival records—but met > surprising resistance from President Harry Truman, who gave a range of > support to the young Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Stalin ultimately > decided to withdraw from the country in late 1946. The actions of the > United States were seen as a sign of genuine respect for the rights of > sovereign states—highly unusual for a major power—and made a powerful > impression on the Iranian people. To this day, the Azerbaijan crisis > accounts for some of the positive views many still have of the United > States. > > Less than a decade later, however, a second major incident dramatically > changed many Iranians’ opinion of the United States. In 1951, Iran’s > recently elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, nationalized the > country’s petroleum industry, long the domain of the British-dominated > Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The move pitted the two governments > against each other in a bitter political fight, leaving the United States > once again to play the intermediary. But while the Truman administration > had tried to work with both sides, President Dwight Eisenhower and his > advisers quickly concluded that Mosaddeq represented the problem rather > than the solution to the crisis. Based strictly on Cold War calculations, > Eisenhower authorized a preemptive covert operation to oust Mosaddeq before > Moscow might have an opportunity to do so. The coup in August 1953 was > carried out at US and British instigation but relied on a variety of > Iranian groups and individuals for its eventual success. > > The overthrow achieved the immediate objective of restoring to the throne > the Shah, who had fled the country during the turmoil, and replacing > Mosaddeq with a more amenable figure. For the next twenty-five years, > Mohammad Reza Shah remained in power and made significant contributions to > the interests of his superpower patron. But even though the coup had had > the support of significant segments of Iranian society at the time, it came > to be seen by many Iranians as a sea change in American conduct—from > munificent protector of smaller countries to archetypal great power > pursuing its own interests regardless of the wishes of local populations. > This view of the United States gained currency inside Iran over the course > of the Shah’s reign as he proceeded to exercise more and more arbitrary and > dictatorial power at the expense of his subjects with little visible effort > at restraint from Washington. In fact, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and > Johnson did press the Shah repeatedly to enact reforms, but that strategy > effectively ended with the assertion of the Nixon Doctrine in 1969. > Reflecting the heavy strain on American military resources caused by the > Vietnam War, the new doctrine relied on regional powers to act as the first > line of defense against potential Soviet expansionism. For the next several > years, the Shah not only gained access to sophisticated American weaponry > he had long coveted, but also obtained tacit White House permission to > forgo any serious effort at reform. > > By the 1970s, conditions inside Iran that were purely local in origin—with > no connection to the Cold War—had begun to emerge that the United States > was ill-equipped to address. Internal resentment against the Shah’s > political and economic policies was building to a peak (and extending to > his US sponsors), but the depth of the problem escaped the notice of > American decision-makers. Led by Ayatollah Khomeini, a fierce public critic > of Iran’s reliance on American backing who had been exiled for years for > his views, Iran’s growing anti-Shah sentiments burst into open revolution > in 1978–1979. After Khomeini’s triumphant return to Iran in early 1979 it > was only a matter of months before the revolution gelled in the form of a > theocratic state, not surprisingly characterized by significant > anti-American overtones. > > In the context of the Cold War, the revolution appeared to many Americans > to signify the “loss” of Iran to Soviet influence, a loss that was > magnified by the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. In fact, > Moscow was never able to gain a foothold in Iran because of the Islamic > Republic’s deep suspicion of Russia’s history of aggressive behavior and > the religious leadership’s antipathy for official Soviet atheism. This did > not necessarily bode well for Washington, however. Instead, it was a sign > of the rise of another factor in international politics that would have > implications beyond the Cold War: Moslem fundamentalism, which not only > incorporated the concept of national sovereignty (captured in the phrase > “neither East nor West”) but was animated at its core by the ambition of > creating a theocratic state and spreading Islam across the region. > > Hand in hand with the revolution came another event with momentous > implications for US-Iran relations: the storming of the US embassy in > Tehran and the seizure of American hostages in November 1979. Iranian > accounts indicate that the country’s leadership was initially unaware of > the student-led plan to assault the embassy (which the students claimed was > a response to years of perceived US antagonism dating back to the 1953 > coup), but Khomeini was quick to embrace the move for domestic political > reasons. While it helped to consolidate radical rule over the country, > however, the takeover also created a political crisis for Iran, landing it > in long-term diplomatic isolation, and engendering extraordinary enmity > from Washington. The bitterness of the hostage crisis continues to poison > official American attitudes toward the Islamic regime. > > One other episode from this period was critical in forming the current > antagonistic relationship between Iran and the United States. From 1980 > through 1988, Iran and Iraq fought a horrific war initiated by Saddam > Hussein’s opportunism but fueled by historical animosity, among other > factors. In retrospect the record is clear that the United States sided > with Baghdad (as the lesser of two evils), providing political, economic, > and even military support for Saddam’s war effort, including tacit > acquiescence to Iraq’s use of chemical weapons and missile attacks on > Iran’s cities. Toward the end of the conflict, US forces directly engaged > elements of Iran’s navy and Revolutionary Guards, and in July 1988 a US > naval ship mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian jetliner, killing all > 290 on board. Ironically, these encounters helped lead to a cease-fire by > persuading Iran’s leaders that America would stop at nothing to defeat > them. > > The Iran-Iraq War took place during the Cold War but it had virtually > nothing to do with the East-West conflict; it was a local dispute sparked > by indigenous factors. Washington’s actions, however, did grow out of the > American mindset of that era: a desire to protect the flow of oil from the > Persian Gulf and a determination to block the Soviets from gaining > influence in the region. Regardless of each side’s intentions, the war > produced a number of enduring results. One was that the leaders of Iran’s > revolution were able to link their cause to the survival of the nation > itself. Another was the elevation of the status of the Revolutionary > Guards, eventually rivaling even the power of the clerical leadership. (The > country’s current combative president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, was a member > during the war.) Still another outcome, of direct relevance to US standing > in the region, was the cementing of the perception among the country’s > hardliners of Washington as an irreconcilable e > > ... -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
