[binarymax]

It would be nice if instead of everyone hating on the prize, we could take a moment and reflect. Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through, the sacrifices they've made, and the bravery they show to try to make things better.

Think the prize is politicized and corrupt? Whatever - it's not about you or your opinion.

[LindeBuzoGray]

> Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through

Iran had a parliament in 1953, when the US and UK launched operation Ajax after the prime Minister nationalized Iran's oil. The prime Minister was ousted, a dictator replaced him - who returned to Iran on a flight with Allen Dulles. The conservative mullahs were western allies in removing power from the parliament.

Then this structure the west put into place fell out of alignment with the west in 1979, and we suddenly hear an enormous amount of stated sympathy about "women trapped in these regimes". Sympathy that we didn't hear when the CIA was handing SAVAK lists of progressive, secular women to arrest or kill. It's farcical.

[continuitylimit]

Your story about operation Ajax is just that - a story. Iran’s PMs were all elected by parliament and the one before Mr. Mossadeq was assassinated by Islamists allied to your “democrat” who then let the killer get off with no jail time.

You also fail to note that the PM in question had a “99%” referendum during his tenure. You also fail to mention that the said PM refused his constitutionally valid dismissal by the Shah and then proceeded to launch a COUP against the constitutional monarchy.

You fail to mention all this because NYTimes and CIA and the rest of the Western world is perfectly happy with the narrative of Kermit Roosevelt getting off the plane with a suitcase of dollars and then taking over a “99%” supported regime overnight! CIA is sure impressive!

The facts are that the PM in question began to alienate his allies — the Islamists — so they withdrew support, and very substantial chunk of the nation absolutely did not agree with his coup and his program of unilaterally changing the outcome of the 1905 Constitutional Revolution of Iran which do grant certain powers to the monarch. This includes dismissing the PM.

So, now that we have a more ‘rounded’ historic context of what actually led to ‘53 counter coup encouraged and supported by US and UK (which failed) and the next day’s Army’s counter-coup (which succeeded), the topical point remains:

Whatever CIA, or “Anglo-Saxons” or this or that evil empire has done in NO WAY excuse or elucidate the dictatorial regime of the clergy and their very open trampling the rights of women in Iran.

I am not sure what is the Islamist version of “Tankee” but you are it.

[and a ps for Iranians in the audience]

If you continue to repeat the ridiculous NYTimes/CIA version of the story you are denigrating our great people. The idea that some flunky from CIA with a suitcase of cash managed to unseat a “99%” PM overnight mainly says that Iranians are mindless chumps who are trivially manipulated. This is neither flattering or accurate.

[Qiu_Zhanxuan]

Most people today would agree with Mossadegh's initiative and the point remains that he was ousted from power for his nationalization of a western oil company and his inimity with the islamists and the Shah. The US helped in the process. And it's no disrespect to the iranians to state those facts.

[continuitylimit]

who are these “most people”?

Everyone in Iran, including the Shah, wanted Iran’s oil nationalized. It was the economic consequences that tempered others. The Good Dr. had to go hat in hand to US and beg Eisenhower to aid after oil revenues stopped. That was his bright idea.

Also your story is not the propaganda narrative that is repeated. This is the single paragraph story:

Iran did have a democratic government, but because the PM nationalized the oil, US did a coup and installed a dictator, the shah.

And that is entirely different from your “US helped in the process”. That would be accurate because that is all it was: in the main political support. Then, we in fact had a decade were Generals were powerful, until the Shah, finally in 60s (without CIA and to the great annoyance of the Kennedys) assumed all the power after having disbanded the Communist party and defanged the National Front. The “dictatorship” began 10 years later and it was far more benevolent than say a psycho killer like Mao who murdered millions. But Mao was a “great man” and the Shah is a “dictator”. Go figure.

[lolinder]

Your reply is a complete non sequitur.

This is a prize awarded by the 2023 Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. The oldest member of the committee was 4 years old in 1953, and all five are Norwegian, not American or British. The person who received the award is an Iranian woman.

Why the hell is the bad behavior of the CIA in 1953 relevant to this discussion? "The West" is not a monolithic entity that should be held accountable as a single unit indefinitely for evil things done by two countries 70 years ago.

[beebeepka]

Are we still talking about Nobel peace prizes here?

Even Obama got one.

[thriftwy]

How about being held accountable at least once? That did not happen yet. The best thing that we hear is some random liberal american "not approving" Iraq or Libya invasions.

[michaeltimo]

It might seem like a hard take but, what happened in 1979 is not much different that 1953 with regard to influence of western countries on it IMO. Many people in Iran also believe the 1979 "revolution" was supported by western countries, if not planned. Iran was on a path to rapid growth and also Shah's decision on doubling the Oil's price in 1973 could be another reason [1].

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06...

[Tao3300]

Ok? Where's this going? We're not supposed to care now because the CIA did some shady stuff a million years ago?

[oh_sigh]

That's one way to look at it. Another is that Mossadegh was legally asked to step down, and refused, and then the person with the legal right ousted Mossadegh.

Regardless, if we don't like dictators or power grabs, then we certainly shouldn't like the current regime in Iran.

[selimthegrim]

Mossadegh was buying people in the Parliament, let’s be realistic

[bryanrasmussen]

I'm pretty sure there were people who cared in 1979, I wasn't one of them because I was in school. And I mean, I'm probably older than most people on HN. Probably a significant percentage of the community here didn't care in 1979 because they weren't alive.

Anyone old enough to vote in 1979 is probably pretty close to retirement now. Almost everyone in a position of power in 1979 is probably dead. Obviously Biden was a young senator, but that's about it.

[AlbertCory]

#whataboutism

The fact is, the mullahs torture and kill anyone who speaks up. That's happening now, not 71 years ago.

"women trapped in these regimes" does not need quotation marks, unless you think there are NO women trapped in these regimes.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

If you praise her for her bravery it makes Iran look bad which implicitly makes the West look good and we cannot have that kind of thing around here.

[mhuffman]

>Think the prize is politicized and corrupt? Whatever - it's not about you or your opinion.

Here's a hot take -- I think all the Nobel Prizes, not just the Peace Price are politicized, corrupt, pop-culture-ish, and basically just in-group accolades! Similar to the Academy Awards.

[tshaddox]

Wait, are you implying that popular culture is bad? Should we simply not have popular culture?

[mhuffman]

>Wait, are you implying that popular culture is bad? Should we simply not have popular culture?

No, but probably not the best way to run science, academics, medicine, long-term civil projects, etc.

[tshaddox]

Well, Nobel Prizes aren't exactly "how we run science, medicine, etc." But perhaps you could argue that chasing Nobel Prizes is a counterproductively strong incentive in those fields (I have no idea if that is the case).

[Tao3300]

I've never been happier to be out of the in-group than I am on the day I learned Iranian prisons are part of the in-group.

[da_chicken]

I guess I'm not certain how any accolades could ever be anything but in-group accolades.

[mhuffman]

Well, the police giving a citizen that saved a baby and award for example. Or moviegoers praising a new film. I'm sure you can imagine a few. Whereas Nobel Prizes, Academy Awards, etc. seems to be a lot of self-dealing when they are not trying to get points for doing something that is currently popular in a "fad" sort of way.

[the_bookmaker]

> It would be nice if instead of everyone hating on the prize, we could take a moment and reflect.

Nice can also mean silly and ignorant, as any well-aged dictionary would tell you. [0] We are reflecting, on the corruption and politicization of our institutions.

> Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through, the sacrifices they've made, and the bravery they show to try to make things better.

Essentially the same Bush-era "plight of the Afghan women" kind of appeal to emotion to justify corruption, interventionism, and war [1].

Also, I'm pretty sure you don't really know much about the political situation in Iran. Mohammadi belongs to a political faction called the Reformists [2], which is filled with regime apologists and charlatans. More specifically, she belongs to a particular branch which is sometimes called Neo-Shariatism [3]. Shariati himself was the "ideologue of the Islamic Revolution" [4], and a full-fledged charlatan who used to falsely claim to have a PhD in sociology from Sorbonne [5].

Mohammadi is currently a political prisoner, but that obviously isn't something which merits a Peace Prize. I'm sure that there isn't a shortage of political prisoners in the Islamic Republic.

[0]: https://www.websters1913.com/words/Nice

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attack...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Reformists

[3]: https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/6b552565-6ff8-45a0-a0e...

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shariati

[5]: http://www.shariati.com/bio.html (Compare this with the Wikipedia article, which says he got a PhD in Persian. Even that is dubious.)

[catlover76]

Almost everything you said is basically irrelevant to the point put forth by the person to whom you are replying.