PENELITIAN

Research, Science and Technology

Iran v America: what's behind the feud? | The Economist



Iran and America’s decades-long feud has led to hostage-taking, sanctions and proxy wars that have shaped the Middle East. What is behind the feud, and can it be resolved?

Chapters
00:00 – The history of the feud
01:01 – 1951-53: The Persian Oil Crisis
02:04 – The 1953 coup
04:11 – 1978-1979: The Iranian revolution
05:12 – 1979-81: The hostage crisis
06:58 – 1980-88: The Iraq-Iran war
09:06 – 1983: US embassy bombing
09:50 – Hizbullah
11:00 – The nuclear age
11:53 – 2015: JCPOA signed

Sign up to our daily newsletter to keep up to date:

See all of our Middle East and Africa coverage here:

Read about the latest developments in Iran:

Does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want to be president of Iran again?

Read more about the history of America’s relationship with Iran:

Why Joe Biden should drive a hard bargain with Iran:

How to contain Iran’s nuclear programme:

The world is facing an upsurge of nuclear proliferation:

The father of Iran’s nuclear programme was assassinated:

America’s missteps with Iran:

How Iran retaliated after the killing of Qassem Suleimani:

How American sanctions have kept Iran’s clerics in power:

Read about how our Middle East correspondent was detained in Iran in 2019:

Why Iran wants a “strategic partnership” with China:

Source: https://laporanpenelitian.com/

41 comments on “Iran v America: what's behind the feud? | The Economist

  1. All this kiosk, killings bcos of benefits$$$$, hmmm human rights?? Rights for fake news, kills all that threaten the benefits of world leaders… and all this is not record in history books and next generation is deceived, sad for all human race

  2. İnsan-oğlunun kötü özelliklerinden biri detayların içinde kendini katbedip gözünün önündeki tabloyu görememesidir. Bir haftalık israil Yüksek Makamlarının ABD'deki görüşmelerinden çıkarılan sonuç-düşüncelerin İranla ilişkili Nükleer Görüşmelerin ve USA nın İsrail'e karşı olumsuz tavır sergilemesi ve İsrailin olumsuz tepki karsiti, bence sizin yani medyanın ve Türkiye hükümetinin dikkatine sergilenmiş gostermlik bir oyun olduğudur. İranı Turkiyeye karsi kendi-cephelerine-çekme-programini gizli tutma ugrasimidir..

    Yani, 5 yaşındaki bir çocuk bile gözümüzün önündeki saklanmaya çalışılan sebebin USA'nın bence 2022 de yapılacak Türkiye-İstila=Planının ta kendisi olduğunu gorebilir. Füzeleri bol ve cesitli olan İranıın Türkiye karşıtı Mısır, Yunanıştan, BAE, Fransa, İtalya, Ermenistan, Suriye gibi ülkelerin yanında yer alması uğraşımıdır. Türkiye-istilasi planlarına Rusyanında dahil edileceğini dusunuyorum..

    Allah yardımcımız olsun SAYGILARLA M. S. Toronto / Canada

  3. Iran didnt "nationalise" its oil legally like Saudi Arabia did by buying out the contracts it had signed. It simply stole all the equipment and kicked the British out, which included the largest oil refinery in the world. The British had every right to then enforce a boycott of Iran. Iranians did share greatly in the oil wealth despite you lying otherwise, Britain renegotiated to give Iran a larger share 3 different times despite not being legally required to do so. Britain paid a lot for the rights to Iran's oil before oil was known to be such a valuable commodity and had spent many years searching for oil without turning a profit. Mosaddegh was not a democrat; he was a dictator who rigged an election, rigged a referendum, indefinitely suspended parliament & judiciary and gave himself sole power to pass law. He was legally dismissed from office by the person who had appointed him in the first place, and Iran became more democratic with his dismissal. It was by definition not a coup. Mosaddegh was not "swept from power by the British", it has been proven that the CIA exaggerated their own role to take credit. The Shah was not "reinstalled" by the British in 1953, he was in power before, during and after the Mosaddegh regime. A new Prime Minister was appointed. You say America's support could not protect the shah, but America did not offer support! It certainly could have. Jimmy Carter was not willing to give any support, he pressured the Shah to release religious extremists from prison, and secretly negotiated with Khomeini to overthrow him.

    "[The Shah] cracked down on any dissent" – a blatant lie. The Shah was far too soft on extremists, and it was Islamist propagandists that falsely alleged otherwise, with useful idiots in the west naively believing every word. It is now known that the Amnesty International figure of 100,000 political prisoners was a false inflation by 5000%. The theocrats that took over executed more political prisoners every year than the Shah had imprisoned in decades. The Shah's prisons were heaven compared to what came after. Iraq did not come out on top in the Iran-Iraq war, it was 2 years of mostly Iraq victories, then it was 6 years of mostly Iranian victories. "Iran had nothing to do with 9/11" – Iran had for years helped Al Qaeda, and gave them flight training and explosives training. They facilitated the travel of many of the hijackers. They harbour Al Qaeda to this day and yet propaganda media outlets like the Economist continue to deny reality. Rouhani says chanting Death to America is not enough, and you call him a "moderate". Absolutely disgusting video.

    America rejecting the terrible Iran deal, which was never approved by congress, did not "raise tensions". Iran has been the one raising tensions for 40 years! Iran commits major acts of war regularly that the Economist refuses to cover. Iran funds and arms those killing our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, but gets away scot-free and 0 mention of it in this video. Every other sentence is a blatant lie. Trump wasnt able to get anything with his weak pressure (he never went to maximum pressure like Republicans in congress had called for), but it took Obama over 6 years to get the JCPOA. The fact that there is no easy solution to Iran's worldwide terrorism does not mean rewarding their belligerence by giving them billions is the better option.

    There are so many objective facts you have got very very wrong in this video, every single one of which serves as propaganda for the world's largest state sponsor of terror. The British government should force the Economist's staff to have to register as foreign agents of Iran.

  4. 1:20 I swear britian is the reoccurring character that turns up even when u don't think it will

  5. Biden withdrawing from Afghanistan is just a way too create tensions with Iran.

  6. While half way through this video, i am a bit puzzled. it all started because the oil refinery ran by the British got nationalised, so British solicited help from the US. So I assumed the UK would play a more pivotal role in all of these. But how come the British seems to fade into the background and the US got involved vehemently?

  7. In the world, only Vietnam, can confidently defeat the American and Chinese invading armies

  8. This was exactly what the American and British spies did in 1989 Beijing and 2019 HongKong. Only difference Chinese people are more resilient.

  9. Notice they always talk about the Shaw giving women the right to vote but NEVER mention the Shaws "white revolution"

  10. It's so bad that nations love each other but politicians don't want this. Iran and America, if they are together, they can make big things happen for the world.

  11. Don't be a gentleman. In this world, gentlemen are everybody's object of criticism, while hooligans are forgiven with many excuses.

  12. Wait so the British went to Iran to collect oil without permission and then when Iran decided they didn’t want that anymore British considered that theft

  13. Alot of us Americans would like to normalize relations with Iran. Persians are cool people. Partied with a few in LA.
    The Iranian regime only distract us from the Indo-Pacific. Iran, is only the size of Texas, with the economy of Ohio.
    But if they press their luck too far, they'll end up on the losing side of any future conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Because we can't let them threaten Indian oil shipments from the Gulf.
    So they might just be gotten rid of, before hand.
    We ask Iran to come to the table. If we can't be friends, we can at least cease being enemies

  14. The british saw it as "stealing" when the iranians took back what rightfully belonged to theirs… Right….

  15. Ok ok, Britain was a huge problem in this region. But America was not only the prime backer of Saudi Arabia before anyone else, but America took over the role Britain had in the Middle East. America could have supported nationalist movements in the Middle East, but they continued to play the role of imperialists, taking over from the British.

    Iran, if it ever represented a truly civilisational challenge to the USA, has to be recognised as exporting a failed ideology. ‘Islamic Republicanism’ has failed to take hold in any country to any substantial degree. Iran is therefore, despite some allies in some areas of the Middle East, a very lonely state. It’s ruled by a parallel state of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, who control key parts of the Iranian economy, as well as civilian government. These guards don’t just have an ideological interest in keeping Iran as a garrison state, but they have economic interests too. America has to try and empower the civilian leadership of Iran in ways which allow the Revolutionary Guard to be marginalised. If Iran’s regime falls too, and a western-style republic comes into play, the Iranian state has to be strengthened by allowing Iran full integration into the world economy and allowing Iran to develop a comprehensive and generous welfare state, as a way to make tangible the benefits of leaving the ideological cul de sac they are in

  16. Time to bring am Treason charges against Congress for what they are doing knowingly by not passing a decent stimulus bill.

  17. It's really problematic to have interest group manipulated US government to intervene other countries' domestic policy. The united nation needs to play a better role here. On the same time, US need to make sure not to have war manias like Trump or Pompeo to make their major foreign policy. Otherwise WWIII is just around the corner.

  18. 7:05
    "America supplied weapons to both sides, prolonging the war".
    That's how the land of the free operates. That's how much it cares about civilian lives. But because they control the media, they control people's perceptions and that's why people view it as a great and just nation.

Leave a Reply

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