backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by luseferous.. on Jan 22 at 10:18 AM


  (Source: teribon.ir)
Iran has some fun at the expense of the U.S.

The United States was more than a bit embarrassed when it lost an RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone over Iran. Although the U.S. government initially claimed that the aircraft malfunctioned and was missing "somewhere near Afghanistan", Iran boldly claimed that it spoofed the Sentinel's GPS feed causing the drone to "think" it was landing at an airbase in Afghanistan instead of its actual landing spot -- an Iranian military base.
 
In a surprise move, President Barack Obama engaged Iran during a press conferencing, stating, "We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond."
 
Iran is now humorously responding to President Obama's request in toy form. “He said he wanted it back, and we will send him one,” joked Reza Kioumarsi of the Ayeh Art Group, which is responsible for the production of the 1/80 scale toy that sells for the equivalent of $4 USD.

[Source: teribon.ir]

Iranian officials are quick to point out that unlike most toys sold in the U.S., these won't be made in China. They'll be produced in Iran using Iranian plastic. The toy replicas will come in a number of different colors and will feature a clear plastic stand with the inscription: "We will put America under our feet.”
 
To add insult to injury, the Ayeh Art Group is said to have reserved a pink replica to send directly to President Obama.

Sources: The Washington Post, ABC News, The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Goal?
By Ryrod on 1/18/2012 5:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, but you're completely ignoring the fact that previous US involvement in Iranian affairs is what has led to their strong anti-US sentiment. A CIA-led coup in the 50s led to the overthrowing of Premier Mossadeq, a much-loved and progressive leader of a parliamentary government, and placed an authoritarian puppet "Shah" in his stead, who brutally ruled the land while serving US interests.


I'm well aware of the history of Iran, but there's a few things that I want to correct about your statement. The Shah was already in power for over a decade when Mossadeq was elected to the Prime Minister position.

Mossadeq wasn't really a huge progressive, as much as he was a nationalist. Mossadeq hated western influence in Iran, especially the influence of Britain and the AIOC. There were also strong feelings of hatred that came from the occupation of Iran during World War II, which was at the hands of the British government, along with Russia.

When Mossadeq decided to nationalize the oil industry, we did what we've always done in the past, protect our economic interests and those of our allies. The US moved in to capture Mossadeq, which left a power vacuum in the nation and Mossadeq assumed the powers of the Prime Minister and used his secret police, the SAVAK, to cripple and destroy any resistance to his rule. We never really put the Shah in power, it was the British and the Russians that did that during World War II because they thought his father supported the Nazis. All the US did was to solidify his power at the top.

However, you are correct that the brutality of the Shah is what led the Ayatollah Khomeini to take power in Iran and turn it into an Islamic Republic. This did lead to an anti-US and anti-western feeling in the country as Khomeini attacked western influence in Iran and labelled it part of the problem.

quote:
Believe it or not, Islamic Extremism and the prominence is enjoys today in the Middle-East is a direct by-product of US intervention in the Middle East and Africa.


This isn't entirely true and I think you are trying to simplify the situation. Islamic Extremism derives primarily from the feeling of displacement (economic and social) in the world. Most extremist leaders are well-educated individuals who feel like the world has turned its back on them so they find other people who feel displaced and recruit them. You could blame the US for that, but you should blame the Bretton Woods pact and globalization more than anything, but I do see the appeal of saying the US is at fault, as opposed to the economic system the US has created and maintained with the help of other nations.

quote:
Do you honestly believe that further meddling is going to improve the situation?


Yes, I do believe that. There are a large number of moderate Muslims in Iran and around the world. Iran is not homogenous in its view that the US and western powers are horrible. There is a reasonably large group of moderate Iranians that would like to see the country return to the time of the Shah when it was more prosperous than it is now. The US would only need to tap into that base of moderate Iranians and provide the support necessary for the country to thrive. This would probably include overthrowing the current government, allowing general elections, providing money and aid to the new government, and allowing the government to maintain its nationalization over the oil fields.

However, given the debacle that we had in Iraq (which don't get me started on), I doubt the US would be willing to give aid to a new Iranian government nor would the US government, under pressure from business interests, would be willing to allow Iran to keep its oil fields under national control.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki