CAP Research Seminar #WW3 Hysteria

Shindel, 2020

Names-- Bobby Padmore

Research Question--
How has the U.S. intervention in Iran affected the lives and attitudes of the iranian people?

Rationale--
American society often portrays war as a one dimensional affair; multiple countries are invested
in a battle to keep order, and it is the responsibility of the government to make sure they prevail while
the american citizens provide their support. But the reality is that the government and media only
choose to focus on the action, not the repercussions. Countless people are stuck in countries that are
dealing with the aftermath of war, but in the case of Iran, it is quite the opposite. Iran finds itself in the
early stages of diplomatic disputes and small instances of military conflict with the United States. It
appears as though the two countries could be approaching a deadly war, possibly even World War Ⅲ. It
is crucial for us to consider not only what this war could mean for us (the american citizens), but for the
people of Iran. The purpose of the question, how has the U.S. intervention in Iran affected the lives and
attitudes of the iranian people, is to reflect upon how historic tensions between the U.S. and Iran have
affected the Iranian people, but to also evaluate how the current generation of Iranians have been
suffering from U.S. influence recently, and what future intervention in Iran could do. By investigating this
question, I hope to end up with a better understanding of the mentality of the Iranian people, but more
importantly, I want to know why they have the feelings and mindset that they do. Possessing this
knowledge will allow me to become a citizen, as I will become a more educated voter and I will have the
ability to better defend my opinions.

Chronology of Questions--
Original Question: How has the U.S. intervention in Iran affected the lives and attitudes of the iranian
people?
List of proceeding questions:
❖ How was the United States first brought into conflict within the Middle East and Iran?
❖ How has the U.S. government supported or opposed the changes in government throughout
time in Iran? What did they do?
❖ How has the destruction of infrastructure in Iran from war affected the lives of the people?
❖ Are inside or outside forces more responsible for the declining Iranian infrastructure?
❖ How has the progressive destabilization of the government in Iran impacted the people?
❖ How has the actions of the Trump administration changed the Iranian peoples’ perception of the
United States?
❖ How did the Iranian people’s attitude towards the regime change after Soleimani’s assination
and Trump's threats afterward?
❖ What effect did the previous Obama era sanctions have on the lives of middle and lower class
Iranians? How will Trump's new sanctions compare?
❖ What is the relative quality of life of those in Iran, and how does that compare to other
countries? How would that change under sanctions?
❖ Why are so many Iranians secretly sending off their children as refugees to western countries?
❖ To what extent are U.S. allies part of the Iran crisis, in terms of contributing to the sanctions and
opposing the regime?
❖ How different is the situation in Iran to those previously in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Synthesis--
I think it is fair to say that at the least, the tensions between the U.S. and Iran are complex, and it
is important that we first understand the primary reasons why we’re there. It began with the 1953 Iranian
coup d’état. Iran’s first elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, had been voted into power, but
Mosaddegh was a fierce nationalist. Mosaddegh ended various trade agreements that the U.S. and U.K.
had made with the Shah, most notably those that gave these countries control over Iranian oil. In 1953,
Kermit Roosevelt lead a C.I.A and M.I.-6 backed coup that overthrew the Prime Minister in favor of the
Shah, who restored the oil deals with the western powers. Five years later, President Eisenhower
supervised a similar operation in Lebanon after the coup in Iraq. In both instances, the U.S. cited its
primary rational as a fear of communist takeover in the Middle East, but looking across all instances of
intervention within the region, it boils down to the United States’ desire to control more natural
resources.
This newest Iranian “threat” was portrayed as a violent act against the U.S., but there is an
argument to be made that what we were told about the incident is not the entire story. In summer of
2019, there was an attack on U.S. owned oil tankers within the Strait of Hormuz, and President Trump
deemed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) responsable. It snowballed into the situation we
faced more recently, where President Trump made the call to assassinate the Iranian president Qasem
Soleimani. Iran reacted to their loss by firing missiles at a U.S. base. From our own American
perspective, President Soleimani’s death was a necessary step in improving America’s foothold in
Iranian affairs. We knew him as a terrorist who had it out for the U.S.; He was a man who’s own people
protested against his leadership. But this portrayal of Soleimani was vastly different from how Iranians
viewed him. Through my research I came to find that Soleimani, like most leaders, had better elements
to his leadership, and some worse. When it came to the economy and addressing social issues, he was
often the most criticized, but Soleimani was an effective military leader. The people valued the
protection he provided them against terrorist and militant groups from Syria and other Middle Eastern
states. When he died, many were conflicted about how they felt. Trump’s response (on twitter of course)
came off as brash and insensitive to many of the people. The one particular tweet where he claimed that
he would destroy fifty-two of their most valued cultural sights crossed a line. It was then that many of
the young, anti-regime Iranians realised that Trump did not care about Iran, its culture, or the wellbeing
of its people. The contrast between Trump and the regime becomes that the regime was at least putting
forth an effort to advance the country’s status. The regime was Iranian, too. Trump, on the other hand
only cared about bullying Iran into dealing oil. In wake of Soleimani’s death, many youth protesters
began to chant “Death to America,” a phase which is commonly misinterpreted as a threat against
America, when in reality, it should actually go something like “Down with the U.S. government.”
It is also crucial to understand Iran as a country. Many Americans have the impression that the
Middle East is a war torn desert; Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt are all kind of there in the same boat
together, right? Absolutely not. While this stereotype may be true of some regions in Afghanistan, Iran
is a developed country. In fact, Iran is the most technologically advanced, modern, and democratic
country in the Middle East. And no, there are not piles of rubble astray everywhere due to war (except
for those caused by the recent earthquakes). The most crucial comparison is that the U.S. and Iran share
an aspect of democracy within their governments. Iran’s regime instates a supreme leader that has
control over all religious and government matters, but men and women have the right to vote for elected
officials. Anti-regime protests are prominent among the youth in Iran, espicallin in Tehran, the country’s
capital. They often protest for economic reform and a more democratic system. Some suggest that if
Trump had not intervened in Iran’s affairs this most recent time, that the anti-regime movement would
have continued to pick up momentum, and that within the next few years, Iran could have possibly
moved towards creating an even more democratic and U.S. friendly government. Essentially, the less
intervention, the better. But Soleimani’s death created a hesitant atmosphere among protesters, and the
movement has been set back since then.
Given President Trump’s most predictable attitude, one could have guessed that matters would
get worse. President Trump decided (after the Iran missile strike on the base) to impose the strictest
economic sanctions that the U.S. have ever set. This is still unraveling into becoming a jurassic issue for
the people. The regime decided to absorb the sanctions as a display of strength, but now the people are
suffering. Gas is more expensive in a community where people heavily rely on it for commutes and
work. Basic food items rose in price. Certain U.S. based leisure products (like phones and candy) have
become rare and expensive to obtain. And worst of all, the purchasing power of the Iranian currency is
going down while the cost of living is increasing. I note this, but it would be ignorant of me to exclude
the fact that President Obama also imposed heavy sanctions on Iran as well. The difference is how
people in Iran perceived Obama. Obama, too, was anti-regime, but Obama acknowledged the progress
of the anti-regime movement and understood the dangers of further intervention. The current situation in
Iran is so bad, that a record number of emigrants from Iran have left the country, and the majority of
them are kids. People of all social classes have lost faith in Iran’s future. Upper class citizens sent their
children to school in the United States, England and other westen countries. Middle and lower class
families often can’t afford this option, so many send off their children in secret to Europe to seek
asylum. There are more Iranian asylum seekers going to Europe right now than from any other Middle
Eastern country. Reasons range from visible corruption within government, to the early effects of
climate change and even the toll that the most recent tariffs are taking on the poor. Most of all, people
feel that the country has no future, and given its past, that mentality is somewhat valid.
The earliest effect of U.S. intervention that is an issue today begins with the new establishment
of the regime (post revolution). When president Rafsanjani took power, the country had a major water
issue. The aquifers were running low, and the old water control system was hurting the agriculture
industry in Iran. Rafsanjani decided to build several dams to give the impression that the government
had control of the crisis. But they were not well built, and dealings with third parties (specifically the
IRGC) corrupted the entire operation. Not only that, but in building the dams, the government also
destroyed most of the natural geographic features that replenished the aquifers. Now Iran is facing a
drought, and the sanctions on imported water just made the situation a bit worse.
I get the impression that our government is incapable of stepping out of the Middle East entirely.
Like in 1953, it is too big of a risk to lose western influence to another major world power,. But our
intervention in Iran has and will cause problems for the people. The middle class is disappearing in this
new, unforgiving economy. They were some of our only allies. When we consider our future actions, we
must consider the stance of the forgin government and that of its people, because it is not always the
same. As much as we fail to acknowledge the culture and lives of these Iranian people, it may surprise
you to find out that they want the same thing as you: a democratic, war free life.

Future Questions to be considered--

❖ How is wealth among social classes distributed in Iran? What makes it so there is such a large
wealth gap?
❖ How effective is the government in creating policies that support the people?
❖ How does the supreme leader of Iran play a role in the country’s corrupted nature versus the
president and other elected officials?
❖ How is the economy of Iran impacted by other western countries such as Canada, the United
Kingdom, Geremant, etc.