What's Iran's problem anyway?

Given the extent to which Iran and our stance toward them has permeated the news in the last few months, and particularly since our interpretation of their intentions and viewpoints plays a pivotal role in how we as individuals and collectively as a political entity view the Iran Nuclear Deal, I think it's worthwhile to indulge a little history lesson on relations between Iran and the United States.

Let's start with a broad summary of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Iran existed as a monarchy ruled by an authoritarian Shah; caught geographically between major world powers in Europe and Russia, Iran's leaders survived and thrived primarily by auctioning off valuable resources to more powerful countries and negotiating percentages for themselves.  The country limped along as one of the most impoverished in the world, while its natural capital went to enriching the ruling leader and foreign governments and corporations.  This caused increasing anger domestically, and over time popular protest forced the creation and enforcement of a new Constitution that established a Parliament, a prime minister, and restrictions on the authority of the Shah.  Imperial powers (Britain and Russia) tried to sabotage it initially (because it could potentially inhibit their ability to plunder Iran's wealth), and eventually backed a military coup to topple the constitutional government and back a new shah, Reza Khan, in 1921.

Reza ruled with an iron fist, suppressing dissent and initially re-establishing friendly relations with the larger powers.  However, it gradually became apparent that Britain and Russia's puppet Shah intended to play the two against each other.  The final straw was in World War II, when he insisted on maintaining neutrality in the conflict.  Britain and Russia invaded Iran and took control of its oil infrastructure in order to support the fight against Nazi Germany, deposing Iran's leader for the second time (albeit one they propped up in the first place).

The messy aftermath of World War II involved the collapse of any semblance of an Iranian government, the establishment of two proxy states by Russia, a scramble for territory and resources between several major powers, and finally the re-establishment of the Iranian government under the 1906 Constitution by the Iranian military with backing by Britain and the United States, along with guaranteed contracts for Iran's resources going to American and British companies.

The Iranian people elected Mohammed Mossadegh as their prime minister, who responded to the people's cries that oil contracts negotiated in a period of Civl War precipitated by imperial invasion shouldn't be taken at face value.  Mossadegh asked the western oil companies to open their books so the Iranians could take a look at the numbers and re-negotiate contracts more fairly, so that the Iranian people might finally benefit from the country's riches.

The oil companies refused; the Iranian government decided to nationalize them in response.  The US and British governments orchestrated and provided military support for another coup which deposed Mossadegh and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life; his successor, hand-picked and persuaded to take power by military officials of the United States, was the son of the last deposed Shah.  Mohammed Reza Pahlavi ruled Iran for the next twenty-some-odd years with a special blend of brutal oppression backed by the United States and Britain, whose support had been conditioned on generous oil contracts for British and American companies.  The status quo of the Nineteenth Century had been firmly re-established.

Fast-forward: years of oppression, popular uprising, Iranian Revolution, and that brings us to the Eighties.  One year after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the country was invaded by Iraq - partially because of ongoing border disputes, and partially because Saddam was afraid that a democratic revolution next door might inspire his own Shia citizens.  The United States found common cause with Saddam, one of our most dependable allies - our government supplied him with both weapons and intelligence when it became clear that Iraq would lose without our support in 1982.  US backing prolonged what might have been a two year conflict for another six years, making it both the longest conventional military conflict in the entire twentieth century, and extremely costly financially and in terms of human life.  Iran lost more than one million people during the war - more than double the total US casualties during World War II.

So, to recap, for those of you that need bullet points:

• The Iranian people have been ruled by abusive, tyrannical monarchs for hundreds of years that operated as profiteers, enriching themselves by selling the country's resources to Western governments and corporations (primarily, Britain, the United States and Russia)
• The West overthrew the first Iranian leader to stand up to them, and literally invaded the country and just started stealing its oil
• Less than ten years after leaving Iran in the aftermath of WWII, the United States and Britain overthrew Iran's democratic government and reinstated a tyrant because the tyrant would give us juicy oil contracts and the democratic prime minister wouldn't
• We provided the military hardware the led to the most horrible military conflict ever experienced by Iran, again to suppress the expression of their own democratic values

Even shorter summary:

• Western governments, and the United States in particular (since the 1940's) have repeatedly tried to quash any attempt at democratic expression by the people of Iran; we've treated these living human beings as totally expendable collateral damage, and we've done purely out of greed, in order to enrich the American one percent.

If I were Iranian, I'd be chanting "Death to America."  Frankly, given the history between the two countries, I think it's astonishing that nearly 40% of Iranians favor re-establishing full diplomatic relations with the United States.  Apparently they're a kinder, more forgiving people than we are.