While not presented in multiplayer mode, almost every map is set in the country Iran, and we all know there's a group of insurgents called PLR involved in almost every mission throughout the campaign. But who are these people exactly? other than a bunch of face-covered terrorists, there's little to none info DICE's shown us about.
In the campaign the PLR overthrown the current government, which was most likely the Islamic Republic of Iran, which in real life, is labeled by Bush's administration as the "Axis of Evil". So when such "evil" authority gets to be overtaken by a "liberation force", the U.S government should be more than happy, and they probably, as always, have their fingerprints all over in the coup as well.
It's obvious that Iran had a democratic government in the short period after WWII, but was quickly overthrown by CIA in 1953, giving back power to the pro-US king, Shah Pahlavi. Until 1979's coup, there were 26 years where Iranian people had limited to none democracy or freedom at all, in exchange of total westernization.
And worse, the U.S government labeled Iran now as an Evil country, imposing economic sanctions on it.
The reasons?
it's like being in the middle of a sandwich for Iranian people, as both the Islamic republic and the United States are working against their wellbeing, not to mention the hatred against Muslims is raising throughout the western world.
There might have been some laughable stereotypes DICE did in their creation of PLR, like the Taliban styled execution of Sgt. Miller, the cheesy speech from Faruk Al-Bashir, and of course Solomon's Hollywoodish Nuclear plot. But it did point out one thing - The United States Government, will never let Iranian people have their days.. No matter it's PLR, Islamic Republic, or some democratic government... as long as they are threatening the U.S's influence in said region and work against its interests.
Apparently the U.S government is still educating its people with fear - fear of some ideology, fear of some new threat from distant regions, as that gives the government required power, and legal rights to perform their agendas.
The only time when it all come to an end, would definitely not be when the real PLR take over, but only when American People wake up and use their power and rights in hand, which is more and more unlikely to realize in our generation and the next to come.
But on the contrary, the U.S engaged PLR right after the coup and invaded Iran. Why would that happen?
Let's take a look at modern history of Iran:
And the 1979 coup, claimed by later the supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini, promised to restore democracy, but ultimately became theocratic, and such tradition still remains today. Though compared to the previous government, Iranian people have gained more in freedom of speech and political rights. It's still nowhere near the state of pre CIA coup era.
And worse, the U.S government labeled Iran now as an Evil country, imposing economic sanctions on it.
The reasons?
1) Iran launched their nuclear program for power generating. (Even though Iran has stated "It is true that Iran has neighbors with abundant nuclear weapons, but this does not mean that Iran must follow suit.")
2) Iran has been criticized for it's human rights issues, which is indeed in need of improvement but at the same time, Saudi Arabia has more severe problems in that matter but gets nearly no punishment from the U.S at all
it's like being in the middle of a sandwich for Iranian people, as both the Islamic republic and the United States are working against their wellbeing, not to mention the hatred against Muslims is raising throughout the western world.
So under such circumstances there came the PLR, to overthrow the theocratic Islamic republic, drive away the western forces, and secure their country, for their people. And what would be the responses inside the U.S government on this that they engaged Iran? Here are 3 possible way of thinking:
1) PLR turned out to be another dictating authority, theocratically or not
2) Iran became truly democratic, but refused to bow down to the west, like on the nuclear program
3) Iran became truly democratic, but nations like Israel & the U.S, British felt insecure, like how PLR entered Iraq to create an Iraqi coup.
The above three scenarios actually occurred in the 17th Century Europe, when Napoleon Bonaparte, the Italian-French, became the dictator, later the emperor of France, threatening other king's domestic power, and even directly their countries.
There might have been some laughable stereotypes DICE did in their creation of PLR, like the Taliban styled execution of Sgt. Miller, the cheesy speech from Faruk Al-Bashir, and of course Solomon's Hollywoodish Nuclear plot. But it did point out one thing - The United States Government, will never let Iranian people have their days.. No matter it's PLR, Islamic Republic, or some democratic government... as long as they are threatening the U.S's influence in said region and work against its interests.Apparently the U.S government is still educating its people with fear - fear of some ideology, fear of some new threat from distant regions, as that gives the government required power, and legal rights to perform their agendas.
The only time when it all come to an end, would definitely not be when the real PLR take over, but only when American People wake up and use their power and rights in hand, which is more and more unlikely to realize in our generation and the next to come.
The real threat is not PLR or Russian, but ignorance and fear.
Nicely explained and well thought out.
ReplyDeleteWOW! Congrats on well done article!
ReplyDeleteok, let me say this its in americas history that we go places that we dont need to.
ReplyDeletebut when a group that over throws a gov gets nukes thats when the real threat starts.
the plr stand for the peoples liberation and resistance.
the plr is just a name of a terror group. its just like isis. anothe terror group
the terrorists name aside bf3s story was a likely event to happen with iran.
the plr is just a name and in the cut scenes the guys say this about solomon "he's an over seas asset and he has been for years we put him next to al bashir for information" dismissing the ffact that it was the plr and blamed the russians.
but in terms of story i think bf3s was miles more realistic then bf4s.
the superpowers in real life would launch a nuke before they ever thought of sending troops or before they ever thought of invading the country. super power vs super power would not play out ike it does in bf4.
Please, the PLR is far from the likes of real life groups such as ISIL. The PLR is more akin to groups like the People's Mojahedin of Iran (also known as PMOI or MEK).
DeleteI do not know what you mean by "BF3's story was a likely event to happen with Iran". What exactly do you mean? The earthquake that destabilized the country? The subsequent coup conducted by Faruk al-Bashir and his PLR group? The US response? "The PLR is just a name". Names have meaning, especially as it pertains to political/insurgent organizations. We can derive from "People's Liberation and Resistance", or, in Persian, "Azadibakhsh va Moghavemat-e Khalgh" (PLR, or I guess AMK in this case, haha), is a political resistance group that sees itself as a liberation force. Liberation from what exactly? Who knows. Perhaps US meddling in the Middle East, perhaps the Iranian regime, whatever, that is aside the point.
Of course, while BF3 seems more plausible, it is still heavily set in fiction. The events that had to transpire in the game's fiction for the things to turn out the way they did is a real big stretch. The earthquake, someone like Solomon (who has quite an interesting backstory), etc. In regards to assuming that superpowers "launching nukes before military action", ehh... I don' think so. Nuclear weapons are often a last resort, with many nuclear nations (like China, a country involved in BF4) holding a "no first use" policy, and if not outright expressed in policy, then one can include Russia and the U.S. as expressing a defensive use for nuclear weapons.
ok, let me say this its in americas history that we go places that we dont need to.
ReplyDeletebut when a group that over throws a gov gets nukes thats when the real threat starts.
the plr stand for the peoples liberation and resistance.
the plr is just a name of a terror group. its just like isis. anothe terror group
the terrorists name aside bf3s story was a likely event to happen with iran.
the plr is just a name and in the cut scenes the guys say this about solomon "he's an over seas asset and he has been for years we put him next to al bashir for information" dismissing the ffact that it was the plr and blamed the russians.
but in terms of story i think bf3s was miles more realistic then bf4s.
the superpowers in real life would launch a nuke before they ever thought of sending troops or before they ever thought of invading the country. super power vs super power would not play out ike it does in bf4.
Please, the PLR is far from the likes of real life groups such as ISIL. The PLR is more akin to groups like the People's Mojahedin of Iran (also known as PMOI or MEK).
DeleteI do not know what you mean by "BF3's story was a likely event to happen with Iran". What exactly do you mean? The earthquake that destabilized the country? The subsequent coup conducted by Faruk al-Bashir and his PLR group? The US response? "The PLR is just a name". Names have meaning, especially as it pertains to political/insurgent organizations. We can derive from "People's Liberation and Resistance", or, in Persian, "Azadibakhsh va Moghavemat-e Khalgh" (PLR, or I guess AMK in this case, haha), is a political resistance group that sees itself as a liberation force. Liberation from what exactly? Who knows. Perhaps US meddling in the Middle East, perhaps the Iranian regime, whatever, that is aside the point.
Of course, while BF3 seems more plausible, it is still heavily set in fiction. The events that had to transpire in the game's fiction for the things to turn out the way they did is a real big stretch. The earthquake, someone like Solomon (who has quite an interesting backstory), etc. In regards to assuming that superpowers "launching nukes before military action", ehh... I don' think so. Nuclear weapons are often a last resort, with many nuclear nations (like China, a country involved in BF4) holding a "no first use" policy, and if not outright expressed in policy, then one can include Russia and the U.S. as expressing a defensive use for nuclear weapons.
ignorance and fear is literally the only reason why isis eve exist. the ore people that fear them the more powerful they seem. they are not that big of a threat if we just sent troops after them but we wont. all they do is threaten the us and the gov just does bombing runs n them. you wont win that way. and its showing because isis still exists. the only way to defeat an army is with another army.
ReplyDeleteThe reason groups like Daesh (ISIL) exist is because of interventionist foreign policies by Western governments. Iraq under Saddam's rule was a country with no room for terrorists to take over. While he was no doubt a tyrant, he was also a staunch opponent of extremism. This cannot be denied.
DeleteYou are right about continuous bombing campaigns failing to achieve any real goal. While the United States and its allies created this mess, it should be the responsibility of the regional governments (like Iran and Syria) to fight and eradicate these terrorist groups, which they are doing (and effectively). U.S. could support with logistics, but of course, our skewed policies in the Middle East make the supporters of ISIL our allies (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Persian Gulf states) and the actual enemies of ISIL our enemies (Iran, Syria).
Your article, while well-written, is wrong on some of the game's fiction.
ReplyDeleteThe United States invaded Iran because the PLR took over after the earthquake left the region destabilized.
Furthermore, while the game opens in Sulaymaniyah in Iraq (with Iranian PLR presence there), it is not indicative of the goals of the PLR in Iraq. The political motivations of the group are left ambiguous, but we can derive from its name that it is a political resistance group, resistance to what, is left open for interpretation (US meddling, Iranian regime, etc.).
I would not be so quick to call them "face-covered terrorists", that is quite a caricatured statement.
The "cheesy short speech" by Faruk al-Bashir (leader of PLR) is really impactful, if you ask me. It really sums up the decades of United States intervention in the Middle East, both militarily and politically.
However, you make some great points on how US foreign policy labels those who would benefit the US more as "enemies" (Iran) and those are basically working against us via proxies as "allies" (Saudi Arabia). These are indicative of the complex political relationships between the West and the Middle East. Your closing sentence is pretty powerful too. Great job.