35 ms·

> but the new government was definitely chosen by the Iranian people The 79 coup was part of a revolution led by a minority group of religious radicals, with s

> but the new government was definitely chosen by the Iranian people The 79 coup was part of a revolution led by a minority group of religious radicals, with support from some leftist groups (which they later regretted, obviously). They were certainly not chosen by "the Iranian people".

totalZero 6y ago
> Led by a minority group Whom did they lead? That's the question here. You're conveniently forgetting millions of protestors and several years of political conflict. There is no parallel between the removal of Mosaddegh in 53 and the revolution in 79, because the former was orchestrated by Western powers while the latter was pressed by a groundswell of support within the nation, especially among students. The fact that the leaders turned out to be bad has nothing to do with the way that they came to power in the first place.
- monoideism 6y ago
  First, I never claimed there was a parallel between 53 and 79. I agree the two were very different. But regarding your other claim: if some random group had seized power during the Green movement and its massive protests, that would have been the decision of the Iranian people? Don't get me wrong, I supported the Green movement, but I would never claim - if some random coup had happened during that time - that it was a democratic process. That won't happen until free and fair elections.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    > First, I never claimed there was a parallel between 53 and 79. I agree the two were very different. The historians referenced in the article did: > Only later does Stewart confront the geopolitical implications and talk to Middle Eastern historians who blame his father for what later unfolded in Iran: no coup against prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, no tyrannical Shah, no Islamic revolution in 1979. Stewart hotly disagrees. The removal of Mosaddegh was a four-day affair where a bunch of politicians were paid off. The removal of Mohammad Reza Shah was a two-year affair involving millions of Iranian protesters and thousands of casualties. This stark contrast is the basis for all of my comments in this thread.
refurb 6y ago
It’s clearly not a democratic process, but it doesn’t sound that different than US presidential elections. We say “chosen by the American people”, but that doesn’t assume 100% of people voted for him/her.
- monoideism 6y ago
  > but it doesn’t sound that different than US presidential elections Huh? It was a coup, not an election.
  - refurb 6y ago
    I’m referring to the claim “not chosen by the people” because not everyone supported the new regime. Not everyone supports the current US President.

totalZero 6y ago

> Led by a minority group Whom did they lead? That's the question here. You're conveniently forgetting millions of protestors and several years of political conflict. There is no parallel between the removal of Mosaddegh in 53 and the revolution in 79, because the former was orchestrated by Western powers while the latter was pressed by a groundswell of support within the nation, especially among students. The fact that the leaders turned out to be bad has nothing to do with the way that they came to power in the first place.

monoideism 6y ago
First, I never claimed there was a parallel between 53 and 79. I agree the two were very different. But regarding your other claim: if some random group had seized power during the Green movement and its massive protests, that would have been the decision of the Iranian people? Don't get me wrong, I supported the Green movement, but I would never claim - if some random coup had happened during that time - that it was a democratic process. That won't happen until free and fair elections.
- totalZero 6y ago
  > First, I never claimed there was a parallel between 53 and 79. I agree the two were very different. The historians referenced in the article did: > Only later does Stewart confront the geopolitical implications and talk to Middle Eastern historians who blame his father for what later unfolded in Iran: no coup against prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, no tyrannical Shah, no Islamic revolution in 1979. Stewart hotly disagrees. The removal of Mosaddegh was a four-day affair where a bunch of politicians were paid off. The removal of Mohammad Reza Shah was a two-year affair involving millions of Iranian protesters and thousands of casualties. This stark contrast is the basis for all of my comments in this thread.

refurb 6y ago

It’s clearly not a democratic process, but it doesn’t sound that different than US presidential elections. We say “chosen by the American people”, but that doesn’t assume 100% of people voted for him/her.

monoideism 6y ago
> but it doesn’t sound that different than US presidential elections Huh? It was a coup, not an election.
- refurb 6y ago
  I’m referring to the claim “not chosen by the people” because not everyone supported the new regime. Not everyone supports the current US President.