4 ms·

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 se

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.