5 ms·
> According to Chomsky, Iran has been under sanctions and constant threat of being bombed by US & Israel since 1965. The roots of the conflict date back to the
by MichaelCollins 4y ago
> According to Chomsky, Iran has been under sanctions and constant threat of being bombed by US & Israel since 1965. The roots of the conflict date back to the decades following the WWII. Its democratic governments were overthrown in 60s and 70s (they sought independence, not following US orders), replaced with Shah.
You've got some simple facts wrong. Iran's democratic government was overthrown by the CIA and MI6 in 1953, not in the 60s or 70s. And it's not "according to Chomsky", though I'm sure he says it too. The primary source for this is the US Government, they declassified some of the documents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
- googlryas 4y agoTheir analysis, which is typical of someone quoting Chomsky, also pretends as if Iran would be a secular democracy today if the US/UK merely had not meddled. The fact is, the mullahs and the ultra-religious were already on the rise in Iran since at least the 1920s, and while they initially supported Mossadegh, by the time of the coup, they were actively moving against him. It seems likely they would have overthrown whoever was in their way - whether it was Mossadegh or the Shah.
- 22SAS 4y agoAfghanistan in the 70's is proof of that. When the cities started modernizing, including education more women and giving them more freedoms, the people in the countryside and the clerics got pissed off and deemed it un-Islamic. Shah or not, Iran would have had a revolution either way.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoIt's a counterfactual, there is no "proof" of it at all.
- 22SAS 4y agoSure sure. You keep believing that they'd be a great example of a functional democracy.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoIf the coup was an inevitability then the CIA and MI6 got their hands dirty for nothing. Personally, I'll err on the side of giving them credit for the things they did, rather than absolving them of blame because of the way things might have gone.
- triceratops 4y agoWe have no way to know for sure. Turkey managed to keep the religious hardliners out of power for nearly a century. Even now the people in power there are nowhere near the same as Iranian leadership. And there's still a chance Turkish democracy may recover.
- yakak 4y agoIf anticommunist religious fundamentalists were an inevitable force of nature then the US and UK over paid.
- tveita 4y agoWell let's have a quick look at https://uis.unesco.org/en/country/af https://uis.unesco.org/en/country/af vs. https://uis.unesco.org/en/country/ir https://uis.unesco.org/en/country/ir. Afghanistan: Literacy rate 15-24 (2015): m 80.4%, f 29% Tertiary education rate (2020): m 15.1%, f 5.8% Iran: Literacy rate 15-24 (2016): m 98.3%, f 97.9% Tertiary education rate (2020): m 59.2%, f 57.2% I think your argument is completely invalid.
- 22SAS 4y agoThe point was about being a modern democracy and not just literacy rates. You're cherry-picking to prove your point. Afghan literacy rates are abysmal because the Taliban follows a much more stricter interpretation of Islam than Iran does. Also, Iran wasn't invaded by two superpowers within the span of two decades like Afghanistan was.
- xwolfi 4y agoOh glad the fact the US decides of other countries government isnt at all a factor then !
- aborsy 4y agoYou are right, I probably mixed up 1955 with 1965. Yes, it was Mosadegh’s parliamentary regime in 1953. I corrected the error, am refined the wording. Thanks for linking.
- njarboe 4y agoIt is customary when you edit your comment and make substantial changes that you put a note at the bottom identifying the edit (see below). This helps avoid people being confused when they read a comment referring to or correcting the original comment. edit:Changed data to 1953