5 ms·

It’s worth noting that Iran was a democracy until the 1953, when the US and UK supported a coup to install a corrupt dictator so they could avoid paying oil fee

It’s worth noting that Iran was a democracy until the 1953, when the US and UK supported a coup to install a corrupt dictator so they could avoid paying oil fees. The 1979 Iranian revolution was the pendulum swinging back hard the other way. I’m in no way supporting Iran’s religious extremism or current government, but they are monsters that we created. The coup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat?... Edit: it has been pointed out that the pendulum metaphor isn’t quite right, and that makes sense to me, but I’ll leave it since people have responded to it.

jahnu 4y ago
Classic case of blowback Which reminds me of this great ADF song https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFlhA4e56I&feature=emb_title https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFlhA4e56I&feature=emb_title
itshossein 4y ago
It's way far more complicated than simply a coup. Though it defenitly was a terrible thing to happen. Iran has never had an effective justice system (religous reasons / kings' economic monopolies). Without one, nothing like a democracy is possible. It was democratic just on the paper.
- pm90 4y ago
  Democratic forms of Government don’t just materialize out of thin air. They start off pretty messy with a mix of democratic and un democratic elements. Institutional capacity is then built and strengthened over time. Iran was certainly on a more democratic path then.
  - itshossein 4y ago
    I doubt that. I mean, I see a very little difference. We even had a harsh anti-hijab dress code then. And we still have elections. Perhaps the oil industry made the real difference. As Daron Acemolgu stated beautifully, in a country with an absolute economic power (a family, a corporation, a foreign country, etc) which controls the Army at the same time, there is no hope for a real change. Even a gradual one. It all starts from the moment when a king or a government starts to 'need' their people and give them some real power in return. https://scholar.harvard.edu/jrobinson/publications/economic-origins-dictatorship-and-democracy https://scholar.harvard.edu/jrobinson/publications/economic-...
ncann 4y ago
Nursie 4y ago
AFAICT many student participants in the revolution thought they were fighting to install a relatively liberal democratic system, but when the regime actually fell it was hardline religious groups who were organised enough to fill the power vacuum quickly. So I'm not sure it was so much the pendulum swinging the other way, as an organised group who were poised to take over when chaos ruled. But my understanding is limited, so perhaps my view is poorly informed.
- hairofadog 4y ago
  You may be right about that… maybe less a pendulum but definitely cause and effect.
- ghufran_syed 4y ago
  If only they’d read “the road to serfdom” by hayek, describing why in such situations, “the worst always come out on top”. https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pd...
  - Nursie 4y ago
    Yeah I'm not really sure that's the same thing, it's more about what happens in a power vacuum created during a revolution, rather than being concerned with creeping state power or a general fear of planning or anything that might be considered socialist.
throwaway0asd 4y ago
It is also worth noting the Iranian supreme leaders (there have only been two) are not Ayatollahs. I see these terms falsely conjoined many times in the comments here. Comparatively the Ayatollahs, or specifically the Grand Ayatollahs, are quite moderate compared to the fundamentalists In political power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah The most well known of the Ayatollahs is Ali Al Sistani who doesn’t even live in Iran and has no direct affiliation with the Iranian government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani
- busterarm 4y ago
  > It is also worth noting the Iranian supreme leaders (there have only been two) are not Ayatollahs. I see these terms falsely conjoined many times in the comments here. Comparatively the Ayatollahs, or specifically the Grand Ayatollahs, are quite moderate compared to the fundamentalists In political power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei Yeah..."Mr Death To America" Himself is a moderate... I see why you used a throwaway.
  - implements 4y ago
    I’d told that “Death to X!” is a cultural hyperbole better read as “Down with X!” - sounds terrible to westerners read literally, but isn’t actually that strong.
    - busterarm 4y ago
      Except when you advocate for political violence people are apt to take your words seriously. And this is literally Iran we're talking about here: #1 in state-sponsored terrorism. Intelligence has confirmed that Khamenei has been aware of terrorist plots before they were carried out, such as the Mykonos restaurant assassination. So yes, keep telling us all what a moderate he is.
- biztos 4y ago
bnralt 4y ago
> It’s worth noting that Iran was a democracy until the 1953, when the US and UK supported a coup to install a corrupt dictator This simply wasn't the case. I discuss this in a post below, but by the time Mossadegh was removed he had used a fraudulent plebiscite (claimed a 99.94% victory) to dissolve the parliament he had been feuding with and rule entirely by fiat. The Shah also wasn't installed by the U.S., he had been in power since Russia and the U.K. removed his father during WWII. Here's an interesting letter written by the naval attache to Iran about the internal situation[1], written three months before the Shah's removal. It highlights the complexity of the situation - Mossadegh trying to use the Shah's political powers against parliament, the British interested in curtailing the power of the Shah in favor of the office of the prime minister with the hope that a pro-British prime minister will arise, U.S. opposition to this because they feel the Shah is the only thing thing holding the country together politically. And excerpt: > Ardeshir is aware that Mossadegh is planning to try to force the Shah to sign a Firman to close the Majlis and is fearful that by some means he might come close to success in this. However, in the meantime, intense campaigning revealing Mossadegh’s plan is now being planned and will be evident in a day or two in the newspapers and in the Majlis. If Mossadegh ever attempts to close the Majlis without a Firman from the Shah, Ardeshir feels that this would be Mossadegh’s greatest mistake and with the present strength of the opposition would be almost, literally, fatal to him. > He also mentioned that in the voting for “Speaker” of the Majlis the opposition papers are encouraging the present internal quarrelling within the National Front. At present a bitter struggle is being carried on between Shayegan, Moazami and Razavi to be the National Front candidate for Speaker; this could weaken the National Front considerably. > Ardeshir stated that it is evident to most Iranian observers that the British aim in Iran is as follows: To officially agree that Mossadegh should go, but not to actively, covertly, work to this end, feeling that the strength of the opposition itself will work this out and that there remains a possibility that by a weak change in government the British might be able to control the next government. The number one aim of the British, however, is to weaken the Shah’s powers to intervene in time of crises to the point that at some time in the future when a pro-British Prime Minister appears the most can be made of it. He feels that in spite of the weak character of the Shah such a curtailment of powers would be disastrous to the country and would place the country at the mercy of whatever adventurers might temporarily be in position of political power, and that the country is not yet ready for this. In addition, the only symbol which holds the diverse elements of Iran together is the Shah himself. The actual history of the period is fascinating. It's a shame that it keeps getting reduced to a sound bit that has little connection to reality. [1] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Iran/d217 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Ira...
Eisenstein 4y ago
> but they are monsters that we created. I think we should be careful using wording like that. The Iranians have agency and can do things on their own. Just because the west meddled in things doesn't give us the right to claim the results as ours, be they good or bad.
- medo-bear 4y ago
  sure it does
- msrenee 4y ago
  Well, we took their agency away and removed a government that at least wasn't outright killing women for wearing pants. This is also a great way to produce extremists, which then moved into the power vacuum created by throwing their governing system into chaos. We've done it a number of times in South America as well. I'd say there's enough data points to believe that we punted them into the downwards spiral that they're struggling in now.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    Is it fair to characterize the 1979 revolution as extremist without qualification? We find it extreme by our own standards, but by most accounts Khomeini was very popular in Iran.
    - msrenee 4y ago
      I'm not so much talking about the revolution as I am the extremist groups that have developed and come into power since the revolution. It wasn't a one and done deal. Western intervention got the ball rolling for the development of radicals who were then able to work their way into positions of power.
    - chpatrick 4y ago
      Extreme and popular are two separate things. Many extreme regimes were popular historically.
    - 4y ago
hgsgm 4y ago
drstewart 4y ago
Okay, but why are you blaming the UK when the Romans invaded in the 40s AD? And of course the US was created from the UK. So surely that means it's actually all Italy's fault by your logic. These countries didn't have their own agency.
- hairofadog 4y ago
  I don’t know enough about that period of history, but surely the Roman invasion in the 40’s had some consequences in the following decades for which the Romans could be assigned responsibility?
akhmatova 4y ago
The 1979 Iranian revolution was the pendulum swinging back hard the other way. There's nothing good to say about the 1953 coup - but in no sense was the 1979 revolution a "swing back the other way", let alone a hard swing. If anything it was a swing sideways, to a different (and in the view of many people I know from that beautiful country, substantially worse) form of dictatorship.
the-anarchist 4y ago
Behind every tyrant there's a wealthy European.
refurb 4y ago
The US didn’t install a corrupt dictator. It basically backed groups who were looking to overthrow Mossaddegh, who himself was fighting to stop from being ousted by the Shah (who held that power legitimately). There were already riots in the streets over his rule. He was going to be ousted CIA involvement or not. Plus it’s a bit odd to blame the US for a ruling body who ousted the US backed one. That’s like blaming the US for the Vietnamese Communist party today.
mdp2021 4y ago
> we Careful with that "«we»", Eugene. I am certainly not responsible for the actions of the empowered.
- Koshkin 4y ago
  Generally people are considered responsible for the actions of their governments - at least those that were democratically elected.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Generally people are considered Considered by whom? They must be insane, if they think that the presence of severely imperfect systems of election of candidates makes individuals in a population responsible. Only the use of a non intellectual organ can come to that conclusion. You have just proven, through stating the pervasiveness of lunacy, that the responsibility of the sane can only be limited.
hairofadog 4y ago
Genuinely curious about why this was flagged, if anyone feels like enlightening me so I can be a better citizen here.

jahnu 4y ago

Classic case of blowback Which reminds me of this great ADF song https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFlhA4e56I&feature=emb_title https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFlhA4e56I&feature=emb_title

itshossein 4y ago

It's way far more complicated than simply a coup. Though it defenitly was a terrible thing to happen. Iran has never had an effective justice system (religous reasons / kings' economic monopolies). Without one, nothing like a democracy is possible. It was democratic just on the paper.

pm90 4y ago
Democratic forms of Government don’t just materialize out of thin air. They start off pretty messy with a mix of democratic and un democratic elements. Institutional capacity is then built and strengthened over time. Iran was certainly on a more democratic path then.
- itshossein 4y ago
  I doubt that. I mean, I see a very little difference. We even had a harsh anti-hijab dress code then. And we still have elections. Perhaps the oil industry made the real difference. As Daron Acemolgu stated beautifully, in a country with an absolute economic power (a family, a corporation, a foreign country, etc) which controls the Army at the same time, there is no hope for a real change. Even a gradual one. It all starts from the moment when a king or a government starts to 'need' their people and give them some real power in return. https://scholar.harvard.edu/jrobinson/publications/economic-origins-dictatorship-and-democracy https://scholar.harvard.edu/jrobinson/publications/economic-...

ncann 4y ago

Nursie 4y ago

AFAICT many student participants in the revolution thought they were fighting to install a relatively liberal democratic system, but when the regime actually fell it was hardline religious groups who were organised enough to fill the power vacuum quickly. So I'm not sure it was so much the pendulum swinging the other way, as an organised group who were poised to take over when chaos ruled. But my understanding is limited, so perhaps my view is poorly informed.

hairofadog 4y ago
You may be right about that… maybe less a pendulum but definitely cause and effect.
ghufran_syed 4y ago
If only they’d read “the road to serfdom” by hayek, describing why in such situations, “the worst always come out on top”. https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pd...
- Nursie 4y ago
  Yeah I'm not really sure that's the same thing, it's more about what happens in a power vacuum created during a revolution, rather than being concerned with creeping state power or a general fear of planning or anything that might be considered socialist.

throwaway0asd 4y ago

It is also worth noting the Iranian supreme leaders (there have only been two) are not Ayatollahs. I see these terms falsely conjoined many times in the comments here. Comparatively the Ayatollahs, or specifically the Grand Ayatollahs, are quite moderate compared to the fundamentalists In political power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah The most well known of the Ayatollahs is Ali Al Sistani who doesn’t even live in Iran and has no direct affiliation with the Iranian government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani

busterarm 4y ago
> It is also worth noting the Iranian supreme leaders (there have only been two) are not Ayatollahs. I see these terms falsely conjoined many times in the comments here. Comparatively the Ayatollahs, or specifically the Grand Ayatollahs, are quite moderate compared to the fundamentalists In political power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei Yeah..."Mr Death To America" Himself is a moderate... I see why you used a throwaway.
- implements 4y ago
  I’d told that “Death to X!” is a cultural hyperbole better read as “Down with X!” - sounds terrible to westerners read literally, but isn’t actually that strong.
  - busterarm 4y ago
    Except when you advocate for political violence people are apt to take your words seriously. And this is literally Iran we're talking about here: #1 in state-sponsored terrorism. Intelligence has confirmed that Khamenei has been aware of terrorist plots before they were carried out, such as the Mykonos restaurant assassination. So yes, keep telling us all what a moderate he is.
biztos 4y ago

bnralt 4y ago

> It’s worth noting that Iran was a democracy until the 1953, when the US and UK supported a coup to install a corrupt dictator This simply wasn't the case. I discuss this in a post below, but by the time Mossadegh was removed he had used a fraudulent plebiscite (claimed a 99.94% victory) to dissolve the parliament he had been feuding with and rule entirely by fiat. The Shah also wasn't installed by the U.S., he had been in power since Russia and the U.K. removed his father during WWII. Here's an interesting letter written by the naval attache to Iran about the internal situation[1], written three months before the Shah's removal. It highlights the complexity of the situation - Mossadegh trying to use the Shah's political powers against parliament, the British interested in curtailing the power of the Shah in favor of the office of the prime minister with the hope that a pro-British prime minister will arise, U.S. opposition to this because they feel the Shah is the only thing thing holding the country together politically. And excerpt: > Ardeshir is aware that Mossadegh is planning to try to force the Shah to sign a Firman to close the Majlis and is fearful that by some means he might come close to success in this. However, in the meantime, intense campaigning revealing Mossadegh’s plan is now being planned and will be evident in a day or two in the newspapers and in the Majlis. If Mossadegh ever attempts to close the Majlis without a Firman from the Shah, Ardeshir feels that this would be Mossadegh’s greatest mistake and with the present strength of the opposition would be almost, literally, fatal to him. > He also mentioned that in the voting for “Speaker” of the Majlis the opposition papers are encouraging the present internal quarrelling within the National Front. At present a bitter struggle is being carried on between Shayegan, Moazami and Razavi to be the National Front candidate for Speaker; this could weaken the National Front considerably. > Ardeshir stated that it is evident to most Iranian observers that the British aim in Iran is as follows: To officially agree that Mossadegh should go, but not to actively, covertly, work to this end, feeling that the strength of the opposition itself will work this out and that there remains a possibility that by a weak change in government the British might be able to control the next government. The number one aim of the British, however, is to weaken the Shah’s powers to intervene in time of crises to the point that at some time in the future when a pro-British Prime Minister appears the most can be made of it. He feels that in spite of the weak character of the Shah such a curtailment of powers would be disastrous to the country and would place the country at the mercy of whatever adventurers might temporarily be in position of political power, and that the country is not yet ready for this. In addition, the only symbol which holds the diverse elements of Iran together is the Shah himself. The actual history of the period is fascinating. It's a shame that it keeps getting reduced to a sound bit that has little connection to reality. [1] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Iran/d217 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Ira...

Eisenstein 4y ago

> but they are monsters that we created. I think we should be careful using wording like that. The Iranians have agency and can do things on their own. Just because the west meddled in things doesn't give us the right to claim the results as ours, be they good or bad.

medo-bear 4y ago
sure it does
msrenee 4y ago
Well, we took their agency away and removed a government that at least wasn't outright killing women for wearing pants. This is also a great way to produce extremists, which then moved into the power vacuum created by throwing their governing system into chaos. We've done it a number of times in South America as well. I'd say there's enough data points to believe that we punted them into the downwards spiral that they're struggling in now.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  Is it fair to characterize the 1979 revolution as extremist without qualification? We find it extreme by our own standards, but by most accounts Khomeini was very popular in Iran.
  - msrenee 4y ago
    I'm not so much talking about the revolution as I am the extremist groups that have developed and come into power since the revolution. It wasn't a one and done deal. Western intervention got the ball rolling for the development of radicals who were then able to work their way into positions of power.
  - chpatrick 4y ago
    Extreme and popular are two separate things. Many extreme regimes were popular historically.
  - 4y ago

hgsgm 4y ago

drstewart 4y ago

Okay, but why are you blaming the UK when the Romans invaded in the 40s AD? And of course the US was created from the UK. So surely that means it's actually all Italy's fault by your logic. These countries didn't have their own agency.

hairofadog 4y ago
I don’t know enough about that period of history, but surely the Roman invasion in the 40’s had some consequences in the following decades for which the Romans could be assigned responsibility?

akhmatova 4y ago

The 1979 Iranian revolution was the pendulum swinging back hard the other way. There's nothing good to say about the 1953 coup - but in no sense was the 1979 revolution a "swing back the other way", let alone a hard swing. If anything it was a swing sideways, to a different (and in the view of many people I know from that beautiful country, substantially worse) form of dictatorship.

the-anarchist 4y ago

Behind every tyrant there's a wealthy European.

refurb 4y ago

The US didn’t install a corrupt dictator. It basically backed groups who were looking to overthrow Mossaddegh, who himself was fighting to stop from being ousted by the Shah (who held that power legitimately). There were already riots in the streets over his rule. He was going to be ousted CIA involvement or not. Plus it’s a bit odd to blame the US for a ruling body who ousted the US backed one. That’s like blaming the US for the Vietnamese Communist party today.

mdp2021 4y ago

> we Careful with that "«we»", Eugene. I am certainly not responsible for the actions of the empowered.

Koshkin 4y ago
Generally people are considered responsible for the actions of their governments - at least those that were democratically elected.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Generally people are considered Considered by whom? They must be insane, if they think that the presence of severely imperfect systems of election of candidates makes individuals in a population responsible. Only the use of a non intellectual organ can come to that conclusion. You have just proven, through stating the pervasiveness of lunacy, that the responsibility of the sane can only be limited.

hairofadog 4y ago

Genuinely curious about why this was flagged, if anyone feels like enlightening me so I can be a better citizen here.