6 ms·

> Security forces have responded with a deadly crackdown to the protests, among the strongest challenges to the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution ended

> Security forces have responded with a deadly crackdown to the protests, among the strongest challenges to the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution ended 2,500 years of monarchy. Iran had a democratically elected government in 1953 when the US and UK overthrew their democracy, and installed the dictator/monarch, the Shaw. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-rol... https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-08-08/1953-iran-coup-new-us-documents-confirm-british-approached-us-late https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-08-08/1953...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
luckylion 4y ago
The monarchy hadn't stopped, and the Shah was still the monarch before, during and after Mosaddegh's time as Prime Minister. The Shah got more powers concentrated on him during the coup d'état, but you make it sound like the monarchy hadn't existed before 1953.
0xDEF 4y ago
That is true. And then the West pushed the Shah to losen up control and become less authoritarian which enabled the Islamic Revolution. There is a reason a lot of countries verbally lash out when the US/EU or Western NGOs accuse them of being too authoritarian. The alternative to authoritarianism is often worse. The CIA should stop meddling in other countries. But the same goes for Western governments and NGOs. The latter is often worse than the former.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  The Shah was dying of cancer, his own officials thought he was weak and vacillating
  - moremetadata 4y ago
    Its amazing how training and data can manipulate those around you. Google I'm feeling lucky and Little Britain Computer say's no!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
varjag 4y ago
It was still a monarchy during the 1953 ousting of Shah.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  The Shah was the monarch and wasn't ousted until 79. The 1953 coup replaced the system where a democratically elected head of government, Mosaddegh, ruled under the head of state, Shah Pahlavi, with a system where the Shah appoints the head of government.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    How can a monarch and a separate head of government exist at the same time? Sounds like the Shah called the shots.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      Roughly the same way King Charles III is the head of state for the United Kingdom while Rishi Sunak is the head of government.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        As far as I understand, King Charles exists for the purposes of being a tourist attraction, and has no power. Was it the same with the Shah? If a monarch can overrule the “head of government”, then the head of government is not really the head, right?
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        The Shah needed the military to help him remove the head of government in 1953. He was technically at the top, but really the prime minister held more power until the coup King Charles has little actual power, but a ton of theoretical power. If he somehow convinced the military to back him (and he would probably need all of NATO's support) he could do whatever he wanted in the UK too.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cm2187 4y ago
A democracy that was turning into a dictatorship, just like under Allende, Chavez or Castillo. And a monarchy isn't incompatible with a democracy.
- anthk 4y ago
  Allende? Are you a Pinochetist by the way?
- bailoon 4y ago
  [flagged]
- kieselguhr_kid 4y ago
  Claiming that Allende was destroying democracy is totally ahistorical.
  - 332211 4y ago
    Didn't he shoot himself with a gun given to him as a gift? By a certain Fidel Castro? Who was something of a totalitarian dictator? I mean, the leader of a democratic country having a totalitarian dictator as a dear fried doesn't prove he was plotting to destroy democracy, but it's kinda suggestive. And almost inevitably, by the time you get real proof, it's going to be too late to do anything about it.
api 4y ago
This was the “if you can fog glass and are anti-communist we support you” era. A lot of the bad stuff from the 20th century stems from hysterical overreaction to communism.
- axlee 4y ago
  I mean communist propagation led to the Khmer Rouge, Cuba or North Korea, so I'm not sure the alternative was better.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - api 4y ago
    There were certainly awful communists. Problem is we supported a lot of anti-communists who were no better. Also I don’t think you can draw moral equivalence between Castro and Pol Pot. One of these was far far worse than the other.
  - hectorlorenzo 4y ago
    Fierce anti-communism led to Franco, Pinochet, and Osama bin Laden. We can call it even.
  - anthk 4y ago
    Communists fought the Khmer Rouge, and these Khmers were backed by the US first.
- dweekly 4y ago
  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" might be one of the most common and yet painfully misguided pillars of statecraft. To wit: this is a natural outcome of a belief that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys because in that case "good == !!good". But the world is much more in thrall to Interests, which have higher dimensionality than a singular axis of Goodness, and besides, very few people (and fewer states) self-identify as "evil". See also: "Are We The Baddies?"
enkid 4y ago
The monarch wasn't installed in that there was a monarch in the Iran before 1953, and it wasn't really all that much of a democracy at the time. Its not like Iran was a well running democracy, then the US overthrew it's president and set up a monarch. I'm not defending the US's actions,just pointing out your comment seems to be implying Iran didn't have a monarch and then the US installed one. It's more like the US supported one part of the government in not undertaking necessary reforms, even though those reforms were popular, which then shifted power away from another part of the government.
- nashashmi 4y ago
  You are correct. Iran’s first attempt at a democracy was in 1905. But that was also overthrown by British influence and Islamic cleric support. It was later in 1953 that they had pseudo democracy.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  The Shaw had tried to take back power that had passed to the democratically elected portion of government earlier in 1953. This was unpopular, and he was forced to flee. After the US and UK led coup removed Mosadedeq, they brought the Shaw back to Iran, and installed him as ruler. In return, the Shaw repealed the legislation that Mosaddeq had spearheaded to nationalize Iran's oil fields. The Shaw was in exile at the time of the US and UK led coup.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    You're leaving out the fact that Mosaddegh was trying to set himself up as the dictator of Iran. In 1952, he began invoking emergency powers and arresting his opponents, and in 1953, shortly before the coup that put the Shah back in power, he dissolved the Iranian Parliament, justified by a referendum in which 99.9% of votes were in favor (probably because votes were cast in public and voters were intimidated - no fair election has an outcome like that). That was the start of the power struggle and the CIA wasn't even involved yet. The Shah issued a royal order dismissing Mosaddegh as Prime Minister (an action legally allowed by the Iranian constitution at the time), but Mosaddegh refused to step down and arrested the commander of the Shah's Imperial Guard, who had delivered the royal order. That's when the Shah fled to Baghdad and accepted US help. So you see, he was not in "exile" when the struggle began (in fact, he was only out of the country for a few days); he fled only after Mosaddegh arrested the commander of his Imperial Guard. You also left out the fact that the actual coup was carried out by Iranian citizens and Iranian military forces whose leaders were loyal to the Shah. The CIA assisted, but their role in the whole thing has been exaggerated. Some portray the CIA as an omnipotent mastermind responsible for everything that happens in the world, but usually, as in this case, they're simply taking sides in existing power struggles.
ivraatiems 4y ago
Well, I guess since the US did a bad thing one time we'd better give these nice religious authoritarians a pass, huh? Though I'll agree the way it's phrased in the submitted article is misleading, your comment mostly comes off as needless whataboutism.
- bailoon 4y ago
  [flagged]
- xbmcuser 4y ago
  They are doing it again in Pakistan currently for the US democracy is not important as long as the monarchy or military dictator tow the line. Western media almost silence against the killing of journalists torture, arrests of politicians assassination attempts shows the true face of western democracies. If the arrest and murders are done by powers in countries that say what US wants then there is media silence.
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    And that's bad, but what does it have to do with oppression by Iran against its own people?
    - xbmcuser 4y ago
      Someone says that part of the blame of what is happening in Iran lies with USA as they derail democracies that don't follow their agenda which leads to what we are seeing in Iran. Another guy said that USA might have made a mistake in the past but I replied that they are still doing the same stupid shit ie what is happening in Pakistan. Where a democracy that was taking root was derailed because the political party in power did not want to fight wars or allow other countries to use it soil for such ie USA. Now Pakistan is at a ledge where if the Pakistan military which is being supported by the US in removing a popular democratic leader. Hundreds of ordinary people were arrested and tortured but no noise from the west and they are moving towards a similar situation that is happening in Iran and US has its hands in it.
- 4y ago
slim 4y ago
the Shah

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

luckylion 4y ago

The monarchy hadn't stopped, and the Shah was still the monarch before, during and after Mosaddegh's time as Prime Minister. The Shah got more powers concentrated on him during the coup d'état, but you make it sound like the monarchy hadn't existed before 1953.

0xDEF 4y ago

That is true. And then the West pushed the Shah to losen up control and become less authoritarian which enabled the Islamic Revolution. There is a reason a lot of countries verbally lash out when the US/EU or Western NGOs accuse them of being too authoritarian. The alternative to authoritarianism is often worse. The CIA should stop meddling in other countries. But the same goes for Western governments and NGOs. The latter is often worse than the former.

selimthegrim 4y ago
The Shah was dying of cancer, his own officials thought he was weak and vacillating
- moremetadata 4y ago
  Its amazing how training and data can manipulate those around you. Google I'm feeling lucky and Little Britain Computer say's no!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

varjag 4y ago

It was still a monarchy during the 1953 ousting of Shah.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
The Shah was the monarch and wasn't ousted until 79. The 1953 coup replaced the system where a democratically elected head of government, Mosaddegh, ruled under the head of state, Shah Pahlavi, with a system where the Shah appoints the head of government.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  How can a monarch and a separate head of government exist at the same time? Sounds like the Shah called the shots.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Roughly the same way King Charles III is the head of state for the United Kingdom while Rishi Sunak is the head of government.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      As far as I understand, King Charles exists for the purposes of being a tourist attraction, and has no power. Was it the same with the Shah? If a monarch can overrule the “head of government”, then the head of government is not really the head, right?
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        The Shah needed the military to help him remove the head of government in 1953. He was technically at the top, but really the prime minister held more power until the coup King Charles has little actual power, but a ton of theoretical power. If he somehow convinced the military to back him (and he would probably need all of NATO's support) he could do whatever he wanted in the UK too.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cm2187 4y ago

A democracy that was turning into a dictatorship, just like under Allende, Chavez or Castillo. And a monarchy isn't incompatible with a democracy.

anthk 4y ago
Allende? Are you a Pinochetist by the way?
bailoon 4y ago
[flagged]
kieselguhr_kid 4y ago
Claiming that Allende was destroying democracy is totally ahistorical.
- 332211 4y ago
  Didn't he shoot himself with a gun given to him as a gift? By a certain Fidel Castro? Who was something of a totalitarian dictator? I mean, the leader of a democratic country having a totalitarian dictator as a dear fried doesn't prove he was plotting to destroy democracy, but it's kinda suggestive. And almost inevitably, by the time you get real proof, it's going to be too late to do anything about it.

api 4y ago

This was the “if you can fog glass and are anti-communist we support you” era. A lot of the bad stuff from the 20th century stems from hysterical overreaction to communism.

axlee 4y ago
I mean communist propagation led to the Khmer Rouge, Cuba or North Korea, so I'm not sure the alternative was better.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- api 4y ago
  There were certainly awful communists. Problem is we supported a lot of anti-communists who were no better. Also I don’t think you can draw moral equivalence between Castro and Pol Pot. One of these was far far worse than the other.
- hectorlorenzo 4y ago
  Fierce anti-communism led to Franco, Pinochet, and Osama bin Laden. We can call it even.
- anthk 4y ago
  Communists fought the Khmer Rouge, and these Khmers were backed by the US first.
dweekly 4y ago
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" might be one of the most common and yet painfully misguided pillars of statecraft. To wit: this is a natural outcome of a belief that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys because in that case "good == !!good". But the world is much more in thrall to Interests, which have higher dimensionality than a singular axis of Goodness, and besides, very few people (and fewer states) self-identify as "evil". See also: "Are We The Baddies?"

enkid 4y ago

The monarch wasn't installed in that there was a monarch in the Iran before 1953, and it wasn't really all that much of a democracy at the time. Its not like Iran was a well running democracy, then the US overthrew it's president and set up a monarch. I'm not defending the US's actions,just pointing out your comment seems to be implying Iran didn't have a monarch and then the US installed one. It's more like the US supported one part of the government in not undertaking necessary reforms, even though those reforms were popular, which then shifted power away from another part of the government.

nashashmi 4y ago
You are correct. Iran’s first attempt at a democracy was in 1905. But that was also overthrown by British influence and Islamic cleric support. It was later in 1953 that they had pseudo democracy.
sillystuff 4y ago
The Shaw had tried to take back power that had passed to the democratically elected portion of government earlier in 1953. This was unpopular, and he was forced to flee. After the US and UK led coup removed Mosadedeq, they brought the Shaw back to Iran, and installed him as ruler. In return, the Shaw repealed the legislation that Mosaddeq had spearheaded to nationalize Iran's oil fields. The Shaw was in exile at the time of the US and UK led coup.
- leereeves 4y ago
  You're leaving out the fact that Mosaddegh was trying to set himself up as the dictator of Iran. In 1952, he began invoking emergency powers and arresting his opponents, and in 1953, shortly before the coup that put the Shah back in power, he dissolved the Iranian Parliament, justified by a referendum in which 99.9% of votes were in favor (probably because votes were cast in public and voters were intimidated - no fair election has an outcome like that). That was the start of the power struggle and the CIA wasn't even involved yet. The Shah issued a royal order dismissing Mosaddegh as Prime Minister (an action legally allowed by the Iranian constitution at the time), but Mosaddegh refused to step down and arrested the commander of the Shah's Imperial Guard, who had delivered the royal order. That's when the Shah fled to Baghdad and accepted US help. So you see, he was not in "exile" when the struggle began (in fact, he was only out of the country for a few days); he fled only after Mosaddegh arrested the commander of his Imperial Guard. You also left out the fact that the actual coup was carried out by Iranian citizens and Iranian military forces whose leaders were loyal to the Shah. The CIA assisted, but their role in the whole thing has been exaggerated. Some portray the CIA as an omnipotent mastermind responsible for everything that happens in the world, but usually, as in this case, they're simply taking sides in existing power struggles.

ivraatiems 4y ago

Well, I guess since the US did a bad thing one time we'd better give these nice religious authoritarians a pass, huh? Though I'll agree the way it's phrased in the submitted article is misleading, your comment mostly comes off as needless whataboutism.

bailoon 4y ago
[flagged]
xbmcuser 4y ago
They are doing it again in Pakistan currently for the US democracy is not important as long as the monarchy or military dictator tow the line. Western media almost silence against the killing of journalists torture, arrests of politicians assassination attempts shows the true face of western democracies. If the arrest and murders are done by powers in countries that say what US wants then there is media silence.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  And that's bad, but what does it have to do with oppression by Iran against its own people?
  - xbmcuser 4y ago
    Someone says that part of the blame of what is happening in Iran lies with USA as they derail democracies that don't follow their agenda which leads to what we are seeing in Iran. Another guy said that USA might have made a mistake in the past but I replied that they are still doing the same stupid shit ie what is happening in Pakistan. Where a democracy that was taking root was derailed because the political party in power did not want to fight wars or allow other countries to use it soil for such ie USA. Now Pakistan is at a ledge where if the Pakistan military which is being supported by the US in removing a popular democratic leader. Hundreds of ordinary people were arrested and tortured but no noise from the west and they are moving towards a similar situation that is happening in Iran and US has its hands in it.
4y ago

slim 4y ago

the Shah