3 ms·

> Last time Western powers meddled, it resulted in the Islamic Revolution, after all. There were 25 years between those two events though, so it's hard to draw

> Last time Western powers meddled, it resulted in the Islamic Revolution, after all. There were 25 years between those two events though, so it's hard to draw a direct line. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Islamic Revolution would've happened even without the 1953 coup d'état and the economic growth that followed it.

the_af 4y ago
I don't think it'd be reasonable to assume that, no. The Islamic Revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.
- luckylion 4y ago
  So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power? That's hard to imagine. Just because it didn't happen in a vacuum doesn't meant "it would never have happened unless exactly these circumstances had existed", which is what I'm saying. One could similarly claim that the German reunification resulted in Russia invading Ukraine, but it's obviously not a direct consequence, and over 30 years lots of things are happening, and things are dynamic, so the "if this then that" line gets weaker with each year that passes. Otherwise we end up with "Cain slaying Abel resulted in cell phones".
  - derefr 4y ago
    I believe what they're saying is that without continuous trade sanctions imposed after the coup, there may not have been an Islamic revolution.
  - the_af 4y ago
    > So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power? No, saying something isn't "reasonable to assume" doesn't mean it cannot ever happen. It's hard to prove an hypothetical wouldn't have happened. I meant that it's unreasonable to suppose the Islamic Revolution would have happened without first the coup (by the West) and then the continued Western support of a tyrannical dictatorship, which gave support to the Islamic revolutionaries that the West was "the devil". Had Iran had a stable, less tyrannical government for decades, support for a Islamic revolution would have been much, much lower. Would it have been impossible? No. Would it have been much less likely? Sure.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
The West didn't stop caring about Iran during those 25 years, they were an active member in the Shah's totalitarian state.

the_af 4y ago

I don't think it'd be reasonable to assume that, no. The Islamic Revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

luckylion 4y ago
So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power? That's hard to imagine. Just because it didn't happen in a vacuum doesn't meant "it would never have happened unless exactly these circumstances had existed", which is what I'm saying. One could similarly claim that the German reunification resulted in Russia invading Ukraine, but it's obviously not a direct consequence, and over 30 years lots of things are happening, and things are dynamic, so the "if this then that" line gets weaker with each year that passes. Otherwise we end up with "Cain slaying Abel resulted in cell phones".
- derefr 4y ago
  I believe what they're saying is that without continuous trade sanctions imposed after the coup, there may not have been an Islamic revolution.
- the_af 4y ago
  > So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power? No, saying something isn't "reasonable to assume" doesn't mean it cannot ever happen. It's hard to prove an hypothetical wouldn't have happened. I meant that it's unreasonable to suppose the Islamic Revolution would have happened without first the coup (by the West) and then the continued Western support of a tyrannical dictatorship, which gave support to the Islamic revolutionaries that the West was "the devil". Had Iran had a stable, less tyrannical government for decades, support for a Islamic revolution would have been much, much lower. Would it have been impossible? No. Would it have been much less likely? Sure.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

The West didn't stop caring about Iran during those 25 years, they were an active member in the Shah's totalitarian state.