3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.