4 ms·

He must be talking about the Shah of Iran

• fsloth 4y ago
  Yes, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état Of course it’s hard to say what course history would have taken without this but I fail to see how the current theocracy / securocracy could have had a foothold without it (revolutions always just swap elites).
  • edflsafoiewq 4y ago
    That was 70 years ago. It has been 44 years since the Shah's government was overthrown in the Revolution. How long will people continue to pretend the entire modern history of Iran is the deterministic result of Western actions? That in the Shah and even in the Revolution, Iran possesses no agency of its own, a passive object only of Western force? But to the point: there is absolutely zero chance of the US going to war to secure lithium reserves. And that is leaving aside, in the first place, the fact we are on the cusp of a Li->Na transition. It is the laziest kind of armchair commentary, pattern matching ("foreign country", "resource", "America liberate") with zero grounding in reality.
    • fsloth 4y ago
      At least I wasn't claiming there was anything deterministic at play. I believe generally several characteristics of the Shah's regime are held to have laid ground for the revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Background_(1891%E2%80%931977) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Background_... So it's not about robbing Iranians of agency (who are among the most distinguished and ancient cultures), just stating that 1953 meddling gave rise to a regime that possessed these characteristics, and without the coup, different dynamics would have been at play. I totally agree, there is zero chance of war over lithium.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]