3 ms·

> Sad to see what Iran has become - no in small part thanks to the US/UK's meddling and installing a crazed theocratic government. This is some tinfoil-hatted

> Sad to see what Iran has become - no in small part thanks to the US/UK's meddling and installing a crazed theocratic government. This is some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. I'll be charitable and assume you're unfamiliar with the history, as opposed to a conspiracy theorist who thinks the CIA is behind everything you think is wrong with the world. Rightly or wrongly, the US and UK went after Mossadegh precisely because the Shah was pro-Western, anti-Soviet, and a staunch ally of the US. Similar in some respects to why the Saudis have been a US ally for so long, although that is starting to fray. Both were authoritarian governments which nevertheless closely aligned themselves with US foreign policy in the region, and got some of our best gear and support in return . . . this is why Iran to this day flies so many 1960s-late 1970s Western platforms in its Air Force such as F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s. They are the only nation we ever sold the Tomcat to, and the Shah personally picked it over the F-15 Eagle, which was also on the table. The Ayatollahs hated the Shah and have hated the US since the beginning. They call us the Great Satan. If you aren't familiar with the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran and the consequences that had on US history, then you're talking out the wrong end of your alimentary canal about anything Iran- or Middle East-related. The Carter administration attempted Operation Eagle Claw, a do-or-die hostage rescue attempt using special operations forces which went horribly wrong. The storming of the embassy and the failure of Eagle Claw were a national embarrassment. They fed into an overall narrative that Jimmy Carter was a weak, ineffectual, and bumbling President, and were a key driver in Ronald Reagan winning the Presidency in 1980. As a final stick in the eye, the Ayatollahs waited until Reagan had been sworn in to release the Embassy hostages. So no, the US and UK didn't "install" a bunch of theocrats. They opposed this, and the results of that opposition had historic consequences throughout the 70s and 80s and beyond to the present day.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
> As a final stick in the eye, the Ayatollahs waited until Reagan had been sworn in to release the Embassy hostages. You say that as though there were no quid pro quo involved.
danbruc 3y ago
Was it not as follows? Mossadegh wanted the control over Iranian oil back, therefore the US and UK got rid of him which allowed Pahlavī to become dictator and he was supported by them to gain influence, oil, and defense against the Soviet Union. Especially with weapons. But the way he treated the people eventually made them unite behind Chomeini and that was the end for the Shah. This was of course not good, so the USA supported Hussein in his war against Iran. He became the enemy when he decided that Kuwait would be an easier target than Iran.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  The argument was made that the US/UK "installed" the Khomeini regime, which is an utter absurdity. They supported the Shah for realpolitik reasons during the Cold War. Hussein got spanked in 1991 not just because he invaded Kuwait, but because he was also making noises about going after Saudi Arabia. And as much as some people on the Internet think this is a Very Bad Thing, oil is and was a critical part of the global economy. An unstable dictator being able to play games with the world's oil supply isn't just a Very Bad Thing for imaginary mustache-twirling capitalists in their monocles and top hats. It's a Very Bad Thing for anyone who has a job or who relies on global trade. Which is, well, everyone. Which is why a multinational coalition under UN authority, which included several other Arab countries, put Saddam back in his place.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    The argument was made that the US/UK "installed" the Khomeini regime [...] Fair point, I missed installing or did not read it carefully enough, this was at best an unintended consequences. But even without intention, there is still responsibility, at least to some extent. Which is why a multinational coalition under UN authority, which included several other Arab countries, put Saddam back in his place. Sure, even if oil was not involved, the invasion of Kuwait or any other country should generally not be tolerated. I mentioned this just to point out how quickly and in some sense arbitrarily judgments can change, Iran is also a major oil producer and there Hussein got support for the invasion. The 2003 invasion on the other hand was simply a crime.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

> As a final stick in the eye, the Ayatollahs waited until Reagan had been sworn in to release the Embassy hostages. You say that as though there were no quid pro quo involved.

danbruc 3y ago

Was it not as follows? Mossadegh wanted the control over Iranian oil back, therefore the US and UK got rid of him which allowed Pahlavī to become dictator and he was supported by them to gain influence, oil, and defense against the Soviet Union. Especially with weapons. But the way he treated the people eventually made them unite behind Chomeini and that was the end for the Shah. This was of course not good, so the USA supported Hussein in his war against Iran. He became the enemy when he decided that Kuwait would be an easier target than Iran.

psunavy03 3y ago
The argument was made that the US/UK "installed" the Khomeini regime, which is an utter absurdity. They supported the Shah for realpolitik reasons during the Cold War. Hussein got spanked in 1991 not just because he invaded Kuwait, but because he was also making noises about going after Saudi Arabia. And as much as some people on the Internet think this is a Very Bad Thing, oil is and was a critical part of the global economy. An unstable dictator being able to play games with the world's oil supply isn't just a Very Bad Thing for imaginary mustache-twirling capitalists in their monocles and top hats. It's a Very Bad Thing for anyone who has a job or who relies on global trade. Which is, well, everyone. Which is why a multinational coalition under UN authority, which included several other Arab countries, put Saddam back in his place.
- danbruc 3y ago
  The argument was made that the US/UK "installed" the Khomeini regime [...] Fair point, I missed installing or did not read it carefully enough, this was at best an unintended consequences. But even without intention, there is still responsibility, at least to some extent. Which is why a multinational coalition under UN authority, which included several other Arab countries, put Saddam back in his place. Sure, even if oil was not involved, the invasion of Kuwait or any other country should generally not be tolerated. I mentioned this just to point out how quickly and in some sense arbitrarily judgments can change, Iran is also a major oil producer and there Hussein got support for the invasion. The 2003 invasion on the other hand was simply a crime.