3 ms·

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 h

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.

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.