4 ms·

I generally agree with everything you said, but it seems to me that the biggest criticism of the coup in Iran is that it did not ultimately wind up serving Amer

I generally agree with everything you said, but it seems to me that the biggest criticism of the coup in Iran is that it did not ultimately wind up serving American interests effectively. The coup installed a US-favorable Shah for a few years where oil could be obtained cheaply and then we got decades of a theocratic government actively funding American enemies all over the world. Oh, and we did this to a country that we had given nuclear power to. Evaluating the CIA's move on the rubric you've set out does not produce a passing grade!!

_8j50 3y ago
The problem is, the US changes administrations every four years. By far the late 60s and 70s lacked supporting of these friendly regimes, with vietnam and all and then carter really messed up a lot countries by his non-interference (but maybe that's what americans wanted at the time?). The intent may have been good but regimes don't self-sustain without their original support easily. Unwillingness to finish what they started and taking half-measures to avoid pissing off the american public I think was their real fault. Even in recent years, Israel was more than willing to start a fight with Iran before they matures their nuclear program but it is the US fearing involvement that is holding them back. Maybe in a few years the world would have to deal with Iranian ICBMs. What happens when they try to nuke tel aviv? Does the US nuke Tehran? Is that better than what Israel would have done?