4 ms·

The USA created the current Iranian regime by installing a puppet and then getting butt hurt when their puppet was ousted. A real freedom for us tyranny for you

The USA created the current Iranian regime by installing a puppet and then getting butt hurt when their puppet was ousted. A real freedom for us tyranny for you situation. Then the USA created the Saddam regime in Iraq to fight the Iranian regime and that went great. And now the USA is supporting Israel to terrorize the Middle East in their name and with their bombs and that’s going swimmingly too. Top job everyone.

msgodel 1y ago
It seems like an infinite pit we throw money and lives into only to make things worse.
- figmert 1y ago
  Well the nearly $900 billion dollars budget the US military has, has to be spent somehow.
- gerash 1y ago
  what even is the point other than "the Israel lobby said so"? Creating "liberal democracies" is certainly not it or else an ISIS mercenary wouldn't have been installed in place of Bashar al asad? US itself is not a representative democracy either.
  - pcthrowaway 1y ago
    Well there is oil there too
Aloisius 1y ago
What puppet did the US install?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  They’re being dramatic. We installed the Shah [EDIT: as an autocrat] with the ‘53 coup [1]. That was our original sin. But the Islamic Republic wasn’t an American creation. Neither was Saddam’s Iraq or the Mujahideen or Al Qaeda. We variously facilitated, opposed and ignored these elements, mostly the last. Ignoring the Soviet history in the region, together with the fact that Iranians aren’t automatons, but human beings with agency and preferences, continues this tradition of American fatalism that ignores how complicated (and independent of ourselves) these systems are. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9ta...
  - reillyse 1y ago
    If describing events that took place is being dramatic , then I guess so? Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain, would you think that would be dramatic? As for the Islamic revolution, it was a reaction to being colonized and subjugated, and I would argue it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain Literally the colonial governors. > it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US Iran didn’t have to become a hardline theocracy, or a state sponsor of terror, or a nuclear pariah. The IRGC didn’t have to be corrupt and autocratic [1]. The tragedy of the present is it still doesn’t have to be. And while we contributed to the malaise that gave rise to the Islamic Republic (and continue to contribute to its geopolitical insecurity), it’s a step too far to say we caused it. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_th...
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941, succeeding his father after the British forced him out. I'm unsure as to how the US installed him in 1953. He had been Shah for 11 years.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941 Sorry, you’re correct. We installed him as an autocrat in ‘53.
      - Aloisius 1y ago
        He already had immense power prior to the coup. At best, his autocratic power was strengthened. Calling him installed by the US is a misrepresentation. Iran was not a British-style constitutional monarchy. The Shah was not a ceremonial position. His father ruled with even more power than he did. He was just an absentee ruler for the first part of his rule until someone tried to assassinate him. Never mind that Prime Minister Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament and had been ruling by decree for a year also acted as an autocrat. Even his own party turned against him for abuse of power. At best, one could argue the British installed the Shah. They are, after all, the people who made him Shah in the first place.

msgodel 1y ago

It seems like an infinite pit we throw money and lives into only to make things worse.

figmert 1y ago
Well the nearly $900 billion dollars budget the US military has, has to be spent somehow.
gerash 1y ago
what even is the point other than "the Israel lobby said so"? Creating "liberal democracies" is certainly not it or else an ISIS mercenary wouldn't have been installed in place of Bashar al asad? US itself is not a representative democracy either.
- pcthrowaway 1y ago
  Well there is oil there too

Aloisius 1y ago

What puppet did the US install?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
They’re being dramatic. We installed the Shah [EDIT: as an autocrat] with the ‘53 coup [1]. That was our original sin. But the Islamic Republic wasn’t an American creation. Neither was Saddam’s Iraq or the Mujahideen or Al Qaeda. We variously facilitated, opposed and ignored these elements, mostly the last. Ignoring the Soviet history in the region, together with the fact that Iranians aren’t automatons, but human beings with agency and preferences, continues this tradition of American fatalism that ignores how complicated (and independent of ourselves) these systems are. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9ta...
- reillyse 1y ago
  If describing events that took place is being dramatic , then I guess so? Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain, would you think that would be dramatic? As for the Islamic revolution, it was a reaction to being colonized and subjugated, and I would argue it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain Literally the colonial governors. > it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US Iran didn’t have to become a hardline theocracy, or a state sponsor of terror, or a nuclear pariah. The IRGC didn’t have to be corrupt and autocratic [1]. The tragedy of the present is it still doesn’t have to be. And while we contributed to the malaise that gave rise to the Islamic Republic (and continue to contribute to its geopolitical insecurity), it’s a step too far to say we caused it. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_th...
- Aloisius 1y ago
  Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941, succeeding his father after the British forced him out. I'm unsure as to how the US installed him in 1953. He had been Shah for 11 years.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941 Sorry, you’re correct. We installed him as an autocrat in ‘53.
    - Aloisius 1y ago
      He already had immense power prior to the coup. At best, his autocratic power was strengthened. Calling him installed by the US is a misrepresentation. Iran was not a British-style constitutional monarchy. The Shah was not a ceremonial position. His father ruled with even more power than he did. He was just an absentee ruler for the first part of his rule until someone tried to assassinate him. Never mind that Prime Minister Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament and had been ruling by decree for a year also acted as an autocrat. Even his own party turned against him for abuse of power. At best, one could argue the British installed the Shah. They are, after all, the people who made him Shah in the first place.