4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2527%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2527%C3%A9... A key motive was to protect Bri

• stickfigure 10mo ago
  Yeah that was bad but you're skipping another revolution and more than 70 years of history. There's always some previous war.
  • geraneum 10mo ago
    > There's always some previous war. As in everywhere else.
• ch4s3 10mo ago
  This is sort of a bad and inaccurate summary of a much more complicated situation. Mossadegh was trying to dissolve parliament and was in conflict with the Shah before the British got involved. The Shah was already planning to try by constitutional means (which he had legal power to do) to remove Mossadegh. Would he have done it without British and US backing, is a debate for historians.
  • therobots927 10mo ago
    I don’t think any serious post WWII historians would agree with you. There was a concentrated effort by the UK and US to displace Mossadegh, who was democratically elected by the way. At the very least it disproves your unspoken assertion that the Iranians are primarily to blame for their problems when it’s been proven that the most powerful intelligence agencies on the planet were actively destabilizing their society so that oil revenue would continue flowing into western pockets.
    • adventured 10mo ago
      > who was democratically elected by the way He was everything but democratically elected. He was installed. The Iranian people did not elect Mosaddegh. He was put there by a Shah and the elites of the Majlis, neither of which ever represented the people of Iran. At no point in the past century has Iran had representative government. For the absurd 'democratically elected' premise to be true, there would have to be actual representative government. There wasn't, there isn't.
      • cess11 10mo ago
        He was as democratically elected as the system at the time allowed and spent basically his entire political career on increasing the power of the majlis and getting rid of colonial interests. The UK spent a lot of resources conspiring against this project, which ultimately failed, to a large extent because he did not have a solution to the blockade that followed nationalisation of the oil production. Perhaps he also did not expect as many members of the majlis to join the foreign conspiracy as did when the blockade got inconvenient. It's also not like democratisation followed under the shah, rather the opposite, like the establishment of rather nasty security services and a nuclear program that the later revolutionaries inherited.
        • ch4s3 10mo ago
          > increasing the power of the majlis Right up until he was about to lose an election, then he suspended counting votes and tried to dissolve the Majlis in alliance with the communist party.
          • cess11 10mo ago
            Not sure what you mean. In the -52 election he stopped the vote counting when enough of the majlis was filled that it could legally do work, and then tried to form a government which the shah blocked. This is what led to the proposal that the majlis give him six months of emergency powers.
• Der_Einzige 10mo ago
  Nationalizing resources simply gives the capitalist west a legitimate casus beli to “liberate” all the assets that were stolen. Venezuela is about to be turned into another Vietnam. Iran is next. I remember invading them in a mission in BF3. The USA itches to implement what its media anticipated.
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
• mc32 10mo ago
  Whatever happened due to the British, it’s still fact they Iran was doing pretty well before the current revolution. I don’t think anyone would argue the population at large are better off today than they were under the previous regime.
  • cess11 10mo ago
    That's a matter of values. Some would argue that appeasement of and being subdued by colonial powers is a much to high price to pay for whatever material wealth you're referring to.
    • mc32 10mo ago
      That’s an ideological issue. Many people if they could would move to one of such ‘imperial powers’ which means it’s not much of an actual issue. Most Europeans seem to be fine being under the EU where they don’t get to vote those bureaucrats in.
      • cess11 10mo ago
        US influence in Europe would be a much better comparison than indirection between positions and elections in the EU. As you surely know we've had a lot of interference in what parties are allowed and who can get elected and financing of organised crime coming from that direction.
      • dxdm 10mo ago
        > Most Europeans seem to be fine being under the EU where they don’t get to vote those bureaucrats in. The political power in the EU comes from the national governments (directly and via the European commission) and the EU parliament. The members of parliament are elected. The national governments are also formed out of elected parliaments. There's also a body of administration and bureaucracy that comes out of these power structures, just like there is, by necessity, in any government ever, democratic or not. Insinuating that this somehow equates to authoritarian forms of government appears deeply ignorant or dishonest to me.