3 ms·
The US supported, albeit tacitly, the revolution that put the Ayatollahs in power in the first place.
by remarkEon 9mo ago
The US supported, albeit tacitly, the revolution that put the Ayatollahs in power in the first place.
- ebbi 9mo agoThe US also armed the predecessors to the Taliban during the Cold War. What is your point?
- tptacek 9mo agoBy which you mean we withdrew support from the Shah, not so much that we supported the Iranian Revolution itself.
- ofrzeta 9mo agoThe USA have backed the coup against the democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh, to begin with. "In 1953, the CIA- and MI6-backed 1953 Iranian coup d'état overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
- tptacek 9mo agoSo the claim here is that by backing any coups and revolutions, the US tacitly backed all of them? Ok! Like: yes, I lay a lot of the responsibility for the nightmare state Iranians live in at the hands of Cold War NATO policymakers, for sure, but I don't think it's all that useful as a positive claim of what happened in the 1970s. The US did not support the Ayatollahs.
- ofrzeta 9mo ago> So the claim here is that by backing any coups and revolutions, the US tacitly backed all of them? Ok! I didn't say that. It's just that Iran already had a democratically elected government. However there is some truth to the claim that you put in my mouth, that is, you can see that pattern quite often in history. Chile is another example but let's focus on Iran.