Ever wondered how these “small group of extremists” came about holding the entire country hostage? That’s because US nation state apparatus decided to overthrow democratically elected government there for their own interests.
When you study American foreign policy, you can’t help but wondering it’s indeed not the interest of USA to have once unconquerable empires like Persia to be thriving and realize their full potential. US would rather have dysfunctional corrupt extremists dependent on foreign aids rule an entire region than challenging its hegemony.
So next time you hear our media preach how detestable other foreign leaders like Erdogan or Modi or MBS is, think twice what the agenda there is. USA has had no problems supporting savage regimes for their own interests. I will pick WMD monster Saddam Hussein any day everyday over whatever there is left in Iraq today. History repeats itself. Nation state with media collusion saturating its own citizens mind with propaganda to serve their own interests (often just a very small group of people living north of Richmond) where the same group of people keep drumming the war machines for decades under different banners. Enough said.
> you can’t help but wondering it’s indeed not the interest of USA to have once unconquerable empires like Persia to be thriving and realize their full potential.
This is rather conspiratorial.
Great Britian and Russia have been involved in Iran since the 19th century (example[1]). They both invaded during WW2[2]. Britian left after the war but Russia stuck around. As the cold war began, the USA also got sucked into the mess in the middle east because Russia already had a presence there[3]. The US involvement is often portrayed as the beginning of this mess (just like you did), but it really isn't.
I promise that at no point did anyone involved say to themselves "I sure am scared of a modern Persian Empire". The country was simply caught up in the geopolitical chess game between world super powers. That doesn't make it right, but that's what it is.
The CIA's role in the coup has been greatly exaggerated. Even that source says:
> In 2014, historian Ray Takeyh conclusively showed that the US-led coup attempt was unsuccessful, with the CIA writing to Eisenhower that "The move failed […] We now [...] probably have to snuggle up to Mosaddeq if we're going to save [our influence in Iran];" the demonstrations that led to Mosaddeq's resignation took place some weeks after the Roosevelt-organized ones, and were composed of average citizens, not the thugs-for-hire that the CIA and MI6 had recruited.[64]
>"Ever wondered how these “small group of extremists” came about holding the entire country hostage? That’s because US nation state apparatus decided to overthrow democratically elected government there for their own interests."
Honestly it doesn't sound like you've studied very much then. I would recommend you read up Ali Shariati who was the revolution's ideologue and someone who was extremely influential amongst those university students of 1979. He was also very influential among younger clerics as well as with Khomeini himself. His philosophy was that society would be guided by the intelligentsia instead of the clergy. His political philosophy was one that was intended to lead to a freer society. And indeed in the immediate aftermath of the revolution democratic institutions called "shuras" and "komitehs" arose which gave workers and the impoverished an economic and political voice. These were considered a threat to clerical power however and so power was consolidated and the revolution was highjacked. Your parroting of the just "blame the west" narrative is just plain lazy.
Yeah, the us did kick it off in Iran. Then religious extremists managed to transition that to longterm despotic control of the country. Before the us overthrew the former govt, Iran wasn't exactly an unconquerable empire for a very long time though. And the us didn't learn it's lesson, having done this over and over again in south america and central america and other places. It seems like we are currently in a period of not doing this but all it takes is a new presidential whim to kick it off again, probably.
US actions don't remove the ability for their to be reliable observation that certain leaders are terrible. Kicking up hate for muslims is not a good thing long term for India. Killing your democratic enemies and cutting them up with saws in embassies is also clearly wrong. I feel completely empowered to point these things out, while being able to talk about the many problems in the US too.
US does whatever the President, Senate, Congress votes to do at the time.
It seems US is learning it's lesson but only takes one president to declare a war. Iran and Afghanistan were massive failures and trillions of tax payer dollars wasted.
Even US supporting Ukraine has resulted in failure. Failure in the sense of millions of lives lost and displaced, no victory for Ukraine and Russia is still destroying their infrastructure.
I support US helping other countries when a victory is swift and definitive.
> Ever wondered how these “small group of extremists” came about holding the entire country hostage? That’s because US nation state apparatus decided to overthrow democratically elected government there for their own interests.
It is tiresome to read again and again on the internet about how my country would be X or Y had the evil Westerners not "overthrown" the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953.
This false narrative is bandied around so much and so many fall for it with zero interest or curiosity to delve deeper to see if any of it is true.
Well, no, it isn't true.
Sadly, unfortunately, tragically, [insert adjective of your choice here]...
#Iran has NEVER been a democracy
Read that again.
While our future is bright and with the imminent the removal of the Islamic theocracy we will have the opportunity to have a secular democracy that represents and governs all Iranians, that will be a very important first for our ancient people, land and society.
What most ignorant people refer to in the above lazy copypasta are the events in and around 1953 with the appointment and dismissal of Mossadegh.
#READ THAT AGAIN
*appointment*
and
*dismissal*
Mossadegh was appointed, not elected, as per the 1906 Iranian constitution:
> ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.
You and I may not like that article in the 1906 constitution. While we're free to have our opinions about it, we can not have our own facts. The facts are that just like previous PM's (which included him btw!) Mossadegh was appointed legally (in accordance with the enacted constitutional framework) and also legally dismissed as well.
Funny that no one mentions or even remembers the first time around that he was appointed and dismissed: 28 April 1951 appointed and 17 July 1952 dismissed (1 year, 80 days) but every ignorant person loses their minds re the second time in 1952/1953 !!
Furthermore, it is hilarious that Mossadegh is now seen by some ignorant people devoid of any historical knowledge as a symbol or champion of democracy.
Mossadegh was so "democratic" that his referendum to dissolve parliament so that he obtains absolute power won 99.93% of the votes.
What did credible international publications think of his democratic zeal?
> TIME magazine: “Hitler’s best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja’s in 1936; Stalin’s peak was 99.73% Da’s in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.”
> NBC TV’s John Cameron Swayze announced: Mossadegh “has accomplished what Hitler and Stalin could not. He received 99 9⁄10 percent of the vote in a carefully managed referendum.”
> New York Times: “A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadegh in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country.”
> NYT, A Bid For Dictatorship, 7/15/52:”Having brought his country to the verge of bankruptcy,Premier Mossadegh is now trying to take it further along the road to ruin by demanding dictatorial powers for 6 months,on the plea that he needs these powers to pull Iran out of the crisis into which he has plunged it.What he proposes is in effect a legalized coup d’etat that smacks of Hitler’s technique.This is the legal device by which Hitler also acquired absolute powers he had no intention,of course, of surrendering them on termination of the ostensible period for which they had been granted, and there is no assurance that Mr. Mossadegh would act differently.”
> Melbourne paper, The Argus (8/21/53): “THE swift and violent overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh , Premier and virtual dictator of Persia, has been a complete surprise to the world, and a pleasant surprise to the Western half of it.”
The fact is many contemporary international news outlets referred to Mossadegh as a dictator because that’s what he was. There was nothing democratic about his reign (nor his coup attempt at overthrowing the Shah) Anyone who says otherwise is either naive or lying.
There’s only one reason a handful of Iranians have rehabilitated, re-branded, mythologized and continue to promote Mossadegh: their disdain for the late Shah.
Lamenting the loss of a Mossadeq because of democratic ambitions betrays a lack of knowledge of Iranian history.The most common misconception is that he was democratically elected. He wasn’t, he was appointed by the King.Another misconception is that he was a champion of democracy.
During his tenure Mossadegh dissolved the senate, shut down parliament, not once did he hold a full meeting of the council of ministers, suspended elections for the National Assembly, announced he would rule by decree, jailed hundreds of opponents, and the cherry on top of this "democratic" so called champion: he dismissed the Supreme Court.
This angered the National Assembly so he announced a referendum to decide if it should be dissolved. At the opening session he gave a speech aimed at intimidating dissenters saying only 80% of those present truly represented the people - for visuals think Saddam’s parliament speech with that cigar.
Our “champion of democracy” arranged that those voting for dissolution and those against voted in plainly marked booths. The signal was clear: anyone brave enough to vote in opposition would be beaten up by his street hooligans/Tudeh (Communist) supporters.
Dissolution won by 99% of all votes!
In one town with a population of 3,000, 18000 votes were cast in favor of Mossadeq’s undemocratic dissolution. His democratic ideals were so far reaching he allowed the dead to vote. Hundreds of people were killed during his rigged elections.
By the time of the counter-coup that toppled him he had 27 gallows put up on Sepah Square to hang his enemies in public. All but approximately 4 days of his premiership were under martial law/curfew. There was nothing democratic about his reign.
While a member of parliament he posed as a champion of the constitution, due process, representative govt, free press; but only in a few months did he do the things mentioned above. Khomeini promised democracy too. Had his revolution not succeeded he too would be touted a great democrat
From 1941-1979 Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi appointed & dismissed 22 PMs (incl. Mossadegh twice) in accordance to the 1906 Constitution.Yet, Mossadeq is the only 1 referred 2 as “democratically elected” despite the fact that all were appointed and dismissed in the same manner.
What set Mossadeq apart from the pack were his political ambitions.After becoming Prime Minister he successfully forced the Shah 2 appoint him Minister of War,granting himself absolute power.He soon replaced officers w/those loyal 2 him, consolidating power to obtain the throne via a coup
When the Shah finally dismissed Mossadegh in accordance with his legal authority under the Constitution of 1906, Mossadeq had the officer who delivered the dismissal decree arrested, his Foreign Minister published an editorial in Bakhtar-e-Emruz denouncing the Shah & called for his ouster.
It’s clear to the objective student of Iranian modern history that Mossadeq initiated a coup against the Shah and the events that followed & led to Mossadegh’s downfall should more appropriately be labeled a “counter-coup”
The Mossadegh that many promote is more of a myth like CheGuevara. People think he stood for things which were inconsistent with reality.
Also, it bears notice that Mossadeq's own Chief of Police & cousin, General Daftari, joined the royal forces to topple him. He was disliked by everyone except his communist friends.
Genuine question, doesn't the ultra-orthodox wing reflect the popular opinion of the country ?
My understanding is that Iran has among the greatest Urban-Rural divides in the world, and that the rural population is large enough to democratically force their conservative views onto the urban population. Turkey seems to be in a similar position, but their proximity to NATO and Europe keeps them somewhat grounded.
> small group of extremists holds the entire country hostage
I'm just not sure that the group of people we consider extremists are that small.
Iran's Supreme leader and guardian council have ultimate veto power over all legislation and candidates.
In the past decade, there have been massive nationwide protests almost annually, often with election fairness as a theme.
The Iranian military has a special wing, the IRGC, that is dedicated to the Supreme leader and used to crush protest or dissent.
These are not characteristics of a functioning liberal democracy. If Iran's regime reflects the popular opinion of Iranians (which I believe it doesn't), then that's in spite of their government, not because of it.
The IRGC is not a 'special wing' of the Iranian military. They are a completely separate organization which has no equivalency in Western societies or defense departments.
The IRGC is tasked with protecting and spreading Khomeini's brand of Islamic theocracy throughout the world. This is why you see Iranian proxies in Yemen, Nigeria, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, etc.
The Iranian military is tasked with protecting the Iranian nation and people. The military is a lower priority and less funded that IRGC, especially since the IRGC is a major actor in Iran's economy via various bonyads.
GAMAAN has provided insight into Iranian opinions with intelligent polling and verification methods that correct for the Islamic theocratic regime's authoritarian control over society. The coles notes are that the majority of Iranians do NOT support the Islamic regime, are not religious and do not support the theocratic laws and regulations such as enforced hijab and other gender apartheid measures currently in place against Iranian women.
That is not possible to answer due to the very high level of oppression. I still have Muslim family back home in Iran, especially in rural areas of Gilan province. They are very much against the government and its form of rule, but they are also not too keen on the socially liberal aspects of western democracy either. If I were to draw a rough comparison to the US political spectrum, I would place them as moderates similar to Mitt Romney supporters, or at worst McCain. The ultra-orthodox - closer to the Ted Cruz types - is mostly made up of the the Mullahs and their following for which there are plenty, but far outnumbered by moderates and liberals combined. Again though, this is impossible to measure as if you go around surveying the country, most people (especially in the elder generation) will not publicly speak out against the government and its policies.
Iran is actually relatively unique in the developed world in that their urban population is about as conservative as the population as a whole (Japan is another example IIRC). There is nuance here (most of the conservative urban population is concentrated in certain cities and neighborhoods) but the urban/rural divide does not explain the political divide.
The Iranian government has killed thousands of people and repressed other viewpoints not supported by the ruling elite.
It is possible the general population in Iran support this. All I know is that in countries where the people are allowed to voice their opinions freely, they generally oppose raping and torturing prisoners.
I am only a little more informed than most people on the topic, but I think it's kind of like this:
The conservative majority likes having an Islamic Republic, and has a lingering "memory" of the corruption and such of the Shah's regime, but that doesn't necessarily mean they like what the current regime has become. And as another poster said, the majority of the country, whatever their social/religious views, seems to be fed up with the country's rather dire economic state. It's been that way for the past like 5 years at least.
The main question is, what percentage of the society are these conservatives? What's the opinion of the rest of people? Unlike you, in my opinion, most people have good memories of the Shah's time (Zamane Shah). It's quite funny, but most of the hospitals that are now named after Khomeini Hospital were built by the Shah. Also most stadiums and universities.
Moreover, this is a superficial view of the story if we think that what annoys people in Iran is mostly economic. This can be seen even in the slogan of the biggest anti-government demonstration that started last year, "Women, Life, Freedom", the three things that has been oppressed in the last four decades. Yes, economic issues have put a lot of pressure on the people, but people's wishes should not be reduced to it.
It's probably a little bit like they now think this is worse than Zamaan-e-Shah, and that time is now viewed with history's rose-colored glasses
But the Shah was overthrown for a reason (and his overthrow was good and just even if what succeeded it didn't pan out well), and was a pretty popular event.
In the absence of the Regime's latest round of oppression, where they really turned it up a notch, and in the absence of economic turmoil, I doubt there would be much by the way of serious protests. I don't believe that absolutely everything can be reduced to economic factors, but I think that's usually a pretty big motivator in terms of getting most of any population to care enough about something to risk life and limb to protest.
