It’s worth noting that Iran was a democracy until the 1953, when the US and UK supported a coup to install a corrupt dictator so they could avoid paying oil fees. The 1979 Iranian revolution was the pendulum swinging back hard the other way.
I’m in no way supporting Iran’s religious extremism or current government, but they are monsters that we created.
Edit: it has been pointed out that the pendulum metaphor isn’t quite right, and that makes sense to me, but I’ll leave it since people have responded to it.
I think we should be careful using wording like that. The Iranians have agency and can do things on their own. Just because the west meddled in things doesn't give us the right to claim the results as ours, be they good or bad.
Well, we took their agency away and removed a government that at least wasn't outright killing women for wearing pants. This is also a great way to produce extremists, which then moved into the power vacuum created by throwing their governing system into chaos.
We've done it a number of times in South America as well. I'd say there's enough data points to believe that we punted them into the downwards spiral that they're struggling in now.
Is it fair to characterize the 1979 revolution as extremist without qualification? We find it extreme by our own standards, but by most accounts Khomeini was very popular in Iran.
Popular and extremist are, surprisingly, not mutually exclusive. I remember the Revolution pretty well and have talked to exiles of various stripes over the decades (including pre revolutionary exiles in France).
The royalist regime installed by the CIA in ‘53 replaced a popularly elected social democratic government. I won’t say the shah was ever popular, but there was not massive opposition at first. In part due to repression, and in part due to increased liberalization (e.g. rights for women), industrialization, and increased wealth (which I believe would have happened with the prior regime as well).
But those other factors don’t increase linearly or automatically and soon repression was the only way the Shah’s regime stayed in power.
To many people the Revolution seemed at first like a breath of fresh air. After all it overthrew the hated regime. This is the classic difficulty for all movements (from free software to regicide): different paths intersect and then diverge. Khomeini was indeed quite popular (though far from universally) but his followers were the largest (practically only iirc) organized opposition and so, like the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks (despite the name, the Bolsheviks were in the minority), they pushed the guys at the top of the hill off, and maintained their own balance up there.
Compare that to the French Revolution where there was no faction large enough to do this: they pushed out the Ancien Régime but then muddled around aimlessly and violently until someone was able to secure the high ground.
So Khomeini was “popular” in the sense that lots of people were favorable to his movement in the moment, but not “popular” in that the movement had a widespread base of support. Like the prior regime, after a short honeymoon they could not rule without repression.
Unfortunately there is no external opposition that could come in and restore democracy. So a complete overthrow of the current regime is quite unlikely.
I'm not so much talking about the revolution as I am the extremist groups that have developed and come into power since the revolution. It wasn't a one and done deal. Western intervention got the ball rolling for the development of radicals who were then able to work their way into positions of power.
Of course Iranians have agency as individuals; but it's very clear at this point in history that most of the 20th century has been dominated by US strategic decisions, and that "the US and UK supported a coup" is factually true.
I am Italian, I believe Italians have agency, too, and yet some of our past governments were inches away from being "guided" in a different direction by the CIA or other US agencies [0].
While I mostly agree with you let's not forget there was a competing imperial power whose strategic decisions were not mere reactions to US strategic decisions and that have had quite an impact too.
As a third world national whose country was immersed in a 35 year old civil war purposefully created by the CIA.. I find it incredibly difficult to restrain myself.
I would really suggest you to research a little bit more about your own history. It’s really hurtful to read this.
I think you are completely misinterpreting what I wrote. I know exactly what we have done and it is horrific. I object to wording which in my view is quite paternalistic, as if other nations are things that our meddling can change without regard to other internal and external forces and the will of people who can act in ways we cannot and never will be able to control.
From the mid- to late 19th century, Guatemala suffered chronic instability and civil strife. Beginning in the early 20th century, it was ruled by a series of dictators backed by the United Fruit Company and the United States government. In 1944, the authoritarian leader Jorge Ubico was overthrown by a pro-democratic military coup, initiating a decade-long revolution that led to sweeping social and economic reforms. A U.S.-backed military coup in 1954 ended the revolution and installed a dictatorship.[10]
From 1960 to 1996, Guatemala endured a bloody civil war fought between the US-backed government and leftist rebels, including genocidal massacres of the Maya population perpetrated by the military.
“Iranians have agency” is a crappy argument to excuse American meddling and overthrow of democratic societies. That gives the US a blank check to do whatever they please and later blame the victim for the outcome.
A revolution is not about agency. You make a mockery of the whole idea. Agency implies what the majority wants. That is what they had with democracy which the US ruined. They took away Iranian agency. The revolution later happening is not a good example of agency. A revolution rarely express the popular will. Instead it gives power to those people most capable of using violence.
Democratically inclined and freedom loving humanitarians will frequently lose in a civil war as they lack the violent behavior to win.
It's way far more complicated than simply a coup. Though it defenitly was a terrible thing to happen.
Iran has never had an effective justice system (religous reasons / kings' economic monopolies). Without one, nothing like a democracy is possible. It was democratic just on the paper.
Democratic forms of Government don’t just materialize out of thin air. They start off pretty messy with a mix of democratic and un democratic elements. Institutional capacity is then built and strengthened over time.
Iran was certainly on a more democratic path then.
I doubt that. I mean, I see a very little difference. We even had a harsh anti-hijab dress code then. And we still have elections. Perhaps the oil industry made the real difference.
As Daron Acemolgu stated beautifully, in a country with an absolute economic power (a family, a corporation, a foreign country, etc) which controls the Army at the same time, there is no hope for a real change. Even a gradual one. It all starts from the moment when a king or a government starts to 'need' their people and give them some real power in return.
It is also worth noting the Iranian supreme leaders (there have only been two) are not Ayatollahs. I see these terms falsely conjoined many times in the comments here. Comparatively the Ayatollahs, or specifically the Grand Ayatollahs, are quite moderate compared to the fundamentalists In political power.
I was surprised to hear this, since Khomeini was so commonly referred to as "Ayatollah" in the media. Wikipedia[0] still says his title was "Grand Ayatollah," but what appears to be his official memorial web site[1] calls him "Imam Khomeini."
(Unrelated, but interesting to consider he was only in power for about 10 years, and has been dead for more than 30.)
> It is also worth noting the Iranian supreme leaders (there have only been two) are not Ayatollahs. I see these terms falsely conjoined many times in the comments here. Comparatively the Ayatollahs, or specifically the Grand Ayatollahs, are quite moderate compared to the fundamentalists In political power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
Yeah..."Mr Death To America" Himself is a moderate... I see why you used a throwaway.
I’d told that “Death to X!” is a cultural hyperbole better read as “Down with X!” - sounds terrible to westerners read literally, but isn’t actually that strong.
Except when you advocate for political violence people are apt to take your words seriously. And this is literally Iran we're talking about here: #1 in state-sponsored terrorism.
Intelligence has confirmed that Khamenei has been aware of terrorist plots before they were carried out, such as the Mykonos restaurant assassination.
So yes, keep telling us all what a moderate he is.
AFAICT many student participants in the revolution thought they were fighting to install a relatively liberal democratic system, but when the regime actually fell it was hardline religious groups who were organised enough to fill the power vacuum quickly.
So I'm not sure it was so much the pendulum swinging the other way, as an organised group who were poised to take over when chaos ruled.
But my understanding is limited, so perhaps my view is poorly informed.
Yeah I'm not really sure that's the same thing, it's more about what happens in a power vacuum created during a revolution, rather than being concerned with creeping state power or a general fear of planning or anything that might be considered socialist.
> It’s worth noting that Iran was a democracy until the 1953, when the US and UK supported a coup to install a corrupt dictator
This simply wasn't the case. I discuss this in a post below, but by the time Mossadegh was removed he had used a fraudulent plebiscite (claimed a 99.94% victory) to dissolve the parliament he had been feuding with and rule entirely by fiat. The Shah also wasn't installed by the U.S., he had been in power since Russia and the U.K. removed his father during WWII.
Here's an interesting letter written by the naval attache to Iran about the internal situation[1], written three months before the Shah's removal. It highlights the complexity of the situation - Mossadegh trying to use the Shah's political powers against parliament, the British interested in curtailing the power of the Shah in favor of the office of the prime minister with the hope that a pro-British prime minister will arise, U.S. opposition to this because they feel the Shah is the only thing thing holding the country together politically. And excerpt:
> Ardeshir is aware that Mossadegh is planning to try to force the Shah to sign a Firman to close the Majlis and is fearful that by some means he might come close to success in this. However, in the meantime, intense campaigning revealing Mossadegh’s plan is now being planned and will be evident in a day or two in the newspapers and in the Majlis. If Mossadegh ever attempts to close the Majlis without a Firman from the Shah, Ardeshir feels that this would be Mossadegh’s greatest mistake and with the present strength of the opposition would be almost, literally, fatal to him.
> He also mentioned that in the voting for “Speaker” of the Majlis the opposition papers are encouraging the present internal quarrelling within the National Front. At present a bitter struggle is being carried on between Shayegan, Moazami and Razavi to be the National Front candidate for Speaker; this could weaken the National Front considerably.
> Ardeshir stated that it is evident to most Iranian observers that the British aim in Iran is as follows: To officially agree that Mossadegh should go, but not to actively, covertly, work to this end, feeling that the strength of the opposition itself will work this out and that there remains a possibility that by a weak change in government the British might be able to control the next government. The number one aim of the British, however, is to weaken the Shah’s powers to intervene in time of crises to the point that at some time in the future when a pro-British Prime Minister appears the most can be made of it. He feels that in spite of the weak character of the Shah such a curtailment of powers would be disastrous to the country and would place the country at the mercy of whatever adventurers might temporarily be in position of political power, and that the country is not yet ready for this. In addition, the only symbol which holds the diverse elements of Iran together is the Shah himself.
The actual history of the period is fascinating. It's a shame that it keeps getting reduced to a sound bit that has little connection to reality.
This is a very white washed outlook on what happened. Would love to give a good reply when I have time. Suffice to say, this poster makes it seem like the US and UK were helpless and just stood by as things evolved in Iran. This is utterly insane.
> The Shah also wasn't installed by the U.S., he had been in power since Russia and the U.K. removed his father during WWII.
It's Disingenuous to frame it this way! He wasn't, but his father was installed and removed when needed so the son could take his place.
For the readers of this thread, if you are interested in how this went down, you can read this article [1] from "The National Security Archive" of GW University. There are references to the actual CIA documents that were declassified under "Freedom of Information Act".
This letter is from the people in charge of the coup. The same people wanted this information to remain hidden until they were forced to release it by law.
Also, this letter conveniently leaves out the part about the methods used by US-backed actors to 'persuade' those votes against Mossadegh in Majlis (Congress). The votes might not have been very "organic," as this declassified document [2] suggests.
Basically, when the U.S. saw opposition to Mossadegh growing they tried to organize and fund the opposition forces against him, while also lobbying the Shah to have him dismissed. The Shah was reluctant at first, but finally agreed as Mossadegh's efforts to gain political control progressed. The strategy the CIA envisioned failed, however (Mossadegh refused to step down when the Shah dismissed him and began arresting opposition). At this point the United States thought that Mossadegh would remain in power, but opposition groups inside Iran reorganized and removed Mossadegh.
I just read the Wikipedia link in the parent of this thread and it covers it in very interesting detail. Lots of moving parts, and I can’t give a synthesis. But this includes: nationalization of the oil fields that broke prior agreements with Britain (big money maker for Britain, but a bad deal for Iran), gradual move towards authoritarian leadership by Mosaddegh as his popularity waned due to economic hardship after a British oil embargo following the nationalization, Mosaddegh alignment with communists. Seems like there was both western meddling and also inherent power struggle happening in the country at that time. USA supported shah but who they should support was actually under debate. It states the USA coup attempt actually failed but may have precipitated the successful one, which was possibly natural. Finally, USA broke the British monopoly after the coup and Iran did get much more money from their oil after this.
I’m curious about GP’s reply. The nuance about the British wanting a PM they’d be able to sway is a piece I hadn’t heard before. Oil/nationalization of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company still seems like a key flashpoint in UK/US opposition regardless of what they considered doing instead.
The 1979 Iranian revolution was the pendulum swinging back hard the other way.
There's nothing good to say about the 1953 coup - but in no sense was the 1979 revolution a "swing back the other way", let alone a hard swing. If anything it was a swing sideways, to a different (and in the view of many people I know from that beautiful country, substantially worse) form of dictatorship.
Considered by whom? They must be insane, if they think that the presence of severely imperfect systems of election of candidates makes individuals in a population responsible. Only the use of a non intellectual organ can come to that conclusion.
You have just proven, through stating the pervasiveness of lunacy, that the responsibility of the sane can only be limited.
The US didn’t install a corrupt dictator. It basically backed groups who were looking to overthrow Mossaddegh, who himself was fighting to stop from being ousted by the Shah (who held that power legitimately).
There were already riots in the streets over his rule. He was going to be ousted CIA involvement or not.
Plus it’s a bit odd to blame the US for a ruling body who ousted the US backed one.
That’s like blaming the US for the Vietnamese Communist party today.
I don’t know enough about that period of history, but surely the Roman invasion in the 40’s had some consequences in the following decades for which the Romans could be assigned responsibility?
I’m in no way supporting Iran’s religious extremism or current government, but they are monsters that we created.
The coup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat?...
Edit: it has been pointed out that the pendulum metaphor isn’t quite right, and that makes sense to me, but I’ll leave it since people have responded to it.