[fritztastic]

This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region, which have been ongoing for decades. Just as the US has reason to retaliate against Saudi Arabia, many other places could also have reasons to push the ruling family out of power and gain influence.

It also fails to account for the autonomy of the people there. Is it really so hard to believe that they are rebelling against authoritarianism?

Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness?

Interestingly, the same can be said of unrest anywhere- undoubtedly the agendas of several states will always align with weakening their competitors/adversaries.

When you consider the things everyday people care about and strive for, it can be argued that any party interested in destabilizing another nation would play to those aspirations in such a way as to further their control- this is true of almost everywhere, it is not exclusive to any one people or any one institution, and it can be seen in every region. In any given place, if you take a close look, there are varying levels of influence from foreign powers- often with the goal to secure economic goals or obtain natural resources.

[unity1001]

> This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region

That is a very simplistic, and correct view of how the US manipulates such tensions.

There are many of us international HNers, whose countries suffered multiple US backed coups or color revolutions, and even worse, whose grassroots popular movements were co-opted and subverted by the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union...

So much that even the 'people's movement', Solidarity in Poland, that was the 'trade union' movement that overthrow their government, was CIA funded and organized. The same thing has been a staple of daily life in Middle East since 1960s, when CIA decided to fund and use Islamist groups.

[fritztastic]

As someone from one of those countries, I'm well aware.

I'm not saying the US, and/or proxies of the agendas of the powerful who stand to gain from exploitation and meddling, aren't involved. I would expect they are very much involved, and I would be very skeptical of any claim they aren't.

What I'm saying is simply that despite this, people in those places could conceivably be independently fed up- and their dissatisfaction with their regimes stands on its own and is valid. There is a lot of nuance and a lot of different intersecting motivations and interests at play.

I just think, in my personal opinion, that those things people fight and risk dying for (freedom from persecution, personal safety, to be able to put food on the table, to care for family, etc) aren't only happening because of outside factors and political reasons, these are human concerns. People in Iran, Saudi Arabia, anywhere else, aren't just pawns susceptible to propagands- they understand there are all sorts of players trying to gain dominance over their lives. A lot of people in the US have these broad ideas about people in entire regions, as though they're monoliths- like people in Iran/Saudi Arabia were content and would have been obedient if not for foreign involvement, which I think is simplistic and I disagree with this assumption.

People in an uprising and nations in upheaval are especially vulnerable to external groups swooping in to manipulate the situation to their interests- this much is true, and it can also be true that people would have been rising up regardless. How this plays out over time is yet to be seen but unfortunately the most likely scenario is some other despot will step in to further their personal agenda at the expense of the people, whether they align with US interests or otherwise... like anywhere else, those in power will fight to maintain and gain power and control, no matter the human cost and devastation- this is true everywhere.

[unity1001]

> How this plays out over time

How this plays out over time is either of the two: 1) The protests fail, either due to the momentum fading or the government suppressing 2) The protests succeed, and the country gets a US backed government. Along with all the privatization, removal of labor protections and social welfare, decline in life standards.

Unfortunately, there hasnt been any case of the protesters somehow being able to avert that while still succeeding. Because such protests and movements need organization to succeed. And if there wasnt an indigenous, powerful source of such organization present in the country for a long time, the organization will be coming from those who are backed by the US.

A US backed government would mean hell for both Saudis and Iranis - Saudi Arabia has VERY extensive social programs that literally guarantee everyone's comfort, life and education. Iran does not have those, but it still has enough such programs and the traditional cultural relations and social fabric is still alive. Those tend to get destroyed in the first wave of privatizations and 'free marketization'.

[jdmonty]

Saudis not always acquiescing to US pleas/demands historically hasn’t ever regime change ops. They have Long history of cooperation likely, arms deals, key to keeping dollar for their market, keep up starving slaughtering Yemen, where as Iran has been one of baddies since 1979

[unity1001]

That was so until the US establishment came up with the idea of breaking up Saudi Arabia recently.

[jdmonty]

I agree but what you’re missing from threat modeling is relative capability of actors. And yes not there’s degrees of of organic discontent which is key to amplifying or muting etc. they’ll have intelligence and adapt vectors. For example the girl was killed is a fact. The trick is building narrative and this is where likely lies of omission or exaggeration or semantics come in in e.g. girl is dead, it’s evil repressive regimes fault, we demand justice. Not perfect science for sure

[edit]

[somenameforme]

You're absolutely right it's been going on for decades, but I think looking into that history is also telling. In 1953 Iran was a relatively secular and democratic nation that had generally positive, though flagging, relations with the West. Then their leader decided to reduce US/UK control over his country's oil assets. So of course we had to bring democracy to them. But since they already had a democracy, autocracy would have to do instead. [1]

We staged a coup, overthrew their democracy, and installed an extremely unpopular puppet dictator and monarch. 26 years later in 1979 there was another revolution, except this one was carried out by the people of Iran, and not the CIA. The puppet (still ruling from 1953 interestingly) was overthrown, and in his place an Islamic theocracy was created. And since then it's invariably been headed by leaders that, for some reason, haven't been especially fond of the West - and frequently imply we're up to shenanigans. That scenario continues to this day.

Ultimately I no longer really believe that we deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to black ops types scenarios. We've turned what should be a sort of last resort act of subterfuge into what increasingly seems to be a front-line approach to international relations. The most bizarre part is that these shenanigans never even really seem to achieve anything. Iran just being one example of going black ops to undermine one enemy, only to create one 10x more deadly, dangerous, and hostile than the former.

All we really seem to be achieving is the fast-tracking of WW3.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

[darawk]

The fact that the US orchestrated a coup in 1953 proves that the US is also orchestrating this coup today? That's the argument?

[pazimzadeh]

It obviously means there's reason to be suspicious. It took 60 years for the US to admit its role in the 1953 coup.

[darawk]

Reason to be suspicious, sure. Just not reason to draw that conclusion firmly.

[pazimzadeh]

I agree. I am sure that the hack boosted the morale of many protestors. It is tragic but us normals have no way of determine the degree to which it was inside job. Who is going to trust the CIA, etc if they deny it?

Especially when there are US agencies posting videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA4e0NqyYMw

[darawk]

Ya, we can't really know, but I think it's fair to say that powerful though the CIA is, they can't synthesize these kinds of protests from nothing. So, even if the CIA did hack these TV stations to aid the protesters, it's something that could just as easily have been done organically too, so I'm not sure it really matters whether they did or didn't.

[wefarrell]

There’s a theory that 1979 started as a British plot to retaliate against the Shah for nationalizing the oil industry.

[anigbrowl]

No, GP is a legit comment. Everything you say about Iran is also true of Saudi Arabia (in the sense of the ruling regime being autocratic and oppressive) but it's expedient for the establishment in the US to condemn one regime and support the other.

[avgcorrection]

> Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness?

Out of all the nations on Earth, perhaps a majority of them have some kind of discontent among the population. Then, with this blank cheque being given, the nations with the most powerful intel agencies can empower the ones they want into full-blown protests.

The conspiracy theory that Russia influenced the two recent American presidential elections naturally come to mind. If that was the case—and I don’t doubt that they might have invested a small pittance into FB ads—then they were surely just building on existing unhappiness, as Trump supporters are too numerous to all be sleeper agents of the waning super power that is Russia.