[JumpCrisscross]

They’re being dramatic. We installed the Shah [EDIT: as an autocrat] with the ‘53 coup [1]. That was our original sin.

But the Islamic Republic wasn’t an American creation. Neither was Saddam’s Iraq or the Mujahideen or Al Qaeda. We variously facilitated, opposed and ignored these elements, mostly the last. Ignoring the Soviet history in the region, together with the fact that Iranians aren’t automatons, but human beings with agency and preferences, continues this tradition of American fatalism that ignores how complicated (and independent of ourselves) these systems are.

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

[keybored]

I like this new trend of defending American Imperialism by claiming that the other side doesn’t recognize the human beingness of the Other.

[JumpCrisscross]

> new trend of defending American Imperialism by claiming that the other side doesn’t recognize the human beingness of the Other

It’s not defending or supporting but pointing out that not every foreign policy choice made on the planet is a result of our actions. There is a mixture of culpability, credit and thus obligation to fix things.

And I’m not going off on a humanistic arc. The criticism is in line with that of Big Man historical models, or conspiratorial ones involving all-knowing shadow governments. These models are simpler to apply than reality, which involves imperfect (and changing) actors acting through the fogs of war and history.

[dragonwriter]

> But the Islamic Republic wasn’t an American creation. Neither was Saddam’s Iraq

Saddam's Iraq was, though; Saddam's rise to power in Iraq was backed actively by the US because he was seen as a useful anti-Communist, and once in power he was backed by the US government (to the point of rushing Donald Rumsfeld out as Reagan's special envoy to assure both Saddam and the world of our support for him after he used chemical weapons) in its long war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s.

[JumpCrisscross]

Backed actively, not caused by [1]. (And then promptly abandoned by Johnson.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/17_July_Revolution

[Aloisius]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941, succeeding his father after the British forced him out.

I'm unsure as to how the US installed him in 1953. He had been Shah for 11 years.

[rKarpinski]

-> I'm unsure as to how the US installed him in 1953. He had been Shah for 11 years.

Operation Ajax

[JumpCrisscross]

> Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State of Iran in 1941

Sorry, you’re correct. We installed him as an autocrat in ‘53.

[Aloisius]

He already had immense power prior to the coup. At best, his autocratic power was strengthened. Calling him installed by the US is a misrepresentation.

Iran was not a British-style constitutional monarchy. The Shah was not a ceremonial position. His father ruled with even more power than he did. He was just an absentee ruler for the first part of his rule until someone tried to assassinate him.

Never mind that Prime Minister Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament and had been ruling by decree for a year also acted as an autocrat. Even his own party turned against him for abuse of power.

At best, one could argue the British installed the Shah. They are, after all, the people who made him Shah in the first place.

[reillyse]

If describing events that took place is being dramatic , then I guess so?

Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain, would you think that would be dramatic?

As for the Islamic revolution, it was a reaction to being colonized and subjugated, and I would argue it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to exploit the resources of the US for their gain

Literally the colonial governors.

> it’s still around because the only other option is being a puppet of the US

Iran didn’t have to become a hardline theocracy, or a state sponsor of terror, or a nuclear pariah. The IRGC didn’t have to be corrupt and autocratic [1].

The tragedy of the present is it still doesn’t have to be. And while we contributed to the malaise that gave rise to the Islamic Republic (and continue to contribute to its geopolitical insecurity), it’s a step too far to say we caused it.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_th...