[Galaxeblaffer]

In this case, the US was pretty involved in destabilizing the country. If the us and the uk hadn't intervened in 50s, Iran would have made a successful transition from monarchy to democracy. I guess we can discuss if the US owes anything to anyone, but a case for the us correcting earlier mistakes can definitely be made.

[qntmfred]

there's much more to the story of Iran than the simple "oh of course the UK and US are bad"

[Galaxeblaffer]

Og course there's so much more to the story.. but the fact is that the monarchy was effectively overthrown and shah had given up power and fled the country. In this particular instance it's very simple.. the us and the uk was bad

[frollogaston]

Pahlavi was basically disconnected from the West by the middle to end of his reign, not an ally at all. Pahlavi's Iran cofounded OPEC, nationalized their oil in 1973, and pressured OPEC to raise prices. Really makes me wonder.

[qntmfred]

just bc the shah fled the country doesn't mean the us and uk were bad or even the root cause. same kind of simple-minded ignorance that led to Mossadegh's rise in the first place.

[frollogaston]

I can't assume that Iran would've successfully transitioned to democracy, or that it's even what should happen there. All those Arabian Gulf countries are monarchies.

[senderista]

never mind that Iran has a totally different language, culture and history

[frollogaston]

I don't know Islam's exact role in Iranian government, but it clearly has one, as it determined the last revolution there. But more importantly, they're in a region of monarchies and dictatorships. Not saying they can't be a democracy, it's just a big assumption to make that they would've been, like I really don't see any reason.

Btw, lots of Arabic influence in Iranian culture. Yeah separate Indoeuropean language, but Arabic alphabet, tons of Arabic loanwords, and required Arabic lessons partially to help read the Quran. There's a reason the Pahlavis wanted to emphasize Aryan pride instead.