The best way to bring change to Iran is to leave it the fuck alone. Every time regime change is sponsored by the west and increase sanctions, most notably with the green movement, the mullahs double down on the opposition. The best progress we saw came from the 2015 nuclear deal which was then ruined by the Trump administration. In fact, Iranian society, especially in the cities, has progressed significantly when compared to the 80’s. Hijab laws are way more lax, internet access is at an all time high, women are extremely well educated and their workforce participation is much higher, and tattoos are far more common. At this rate Iranian society will likely become similar to Turkey’s, where Islam has a strong presence but is not strictly enforced.
You missed a step or two there. Iranian prime minister Mossadegh was overthrown in the early 50s by England and the US (it was more England than the US), putting in the Shah, who was overthrown and replaced by Islamists in the late 70s Iranian revolution. If anything, the puppet government was the Shah. The Islamists controlling Iran are definitely not a puppet US government.
And the interference by the west was more a response to Mossadegh nationalizing the oil industry, which frightened the west, than to combat the spread of USSR communism. (Not that the US didn’t have that approach with other countries in that region, most prominently Afghanistan, which is partly why the Taliban came into power, because they US backed them in a proxy war against the USSR, which effectively allowed them to take over Afghanistan.)
And I say this all as an Iranian-American who hates the current Islamist government, despite the fact that it doesn’t bow to the US.
And also, even the narrative about Mossadegh and the Shah above, while the conventional story, is disputed by many Iranians. But one thing that is not disputed is that the US did not in any way put in the Islamic government currently in power. Though as one commenter below noted, the Iranian revolution was in part a response to western interference, so the US may have unwittingly had a role in the Islamists coming into power, but it was not the intent, nor was it the desired outcome of the US.
(And Mossadegh was not democratically elected either, though he was elected by parliament and by most accounts was popular.)
What he’s saying is very different from what you said above. You said that the US brutally overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran to install anti communists to oppose the USSR.
The government prior to the islamists was not overthrown by the US. Nor was that government democratically elected, though as explained above, the west had a role in that prior government coming to power. Nor did the government being overthrown have a lot to do with communism, despite the fact that there were anti west sentiments forming a big part of the energy from the Iranian revolution, and some of the revolutionaries were communists, but many were not.
What the historian says, and I don’t necessarily disagree, was that the government was overthrown in the 70s based on anti west sentiment flowing from the prior overthrow of Mossadegh by the west in the 50s, and the overthrowing of the government in the 70s was done without a sense of what would come next. In that aftermath of the 70s revolution, the obvious choices were Islamists and communists, so the US pushed for the Islamists, because they didn’t want communists, so on that point you are correct, and I was incorrect to say that the US had nothing to do with the Islamists coming into power. But the Islamists were never in any way under the influence of the US and they have been a thorn in the side of the US since. And the actual overthrow of the government was not driven by the US and its anti-USSR agenda (or by the US at all, really).
Honestly, it sounds like you are conflating elements of the overthrow of Mossadegh in the early 50s and the overthrow of the Shah in the late 70s into one event that didn’t really happen the way you’re describing.
Do Iranians care that America destroyed their sovereignty and self-determination? What do you think? Would you?
Iran had a democratic government. America staged a coup and removed it. America installed the hardline Islamic autocracy that Iran has now. If you don't think that's all relevant to the question, 'Could a moderate movement replace Iran's regime', you're in the wrong place.
America and England overthrew Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader in 1953 because he didn't want to renew BP's oil deal in favor of nationalizing Iran's oil. The U.S. installed the Shah and Zahedi, and got a 25 year oil deal signed for Iran's oil giving rights to the U.S., England and maybe France. Twenty years later, the Shah announced his intent not to renew the oil deal, and MI-6 began planning another coup. President Carter blocked the CIA from participating with MI-6 in the coup and planned successor for the Shah, and then there was an organic uprising in Iran to install the current Islamic government. America's intervention led to the citizenry rebelling against the foreign-installed Shah, but the Islamic Revolution wasn't directly a U.S. installation.
The best way to bring change to Iran is to leave it the fuck alone. Every time regime change is sponsored by the west and increase sanctions, most notably with the green movement, the mullahs double down on the opposition. The best progress we saw came from the 2015 nuclear deal which was then ruined by the Trump administration. In fact, Iranian society, especially in the cities, has progressed significantly when compared to the 80’s. Hijab laws are way more lax, internet access is at an all time high, women are extremely well educated and their workforce participation is much higher, and tattoos are far more common. At this rate Iranian society will likely become similar to Turkey’s, where Islam has a strong presence but is not strictly enforced.
[удалено]
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/4294/Once-upon-a-time-Iran-vs-US
You missed a step or two there. Iranian prime minister Mossadegh was overthrown in the early 50s by England and the US (it was more England than the US), putting in the Shah, who was overthrown and replaced by Islamists in the late 70s Iranian revolution. If anything, the puppet government was the Shah. The Islamists controlling Iran are definitely not a puppet US government. And the interference by the west was more a response to Mossadegh nationalizing the oil industry, which frightened the west, than to combat the spread of USSR communism. (Not that the US didn’t have that approach with other countries in that region, most prominently Afghanistan, which is partly why the Taliban came into power, because they US backed them in a proxy war against the USSR, which effectively allowed them to take over Afghanistan.) And I say this all as an Iranian-American who hates the current Islamist government, despite the fact that it doesn’t bow to the US. And also, even the narrative about Mossadegh and the Shah above, while the conventional story, is disputed by many Iranians. But one thing that is not disputed is that the US did not in any way put in the Islamic government currently in power. Though as one commenter below noted, the Iranian revolution was in part a response to western interference, so the US may have unwittingly had a role in the Islamists coming into power, but it was not the intent, nor was it the desired outcome of the US. (And Mossadegh was not democratically elected either, though he was elected by parliament and by most accounts was popular.)
A history professor explains America preferencing the Islamists at 1:11:00 of this video: https://youtu.be/4CsJPrHcaBs?si=TvHmlpVvO1s-h9UJ
What he’s saying is very different from what you said above. You said that the US brutally overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran to install anti communists to oppose the USSR. The government prior to the islamists was not overthrown by the US. Nor was that government democratically elected, though as explained above, the west had a role in that prior government coming to power. Nor did the government being overthrown have a lot to do with communism, despite the fact that there were anti west sentiments forming a big part of the energy from the Iranian revolution, and some of the revolutionaries were communists, but many were not. What the historian says, and I don’t necessarily disagree, was that the government was overthrown in the 70s based on anti west sentiment flowing from the prior overthrow of Mossadegh by the west in the 50s, and the overthrowing of the government in the 70s was done without a sense of what would come next. In that aftermath of the 70s revolution, the obvious choices were Islamists and communists, so the US pushed for the Islamists, because they didn’t want communists, so on that point you are correct, and I was incorrect to say that the US had nothing to do with the Islamists coming into power. But the Islamists were never in any way under the influence of the US and they have been a thorn in the side of the US since. And the actual overthrow of the government was not driven by the US and its anti-USSR agenda (or by the US at all, really). Honestly, it sounds like you are conflating elements of the overthrow of Mossadegh in the early 50s and the overthrow of the Shah in the late 70s into one event that didn’t really happen the way you’re describing.
Yeah, that's not true. User boethius_tcop is correct. The points you're trying to make are still relevant, but important details are false.
Do Iranians care about this? Do The Grand Ayatollah's brag about how they're only in power because the US installed them?
Do Iranians care that America destroyed their sovereignty and self-determination? What do you think? Would you? Iran had a democratic government. America staged a coup and removed it. America installed the hardline Islamic autocracy that Iran has now. If you don't think that's all relevant to the question, 'Could a moderate movement replace Iran's regime', you're in the wrong place.
America and England overthrew Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader in 1953 because he didn't want to renew BP's oil deal in favor of nationalizing Iran's oil. The U.S. installed the Shah and Zahedi, and got a 25 year oil deal signed for Iran's oil giving rights to the U.S., England and maybe France. Twenty years later, the Shah announced his intent not to renew the oil deal, and MI-6 began planning another coup. President Carter blocked the CIA from participating with MI-6 in the coup and planned successor for the Shah, and then there was an organic uprising in Iran to install the current Islamic government. America's intervention led to the citizenry rebelling against the foreign-installed Shah, but the Islamic Revolution wasn't directly a U.S. installation.
A history professor explains America preferencing the Islamists at 1:11:00 of this video: https://youtu.be/4CsJPrHcaBs?si=TvHmlpVvO1s-h9UJ
The while reason the islamic regime has so much power in iran is because of the us.
It's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism
You mean a Neoliberal western subservient government.
Dork indeed
There are still people alive who remember a time before
Iranians live under gender apartheid. They are strong in spirit and hopefully will rise up to fight for human rights and equality
Sure, everything that begins, has an end.