Iran before 1979

Pro-Western, but not particularly free. A good place to live in as long as you didn't contest the rule of the King of Kings, whose secret police forces were infamous.

Why oh why did we have to overthrow Mossadegh?

They even had a democracy before the CIA had it's way. They put in place an unpopular dictator and that fanned the flames of resentment that lead to the Iranian Revolution.

Imperiuz said:

A friend, an Iranian expatriate who is active in the same political youth organisation as I am, sent me this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF47rrHd7wo&feature=related

I knew Iran was a relatively free pro-western country before the Islamic revolution, but when I watched this video I just felt "wow!". That such an advanced country and such an amazing ancient culture could be transformed into the hellhole it is now over almost a night feels almost unbelievable.

He sometimes cries about his lost homeland (he was born in exile, so he was never given the chance to experience it), especially after some drinks. I can understand why. As much as I loathe secularism, I loathe the totalitarian Islamic system more.

Click to expand...

Yes the people were richer, had more freedoms in practice and were better able to worship God before the revolution. Even though the revolution was ostensibly about restoring Gods hand on the helm of governance. There are so many exiles from that time all around the world and many of them are now Christians. Also the church ironically is growing very strongly in Iran even despite the persecution there. So even though it seemed a total disaster and wrecked the comparative comfort of many peoples lives I wonder if Gods hand was in this for the long term good of the country. By setting up the Ayatollahs and thereby handing people over to their fantasies they enabled the people to work these fantasies through and many are now rejecting them. The regime remains strong in the short term however.

The coup against Mossadegh was a little shady i suppose but in practice probably secured cheap oil for 25 years and prolonged Western influence in the region. But the Shahs blasphemous titles and abuse of power were a problem even though he was a Western ally.

In other words, democracy is awesome and the West awesome because of it, and because it's so awesome, it must be carefully rationed so that brown people don't use it against Western interests.

The coup against Mossadegh was not just a little shady, it was an atrocious overthrow of the democratic regime of a sovereign country. Carried out by your idol Churchill no less, that stalwart defender of freedom :o

The funny thing about pictures is they can be used to tell a one sided story when other factors may have been present.

The US and Britain should seriously have stayed away back in the 50s.

The photos show a shiny side of a ruthless despotic regime, the Shah needed to be thrown out. The current situation of hatred against western nations and apparent increasing desire to be ever more Islamic was fuelled by the US and British getting rid of (the democratically elected) Mossadegh and aiding the Shah in gaining power.

The US and Britain should, to start getting things off on the right foot after decades of really stepping in it, crawl on their knees and beg forgiveness for what they did.

PHenry42 said:

In other words, democracy is awesome and the West awesome because of it, and because it's so awesome, it must be carefully rationed so that brown people don't use it against Western interests.

The coup against Mossadegh was not just a little shady, it was an atrocious overthrow of the democratic regime of a sovereign country. Carried out by your idol Churchill no less, that stalwart defender of freedom :o

Click to expand...

Not just Churchill, Eisenhower too. Do not forget Eisenhower.
Also, PHenry, I share your outrage. It was an affront to all humanity what was done. Just please do not forget that those two nations do not comprise all the west. At all.

Imperiuz said:

A friend, an Iranian expatriate who is active in the same political youth organisation as I am, sent me this:

I knew Iran was a relatively free pro-western country before the Islamic revolution, but when I watched this video I just felt "wow!". That such an advanced country and such an amazing ancient culture could be transformed into the hellhole it is now over almost a night feels almost unbelievable.

He sometimes cries about his lost homeland (he was born in exile, so he was never given the chance to experience it), especially after some drinks. I can understand why. As much as I loathe secularism, I loathe the totalitarian Islamic system more.

Click to expand...

Amen

PHenry42 said:

In other words, democracy is awesome and the West awesome because of it, and because it's so awesome, it must be carefully rationed so that brown people don't use it against Western interests.

The coup against Mossadegh was not just a little shady, it was an atrocious overthrow of the democratic regime of a sovereign country. Carried out by your idol Churchill no less, that stalwart defender of freedom :o

Click to expand...

Churchills opposition to Mossadegh had nothing to do with democracy. The nationalisation of British oil assets in Iran and the overt hostility towards Britain along with the obvious cold war fears that Iran was moving in a Soviet direction were more to the point. Einsenhower also had good reason to distrust Mossadegh.

The Shah was not much better than his primeminister and was persuaded by bribes etc to do his role.

I would agree with Madeline Albrights comments in 2000 that this was a set back for Irans political development. However I think it was a good thing overall for most of the rest of the world as it secured cheap oil for a generation allowing the Western world to recover from the war and to pull much of the rest of the world with it.

Also what replaced the Shahs regime although a choice of most Iranians at the time was a total disaster economically (some estimates put per capita income as low as 25% of pre revolution levels at the worst time, morally for the way it treated Christians by comparison with the previous regime and in terms of political freedoms e.g. of women and the possibility of dissent(freedom of speech).

The revolution has raised the profile of Islam round the world and encouraged a mini revival of the faith with the added attraction of being something old and substantial that distinguishes the Middle east from the Western world and represents a strong counter cultural critique of Western values. It remains to be seen whether this newly public profile is good for Islam in the long run or will ultimately lead to its rejection as people recognise it compares poorly with the more prominent alternatives.

Imperiuz said:

I have thought about this too. This is after all the age of possibilities, and it wouldn't be hard to imagine an increase of Christians and Zoroastrians as well if the regime was overthrown. About Mossadegh, my friend tells me that he ruled quite dictatorially, and that his actions would inevitably result in a souring of Iranian-western relations if he had not been overthrown in a popular uprising. (though he admit this was done with western support)

Click to expand...

He was deeply antiWestern and this souring had already occurred and was a major factor in his removal.

faith guardian said:

The US and Britain should seriously have stayed away back in the 50s.

The photos show a shiny side of a ruthless despotic regime, the Shah needed to be thrown out. The current situation of hatred against western nations and apparent increasing desire to be ever more Islamic was fuelled by the US and British getting rid of (the democratically elected) Mossadegh and aiding the Shah in gaining power.

The US and Britain should, to start getting things off on the right foot after decades of really stepping in it, crawl on their knees and beg forgiveness for what they did.

Click to expand...

This is so deeply naive! In the political context antiWestern in those days was pro Soviet and the Cold war stakes were too high to simply hand over a good % of the worlds oil supply to the Communists. There were good reasons to believe that an antiWestern Iran (no question Mossadegh was antiWestern) would have ended up in the Soviet orbit much like Nasser in the same times etc.

The Muslim world are still mad about the crusades from a 1000 years ago so of course they remember stuff like Mossadegh also with the horror of being one upped by people with crosses on their shields.

The drop in percapita incomes , the loss of freedoms for Christians and for women and for dissenters from the regime more generally are all fruit of the post Shah world. The iranians I know are the refugees from those times and the horror stories about the Shahs regime for the vast majority of the people who lived in it are grossly exaggerated. Iran lost something when it killed its Shah and it has not yet regained it.

Oh get off your high horse, mindlight. The US is not a shining beacon in the night. The Shah was a brutal despot, and his savak was ruthless and savage. Furthermore, the Shah replaced a democratically elected leader. You can try to paint that some pretty color, but the facts above remain.

The ends do not justify the means. You cannot profess to be for freedom and then go around kicking elected people out when you don't like them. Ron Paul has an extremely good case when he says it's time you brought the golden rule into politics. It's hardly machiavellian, it IS Christian however. Not that I think Ron Paul is remotely perfect. But he has that one point down at least. If there's something the US has been sorely lacking it is in Christian politics (And no, I do not mean that as yet another excuse to go bomb someone, as it would appear some think, rather the opposite. Healthcare, good education, peace - NOT war, a series of apologies where abuse has been done and of course repentance.)

faith guardian said:

Oh get off your high horse, mindlight. The US is not a shining beacon in the night. The Shah was a brutal despot, and his savak was ruthless and savage. Furthermore, the Shah replaced a democratically elected leader. You can try to paint that some pretty color, but the facts above remain.

The ends do not justify the means. You cannot profess to be for freedom and then go around kicking elected people out when you don't like them. Ron Paul has an extremely good case when he says it's time you brought the golden rule into politics. It's hardly machiavellian, it IS Christian however. Not that I think Ron Paul is remotely perfect. But he has that one point down at least. If there's something the US has been sorely lacking it is in Christian politics (And no, I do not mean that as yet another excuse to go bomb someone, as it would appear some think, rather the opposite. Healthcare, good education, peace - NOT war, a series of apologies where abuse has been done and of course repentance.)

Click to expand...

SAVAMA are no better than the SAVAK. That's the way these countries have always operated. Many start as socalled popular leaders but like Gadaffi, Nasser and Sadam Hussein what followed was a nightmare

Ron Pauls isolationism is plain dangerous for world stability and peace not to mention the USAs strategic self interest. The vacuum left by the USA would be filled by less savoury characters. Compared to most of the rest they are a light.

Intervening was not ideal with Mossadegh but the oil and Soviet arguments made it necessary. More was gained than lost overall. All the countries that fell into the Soviet orbit suffered enormously from the ravages of communism and socialism. We would do no one any favours in simply handing them over as the East Europeans or North Koreans can tell you.

Wasn't your country liberated by Churchill FROM an unelected despot.

There seems to be a lack of facts in this thread...

1) Iran is a democracy with free elections. In fact, Ahmadinejad is extremely unpopular and will likely be voted out in their next election.
2) Churchill didn't participate in the overthrow of Mossadegh. It was MI-6 REQUESTING that the CIA do the overthrow. They didn't actually do any of the overthrowing themselves.
3) Churchill was dead before 1979 and the Shah was in power during Mossadegh's term, so he can't be blamed for the Shah or the Islamic Revolution.
4) Ron Paul is NOT Isolationist, he is Non-Interventionist. Switzerland, who has not had to deal with a single war or terrorist threat, is Isolationist. Same with North Korea (Korean War doesn't count, because North Korea didn't exist before that). Non-Interventionism simply means you don't go to war UNLESS you have a proven, guaranteed threat to our national security. It's pretty easy to see how Interventionism is bad, because now we're trapped in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and soon to be Iran with no conceivable benefit.

SmellsLikeCurlyFries said:

There seems to be a lack of facts in this thread...

Click to expand...

Oh great you are going to share some facts.

1) Iran is a democracy with free elections. In fact, Ahmadinejad is extremely unpopular and will likely be voted out in their next election.

Click to expand...

That is debatable- there are severe restrictions on who can stand in elections:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Big test for Iranian democracy

2) Churchill didn't participate in the overthrow of Mossadegh. It was MI-6 REQUESTING that the CIA do the overthrow. They didn't actually do any of the overthrowing themselves.

Click to expand...

Churchill as Primeminister of the UK in 1953 had oversight of Mi6 as did Eisenhower over the CIA and it was these two who agreed the terms of TPAJAX.

3) Churchill was dead before 1979 and the Shah was in power during Mossadegh's term, so he can't be blamed for the Shah or the Islamic Revolution.

Click to expand...

The Shahs regime was enhanced by Churchills actions against Mossadegh and endured as you say till 1979 almost 15 years after churchills death and a generation from the date of the coup in 1953. So you are correct the real reasons for the coup in 79 were probably not Churchill related.

4) Ron Paul is NOT Isolationist, he is Non-Interventionist. Switzerland, who has not had to deal with a single war or terrorist threat, is Isolationist. Same with North Korea (Korean War doesn't count, because North Korea didn't exist before that). Non-Interventionism simply means you don't go to war UNLESS you have a proven, guaranteed threat to our national security. It's pretty easy to see how Interventionism is bad, because now we're trapped in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and soon to be Iran with no conceivable benefit.

Click to expand...

What that means in practice is a withdrawal of American activity and influence from most of its present positions leaving a dangerous vaccum. Thus Ron Paul is naive AND isolationist. It was Clintons failure to sort out the Taliban earlier that led directly to 911. You fight them over there or at home. Safer to do it over there.

America has almost no military assets directly employed in Libya, has left Iraq have achieved its main aims and will leave Afghanistan in the main by 2014 also having achieved its main aims. I am not sure there would have been any good result under Ron Paul in any of these successful operations.

mindlight said:

That is debatable- there are severe restrictions on who can stand in elections:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Big test for Iranian democracy

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, the article still agrees it's a democracy. May not be one of the best democracies, but it IS a democracy.

Churchill as Primeminister of the UK in 1953 had oversight of Mi6 as did Eisenhower over the CIA and it was these two who agreed the terms of TPAJAX.

Click to expand...

Well, considering both CIA and MI6 can get away with their own operations while keeping their respective governments in the dark...

What that means in practice is a withdrawal of American activity and influence from most of its present positions leaving a dangerous vaccum. Thus Ron Paul is naive AND isolationist. It was Clintons failure to sort out the Taliban earlier that led directly to 911. You fight them over there or at home. Safer to do it over there.

Click to expand...

Did you not even bother reading what I wrote? He's not Isolationist, he's Non-Interventionist. There's a difference.

And these horror stories about Ron Paul not doing anything about terrorists and appeasing them and whatnot is to be entirely ignorant of his voting record. He voted to allow Israel to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities back in 1995, before it was a popular idea. He voted for the war in Afghanistan, but withdrew his support after the war was being fought the wrong way (it NEVER should have taken ten bloody years). He has constantly voted to target specific terrorists CONSTITUTIONALLY via Letters of Marque and Reprisals, which don't violate the sovereignty of other nations (thus earning us more enemies) and allow us to eliminate terrorists WITHOUT decade-long wars. He voted to take out Osama back when he was in Tora Bora...

America has almost no military assets directly employed in Libya, has left Iraq have achieved its main aims and will leave Afghanistan in the main by 2014 also having achieved its main aims. I am not sure there would have been any good result under Ron Paul in any of these successful operations.

Click to expand...

Under Ron Paul, we never would have gone to Iraq and Libya in the first place and Afghanistan would have lasted, at most, a year.

Considering we had no business getting involved in Iraq and Libya...

Shah of Iran on the Issue of Torture - YouTube

Here is another clip of the good old times!

I remember Iran before 1979.... I called it home for 2 1/2 years.


This is me on the streets in front of our house in Tehran Pars (hint, I'm the little blonde boy in the middle - I continue to be shocked at how many people can't figure that out when I show them this pick and ask them to guess who in it I am.)