infinity ag said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

The Shah's government was considered corrupt and oppressive by many Iranians. He was accused of using many of the same tactics against his people that the Ayotollah did including brutal prisons and torture. It wasn't a big fairy tale like a Disney film. Lots of economic unrest as well. He was diagnosed with Cancer at the same time he started to lose his grip on the country and ended up fleeing to exile.

---

Muslims always consider their regime to be corrupt so they can fight to depose it.

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

When your belief system states that the only surefire way to get to heaven is to die fighting in a jihad holy war, then if you can't find said holy war then you make one up.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It was literally our and Englands fault. No one wants to talk about it. Generally when you remove a longstanding political establishment what replaces it doesn't have staying power. And generally then what rises afterwards is incredibly radical and violent. You can see it in Nazi Germany when post WW1 France created a faux German government. You can see it in Russia after the royal family was murdered/exiled. Japan is another great example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

---

This is the historical memory that most Americans and Iranians have about what happened in 1953, but the reality is much more complicated. It's a case where the CIA was desperate for a "win" and so they ran with it as a win even though the facts on the ground tell us that the CIA/MI6 led part of the coup failed miserably. I'm fine with the attitude that it doesn't matter what happened, it matters what people think/remember happened, but for the purposes of this thread (assuming anyone here is interested in the facts) it's worth it to point out that Iranian local actors are the ones who pulled off the coup in 1953, INCLUDING the religious establishment who were in favor at that point of the Shah remaining in power.

The simple answer you will always get from people on why we have conflict with Iran will trace back to 1953, but in reality the seeds of anti-Western influence were sown much earlier than that and trace from Great Game politics that left some deep seated resentment among the local intelligentsia. There is an excellent book called "In the Persian Mirror" that details how the West was perceived through Iranian eyes in literature. For those who are really interested in Iranian mindsets, look into "My [Dear] Uncle Napoleon" as well. It was a work of fiction published in the 1970s, and it satirizes Iranians obsessive fear of foreign manipulation. The British are the "bad guys" in that book, but in Iranian society we had already started to assume the position formerly held by the British of the "strong Western power that is messing up our lives."

For long term scholars of Iran like myself, these are interesting days. No one in my circle is mourning the death of the Ayatollah, but there are significant questions about what comes next and who, if anyone, is prepared to step up and lead the country on a more moderate path towards secular democracy. The IRGC stands to lose everything in a pivot away from the current form of government so it's hard to see how they don't cling to the last vestiges of power that they have even if it means a suicidal collision course with US forces.

Awesome posts! I appreciate the history. Is there any chance of a royal type family for Iran that could be restored? Something a kin to SA and Jordan?

I personally don't like the idea of the Shah's son trying to return to Tehran like some kind of savior. And outside of the Pahlavi family there isn't any sort of royal family to pull a leader from.

The Pahlavis had their chance, and they were corrupt, oppressive and weak as leaders. I'm not sure in which reality putting a guy in charge who hasn't lived in Iran in 47 years and expecting him to have any sort of legitimacy with the population makes sense.

IMO, best case scenario is for Trump to call a cessation of hostilities sometime in the next week once we've eliminated all of the strongmen targets we're after and then make an announcement that the future now belongs to the Iranian people. Allow them to chart their political futures, because IF we are involved with the selection of the next leader, that person will always have to fight the accusation that they are one of our puppets.

ETA: Iran actually has a robust professional class and some real experience with democracy even if it is tightly controlled by the Guardian Council, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could hold legitimate and fair elections within a year to elect a new president that is outside of the current ruling elite. Major reforms to the constitution and/or a totally new constitution though are needed at some point to remove the final decision making power from the hands of the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council, or just delete those offices completely.

Makes sense, great stuff

The 1953 coup against Mossadegh(sp) was an unneeded and ill warranted mess. The Brits beguiled Ike into putting it into motion and the then fledgling CIA jacked it up. Kermit Roosevelt, notice the affiliation, was the US man at the helm.

The original version of the coup failed, it was salvaged from the ashes by the US assets incentivizing, both financially and via status, the radical faction in Iran to give 11th and a half hour support for the Shah and the coup.

This was the first instance of true ass radicals being included, and given legitimacy, in the governmental process of a country like Iran. That coup laid the seeds and ground work for the rise of radical Islam in Iran.

All due to BP and the British being financially butt hurt over the oil proceeds from a crappy deal they imposed on Iran from way back.

It has been well established that there really was no credible commie threat to Iran, it was trumped up, no pun intended, by the British to get the US to act. The first vestiges of a secular somewhat democracy were overthrown by K. Roosevelt and his paid lackeys.

The Shah was placed at the top of Iran by the CIA. He replaced Mossaddegh who was very nationalistic with Iranian oil. We couldn't have that, so he was replaced by someone more friendly to the USA.

Right or wrong, our involvement has caused many problems across a variety of countries. The Khmer Rouge took over after we replaced Sihanouk with Lon Nol which further disrupted the country ultimately causing the deaths of millions of people.

aggie93 said:

---

Martels Hammer said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

LMCane said:

---

the Soviet Union communists and Frenchies brought Ayatollah Khomeini back to Iran

you can guess why.

---

The French suck so much.

---

The average American and European for that matter have no idea just how much of Africa's problems are because of France and their Foreign Legion. Or how weak the French economy would be without their African grift.

In short France runs two currencies in about a third of Africa and props up several dictators with cash and the Legion. In exchange for Uranium and other resources below market value. Any African political movement that gains traction to overthrow any of the National Governments gets crushed by the Legion or competing groups secretly backed by France. Exchange rate manipulation on the two currencies imposed by france in these areas takes care of the rest.

Meanwhile French citizens get cheap electricity and other perks, while producing very little. I always laugh when I see the stats that claim the French worker is as productive as the German or American. Their entire economy is based on a GIANT scam.

To compete France would have to do things like work something close to 40 hours a week at something with marketable value. Thats not going to happen anytime soon. Outside of tourism and a few luxury food exports they have nothing.

---

While other European countries moved away from their colonies, the French not so much. France has the ultimate little brother syndrome as they want to be treated as an equal or better to the US, UK, and Germany but have little reason to show for it since Napoleon. US relations with France have never really recovered after the Suez when we basically told the UK and France they needed to give it up and go home and shut up. It showed them with true clarity that they are the junior partners and while the UK basically accepted that France never did. That's why we don't have military bases in France for instance and they will skate around sanctions and deal with our enemies anytime they can get away with it.

---

France also threatened to join the soviet sphere of influence if they weren't allowed to keep Vietnam as a colony.

Who knows how that would have played out for the US and world if they just left Vietnam post WWII instead of thinking they could hold on to it. Instead they got crushed at dien bien phu and we did what we did a decade later.

RGV AG said:

---

The 1953 coup against Mossadegh(sp) was an unneeded and ill warranted mess. The Brits beguiled Ike into putting it into motion and the then fledgling CIA jacked it up. Kermit Roosevelt, notice the affiliation, was the US man at the helm.

The original version of the coup failed, it was salvaged from the ashes by the US assets incentivizing, both financially and via status, the radical faction in Iran to give 11th and a half hour support for the Shah and the coup.

This was the first instance of true ass radicals being included, and given legitimacy, in the governmental process of a country like Iran. That coup laid the seeds and ground work for the rise of radical Islam in Iran.

All due to BP and the British being financially butt hurt over the oil proceeds from a crappy deal they imposed on Iran from way back.

It has been well established that there really was no credible commie threat to Iran, it was trumped up, no pun intended, by the British to get the US to act. The first vestiges of a secular somewhat democracy were overthrown by K. Roosevelt and his paid lackeys.

---

This is not entirely accurate. The British definitely did help draw us in here because of their intransigence on the nationalization of oil interests in Iran, but in no way do any scholars of this event show that "true ass radicals" were included. That is just patently false in every way. The only "radicals" involved were the paid provocateurs who like most hired guns weren't very effective because they weren't real believers in communism.

If any of you all have JSTOR access I highly recommend these two articles if you are interested in the having a more nuanced view of what happened in 1953. Both articles include a bit of a back and forth over the competing narratives. As a disclaimer, I side with Takeyh on this that the CIA may have instigated, but Iranian local actors finished the job. IMO you have to read 1953 and AJAX in context with the long list of CIA failures in the early 1950s to understand why it became so important for the Agency to claim it as an unambiguous victory and proof of concept for what foreign covert action could accomplish.

Bayandor, Darioush. "The Fall of Mosaddeq, August 1953: Institutional Narratives, Professor Mark Gasiorowski and My Study." Iranian Studies 45, no. 5 (2012): 67991. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23266474.

Takeyh, Ray, and Christopher de Bellaigue. "Coupdunnit: What Really Happened in Iran?" Foreign Affairs 93, no. 5 (2014): 16367. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24483315.

Quote:

---

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

It wasn't always this way. When Muslims went into Spain in the 7th century they were welcomed by many Christians who were under Rome's thumb. For a couple hundred years all three main faiths got along just fine. The ruling Muslims accepted them to practice their religion as they pleased. Yes, Christians and Jews had to pay some extra taxes and couldn't serve in some positions, but the three faiths coexisted peacefully. Early Muslims accepted all "People of the Book". Islam wasn't always radical.

RightWingConspirator said:

---

The Shah was placed at the top of Iran by the CIA. He replaced Mossaddegh who was very nationalistic with Iranian oil. We couldn't have that, so he was replaced by someone more friendly to the USA.

Right or wrong, our involvement has caused many problems across a variety of countries. The Khmer Rouge took over after we replaced Sihanouk with Lon Nol which further disrupted the country ultimately causing the deaths of millions of people.

---

One of America's often repeated mistakes is ousting dictators we can't work with and expecting cultures with no tradition of self-determination to make good choices. We struggle with good choices in our own country. Why we keep thinking other countries would be good at it is a mystery to me. So then what we do is take the easy way out and hand it back to different despot who is more agreeable to us. Ultimately, those things fall apart because those places have no cultural foundation for public governance. We did this in SE Asia and South America. The only place it seems to have held is South Korea and (the jury is still out) Iraq. Otherwise, we are really bad at the long game.

The history of Iran, and their proxies like hezbollah and hamas over the past 50 years has to be viewed through the lense of Jimmy Carter's actions to depose the Shah and install the 'reformer' ayatollah.

While actions in the 50's and before warrant a concern for unbridled interference/actions by the CIA during the cold war, that is comparatively ancient history compared to 1979, imho.

I think it is wrong to view Carter as naive. He was an evil, bigoted and stupid man his entire life.

Lots of great posts in this thread, but really when you boil it all down there's one key takeaway through it all:

When a country's government, and/or it's people are divided, they are ripe for foreign interference.


A lesson I hope we won't have to learn too much more of.

AggieEP said:

---

I personally don't like the idea of the Shah's son trying to return to Tehran like some kind of savior. And outside of the Pahlavi family there isn't any sort of royal family to pull a leader from.

The Pahlavis had their chance, and they were corrupt, oppressive and weak as leaders. I'm not sure in which reality putting a guy in charge who hasn't lived in Iran in 47 years and expecting him to have any sort of legitimacy with the population makes sense.

IMO, best case scenario is for Trump to call a cessation of hostilities sometime in the next week once we've eliminated all of the strongmen targets we're after and then make an announcement that the future now belongs to the Iranian people. Allow them to chart their political futures, because IF we are involved with the selection of the next leader, that person will always have to fight the accusation that they are one of our puppets.

ETA: Iran actually has a robust professional class and some real experience with democracy even if it is tightly controlled by the Guardian Council, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could hold legitimate and fair elections within a year to elect a new president that is outside of the current ruling elite. Major reforms to the constitution and/or a totally new constitution though are needed at some point to remove the final decision making power from the hands of the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council, or just delete those offices completely.

---

Even the Crown Prince has said he would only be a transitionary figure and he has said so repeatedly. He is really the most logical person to do that though. He has some credibility himself as someone who has stayed engaged and served in the military before the Revolution. He's a thoughtful leader who represents well and understands the mistakes of his father. He also understands he will never be the true Shah but he can be the guy that put Iran on a path to a new future. He is the only person that could connect Iran to its roots realistically and have credibility with the West that I can see. He will need a hell of a security detail though for sure.

It's going to be messy because you have so many competing interests internally and externally. Iran is truly the midpoint of the world in many ways. Russia, China, India, the Arab countries, Turkey, and Europe all surround it and have connections to it and that doesn't even account for the US. It's extremely valuable logistically and in terms of natural resources and it is positioned to control the Persian Gulf due to the Strait of Hormuz. Everyone has an interest there.

BTW, one of the biggest jokes about colonialism is to think of it as a Western concept. Islam and Communism are built around colonialism and spreading their ideology. Certainly China tries to control every country it can in the current world. It's like trying to act as though slavery only existed in the Southern US.

Color me somewhat skeptical of the Crown Prince being transitional. We have seen this many times before where "transitional" leadership become permanent because there is no one else suitable for the job or the transitional guy decides he wants to keep the job. It is the same issue we have here where temporary appointees to finish out undinished terms in congressional seats end up being the permanent replacement.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

It wasn't always this way. When Muslims went into Spain in the 7th century they were welcomed by many Christians who were under Rome's thumb. For a couple hundred years all three main faiths got along just fine. The ruling Muslims accepted them to practice their religion as they pleased. Yes, Christians and Jews had to pay some extra taxes and couldn't serve in some positions, but the three faiths coexisted peacefully. Early Muslims accepted all "People of the Book". Islam wasn't always radical.

---

Very true, you have to look at each Islamic empire differently and some were far more tolerant than others. Iran and Isfahan especially were a massive center of learning and advancement for a very long time highlighted with Avicenna who was basically the Persian version of Leonardo Da Vinci and his book "The Canon of Medicine" was the pivotal work on the human body for centuries and the foundation of modern medicine in many ways. The Persians were especially tolerant of Jews historically as well. When you look at history (esp from about 900-1400) in Europe and the Middle East with a truly open mind you can really get some understanding of the world.

I love historical fiction that ties in lots of research and knowledge about geography and history with a great story and have been on a kick with that lately. A couple great books I recently read were "The Walking Drum" by Louis L'amour who is so well known for his Western epics but he this is a great story of an adventurer from Brittany who goes on a search for his captured father in Persia and travels spends significant time in Muslim Spain and in Christian Constantinople along the way. Another is "The Religion" about the Knights of Malta and the main character is a German born former Janissary who was captured by the Ottomans as a child.

Could Pahlavi serve as a "bridge" to help stabilize while the new constitution etc are drawn up?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It was literally our and Englands fault. No one wants to talk about it. Generally when you remove a longstanding political establishment what replaces it doesn't have staying power. And generally then what rises afterwards is incredibly radical and violent. You can see it in Nazi Germany when post WW1 France created a faux German government. You can see it in Russia after the royal family was murdered/exiled. Japan is another great example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

---

Horse crap.

Mossadegh would likely have kowtowed to the USSR and we would have been in a worse situation.

Quote:

---

BTW, one of the biggest jokes about colonialism is to think of it as a Western concept. Islam and Communism are built around colonialism and spreading their ideology. Certainly China tries to control every country it can in the current world. It's like trying to act as though slavery only existed in the Southern US.

---

Because the people who perpetuate these talking points only care about criticizing America, not actually caring about other nations or past societies not of European descent who conquered other nations. It's been a human struggle since the beginning of civilization, and every race of people has fallen prey to it. Even the Native American tribes that settled North America before Europe ever set foot here were conquering each other for land and territory.

But none of that fits the 'America bad' simplistic talking points of the modern age.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

It wasn't always this way. When Muslims went into Spain in the 7th century they were welcomed by many Christians who were under Rome's thumb. For a couple hundred years all three main faiths got along just fine. The ruling Muslims accepted them to practice their religion as they pleased. Yes, Christians and Jews had to pay some extra taxes and couldn't serve in some positions, but the three faiths coexisted peacefully. Early Muslims accepted all "People of the Book". Islam wasn't always radical.

---

This is entirely false.

Stanley Payne: “Al-Andalus, de hecho, llegó a ser menos tolerante que el Medio Oriente Árabe tanto con los judíos como con los cristianos. La mejor refutacíón reciente de este mito es la obra de Darío Fernández Moreira, “El Mito del Paraíso Andalusí” (2016).” pic.twitter.com/BwCNrM9ico

— Darío Madrid (@Dario_Madrid_F) February 28, 2020

The mythology around the 'tolerant' Al Andalus iberian experience is just that. More at gates of Vienna.

nortex97 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

It wasn't always this way. When Muslims went into Spain in the 7th century they were welcomed by many Christians who were under Rome's thumb. For a couple hundred years all three main faiths got along just fine. The ruling Muslims accepted them to practice their religion as they pleased. Yes, Christians and Jews had to pay some extra taxes and couldn't serve in some positions, but the three faiths coexisted peacefully. Early Muslims accepted all "People of the Book". Islam wasn't always radical.

---

This is entirely false.

Stanley Payne: “Al-Andalus, de hecho, llegó a ser menos tolerante que el Medio Oriente Árabe tanto con los judíos como con los cristianos. La mejor refutacíón reciente de este mito es la obra de Darío Fernández Moreira, “El Mito del Paraíso Andalusí” (2016).” pic.twitter.com/BwCNrM9ico

— Darío Madrid (@Dario_Madrid_F) February 28, 2020

The mythology around the 'tolerant' Al Andalus iberian experience is just that. More at gates of Vienna.

---

Exactly.

Even before you get to the fighting you can just look at the Muslim delivery orders for sex slaves in that region and time. I seem to recall in a single year a single merchant asked for the delivery of at least 10,000 non muslim girls for his business.

They never play nice.

Burdizzo said:

---

Color me somewhat skeptical of the Crown Prince being transitional. We have seen this many times before where "transitional" leadership become permanent because there is no one else suitable for the job or the transitional guy decides he wants to keep the job. It is the same issue we have here where temporary appointees to finish out undinished terms in congressional seats end up being the permanent replacement.

---

No doubt, there are absolutely risks but it's also unrealistic to think it is going to be a functioning Democracy in short order or that there is any leader currently in Iran ready to step in considering that anyone remotely opposing the regime over the last 40 years that stayed in Iran is dead if they had any real influence, everyone else left. I've listened to him quite a bit and he and his family have been in the US for much of the last 40 years and he seems like the safest bet. Make no mistake either that the Iran anyone inherits will have virtually no viable military left and will be dependent on others for support, the only question is who that will be. At least until they can get on their feet which will take some time.

That's also why we have so far avoided Kharg Island, hitting that basically takes the Iranian economy and their ability to rebuild offline until it is fixed, Iran is incredibly vulnerable having one small island that 90% of their oil goes through for export and it could be taken out in minutes, the entire island is less than 8 square miles.

Make no mistake, this isn't going to be an easy and quick fix, Iran is such an important flashpoint with so many competing interests there and whomever wins will be vulnerable to someone wanting to kill them.

The consequences of the redrawn lines after WWII are really coming home to roost.

Quote:

---

Allow them to chart their political futures, because IF we are involved with the selection of the next leader, that person will always have to fight the accusation that they are one of our puppets.

---

I agree with the sentiment. Reality does not. We don't even get a fair, open selection of leaders in our country, and somehow the Iranians will be allowed to?

Burpelson said:

---

The consequences of the redrawn lines after WWII are really coming home to roost.

---

Its called history.

You're constantly having to deal with adjust fault lines...the goal is to ensure the US is always at the head of the pack regardless of outcome externally.

Quote:

---

As a disclaimer, I side with Takeyh on this that the CIA may have instigated, but Iranian local actors finished the job. IMO you have to read 1953 and AJAX in context with the long list of CIA failures in the early 1950s to understand why it became so important for the Agency to claim it as an unambiguous victory and proof of concept for what foreign covert action could accomplish.

---

We will likely have to agree to disagree. If you truly connect all the dots the conclusion to be reached is that this coup was fostered, financed, and emboldened from start to finish by the CIA at the prodding of MI6/Britain.

As with anything like this coup there are all kinds of versions and histories. Will the general public know all the details of this? Probably not. But without question the leading radical Mohammedans of Iran/Tehran were paid to revolt and cause havoc against Mossadeq and those monies were American. That "popular" uprising after the Shah had already fled the country is what turned the tide and the Ayatollah's paid by UK/USA led that charge, it provided a legitimacy that those of their religious ilk had never had before in the Persian countries.

Mossadeq's major focus, and biggest sin in the eyes of the Anglo American powers, was his stance on oil nationalization. Historically, Mossadeq had been at odds with and in conflict with the Tudeh party, only on the issue of the nationalization were they distant bedfellows. The Tudeh party was highly penetrated by MI6 and thus a lot of effort and expense went into making Mossadeq appear communist inclined. And in actuality then MI6 turned the Tudeh party and the their followers against Mossadeq prior to and during the coup.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/iran-1953-mi6-plots-with-islamists-to-overthrow-democracy/

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-coup-mossadegh-cia-60th-anniversary/25076552.html

No matter how it is sliced the 53' coup was a sordid and ugly affair. The unintended consequences are still being felt to this very day. Maybe it was the best solution? I don't know, but seeing how communism never took hold in the Arab/Persian world, on a personal level, I don't think it was likely the best course of action. Hindsight is always 20/20.

The main thing that I focus on here is that if we portray the 1953 coup as a CIA led, instigated and finished coup we come away with the idea that local actors were of little importance to the success of the coup. Essentially the narrative that emerges there is of a weak Iranian state unable to sustain itself under the weight of a few pamphlets, some American money and a few swashbuckling agents. Mossadegh just crumbles and the Shah returns

The problem is that the historical record shows something very different. Mossadegh has been essentially canonized now as this legitimate and popular leader, but in 1953 he was mounting serious challenges to the existing power structures in the country which elicited legitimate backlash from the military and religious establishment. There was also a merchant class that benefited from working with the British that weren't exactly excited for what nationalization might mean for their business interests, particularly because Mossadegh couldn't seem come to any sort of agreement to relieve British pressure on the Iranian economy.

Myself and Takeyh aren't arguing that the CIA didn't plan and try and execute a coup, rather the argument is that portrayals of the coup often leave out the fact that once events got underway, local actors actually played the decisive role in ousting Mossadegh based on their legitimate grievances.

All of that aside, as I stated before, sometimes what is more important is what we remember about history and the coup is remembered as a CIA/MI6 coup that ousted a popular PM. For that reason it persists as a painful memory for Iranians wary of foreign influence in their affairs.

Also, no matter how much you and I dislike Jimmy Carter, there is no proof whatsoever that he orchestrated the Islamic Revolution.

There is proof that he was wary of how much trust we put in the Shah, and we know he was a weak and indecisive man unable to act when the Shah needed him, but I have never seen any legitimate proof emerge that Carter was in cahoots with Khomeini.

Hey little buddy! Good people taken over by bad people. A lot of it was probably our fault.

We should do what we can to help but we will probably make it worse.

How was your snack? Yep…. It's nap time now buddy.

Ag87H2O said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

I posted this on another thread. Maybe it will shed some light...partially...

---

This is excellent. Succinct yet informative.

---

That's what will happen in America if we keep electing democrats.

AggieEP said:

---

Also, no matter how much you and I dislike Jimmy Carter, there is no proof whatsoever that he orchestrated the Islamic Revolution.

There is proof that he was wary of how much trust we put in the Shah, and we know he was a weak and indecisive man unable to act when the Shah needed him, but I have never seen any legitimate proof emerge that Carter was in cahoots with Khomeini.

---

False. There is ample evidence, as the Iranians themselves have stated.

The vile Carter trusted Andy Young and William H Sullivan:

Quote:

---

A declassified cable shows that on 9 November 1978, William H. Sullivan, then-US ambassador to Iran, alerted the Carter administration that the Shah was "doomed". Sullivan stated that the US should get the Shah and his most senior generals to leave the country, and construct an agreement between junior commanders and Ruhollah Khomeini.

---

Young, as background, began his political career as a Georgia-based Civil Rights activist

As a Georgian, he was close with Jimmy Carter, and when Carter became president in 1977, he made Young America’s UN Ambassador

Over his time in that role, from January 1977 to September… pic.twitter.com/icTWCGG0qM

— Will Tanner (@Will_Tanner_1) October 22, 2024

More here.

"Okay, kiddo, imagine Iran is like a really old, super cool house that your family has lived in for thousands of years. It has beautiful carpets, amazing stories, yummy food like rice with yummy sauces, poetry that sounds like music, and holidays where everyone dances and jumps over fires (that's called Chaharshanbe Suri!).

Now, let's talk about just the last 60 years - like from when your grandparents were little kids until now. It's like the house got two very different paint jobs.

A long time ago (about 60-45 years ago, around the 1960-1970s)
The boss of Iran was called the Shah (like a king). He really wanted Iran to look modern, like fancy parts of America or Europe.

Girls and women could wear whatever clothes they liked-jeans, short skirts, no scarf on their head if they didn't want one.
Boys and girls went to school together, watched movies, listened to pop music, and partied.
Tehran (the big city) had shiny buildings, cinemas, and everyone was trying to copy cool Western stuff like mini-skirts and rock music.
But some people thought it was changing too fast and felt like their old traditions and religion were getting forgotten. They got grumpy.

Then came a HUGE change (1979 - the big revolution)
Lots of people (like millions!) said "We don't like this king anymore!" They wanted things to be more about their religion (Islam) and less about copying other countries.
A very important religious leader named Ayatollah Khomeini became the new boss. The old king had to leave.
Now Iran became an Islamic Republic - that means the rules come a lot from Islam.

After that big change (1980s until now)
The house got new rules:

All girls and women have to wear a scarf (hijab) that covers their hair in public, and clothes that aren't too tight or showing.
Music, movies, and TV got checked very carefully so they follow religious rules. Some Western music and shows got stopped.
Boys and girls go to school separately in many places.
Religion became super important in everyday life - prayers, holidays, and teachings from the Quran got big focus.
People still love their old Persian poetry (like Rumi and Hafez), beautiful art, Nowruz (Persian New Year with a pretty table full of symbols), yummy kebabs, and family parties... those stayed! Iranians kept being proud of their old, amazing stories and culture from way before.

But inside, many people still whisper about wanting more fun, more choices, and less strict rules - especially young people today who use phones and watch the world online.
So Iran is like that old house: it got a very religious paint job in 1979, but underneath are still the same beautiful old walls full of poems, flowers, and proud history. The people there are strong, creative, and love their country a lot - even when things feel hard.

Does that make sense, little buddy?"

A little random but worth posting.





I can't find the woman I wanted to find the most. A very left wing woman that fled Iran post revolution who advocated for Khomeini but was later threatened with death. And then doubled down on her politics while living in London. Her name escapes me and my google skills are weak.

Totally agree with you on Carter, you make apt points. The thing that so many are so quick to either forget or overlook about the Carter presidency is that he took office less than a year after the last helicopters took off from the embassy in Saigon. I was very young but well remember the isolationist aura that permeated the country at the time, at many surprising levels. It wasn't until those hostages were paraded, blindfolded and bound, that the majority of Americans got their hackles up.

I understand what you are relaying about Mossadeq, by 53' he was not as widely popular as he had been in 51'. There was broad support for the nationalization of the oil industry in Iran when it was done and he was credited as the leader of this, but that movement had broad support across many segments and individuals in Iran.

For sure there were national opponents to Mossadeq, who was not in an elected position as PM, but he had been elected to the Iranian version of parliament previously.

Much of the Iranian opposition or discord towards Mossadeq was first sown by the British and then fostered more due to the embargo put into place. It was a bad overall situation for Iran as a whole.

Absolutely there was national participation in the coup, but that participation had its origins in the effects of the embargo and governmental, some of it directly on Mossadeq, reaction to the embargo.

I do not believe that opposition to Mossadeq would have been galvanized as it was without direct US involvement in organizing discontent at the time. 100% the US paid Kashani and Begbahani(sp) to oppose Mossadeq, and while they probably cared some about the oil, they more so cared about getting paid and looking strong to their followers. The more discord among the secular ranks of government the more power their radical doctrine and position gained.