Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

davtruss t1_j1mtxt6 wrote

As somebody who remembers how "Day 1" of the U.S. Embassy Hostage Crisis turned into Nightline, and who studied Iraqi/Iranian relations in the 1980s, I am in no position to tell you what the Iranian people "wanted" at the time of the revolution.

If you read the Wikipedia article about the Shah's nearly four decade reign, you might ask yourself, how did this guy fall to popular unrest? I'm pretty sure that the reforms he implemented economically, politically, and , militarily made Persian Iran stronger in all three respects.

The problem involved the sharing of the wealth and his handling of dissent. There are prisons still used today that the Shah used to jail political prisoners and his suppression of dissent was often brutal. But once you open yourself up for examination by the world, the world frowns upon brutal suppression of dissent. And the Shah's political enemies characterized him as a U.S. puppet on the world stage.

So, I don't think those who benefited from the Shah's reforms wanted a brutal, autocratic, extremist version of Sharia law to replace the good parts about the Shah's reforms. But one of the political benefits of a top down closed society is that it is resistant to world condemnation. The combination of religious fervor and economic deprivation focused like a laser beam on the the Shah's alleged political masters in Washington.

17

doktorhladnjak t1_j1n4izh wrote

When he came to power, the monarchy was mostly ceremonial (like how it is the UK today). The US and UK governments fomented a coup of the democratically government to give the shah absolute power.

It was mostly over the oil refinery complex (largest oil refinery in the world at that time) near the Iraq border in Abadan that British oil companies had built, that the democratically elected government had nationalized. This is the same refinery complex involved in the Iran/Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had tried to seize.

19

CaptainKasch t1_j1nhriq wrote

I dont mean this in the reddit way of like I dont believe you, but do you have a decent source? Id love to read more about it it sounds really fascinating

2

sourcreamus t1_j1now2k wrote

It is more complicated than what he said. The shahs father was the ruler but when he died there was a democratic government elected. The democratic government nationalized British oil which was wildly popular. Britain responded with an embargo. This tanked the economy. Mossadegh was the prime minister and called an election. Exit polls indicated his party was losing and he canceled the election. He then started to rule without parliament. Britain and the US then paid for a coup that installed the Shah as ruler. The Shah planned to restore democracy but predictably never got around to it.

7

JustLessWorld t1_j1p3m7e wrote

Not defending mossadeghs course of action.

But lets not forget that the CIA was paying royalists to influence the outcome of the election, hence why mossadegh called it off, as it was being manipulated by foreign agents.

He should've provided proof of said agents before calling the elections to strengthen his position.

2

CaptainKasch t1_j1qpab6 wrote

Those with absolute power and never getting around to devolving it; name a more iconic duo lol. Cheers for the info.

2