This seems like an inaccurate representation of Iranian history so please feel free to elaborate. Sure Iran was an autocracy in 678 BC, not sure how that’s relevant to today, but Iran’s democracy was overthrown by Western powers when it tried to nationalize its oil in the early 50s. The West then installed an autocrat representing its interests until the revolution in 79.
In fact several Gulf countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar) had prodemocratic nationalist movements during this period that were purposefully squashed by the West.
The purportedly most democratic nations in the world have also been the most active in supressing democracy elsewhere. They’ve had to become very adept at talking through both sides of their mouths, as it’s easier to exert foreign influence / interference via an autocrat versus a messier and less predictable democratic process.
Mossadegh wasn’t the perfect democrat, he’s often painted as in hindsight. How he dissolved parliament wasn’t exactly transparent, and his empowerment law gave him too powers of a dictator. His rule by decree wasn’t the most democratic either.
The Shah was a strict authoritarian, sure. However what the Islamists did once they gained power was far worse than the Shah. In the first year the Ayatollahs killed more people than the Shah did in throughout his reign. Iranians had more freedoms and overall better lives under the Shah than afterwards.
At the time the world powers cared more about stability, economic power, energy availability, spheres of influence than democratic rule. Remember that in the 1950s decolonization hadn’t really started yet. The British Empire was deteriorating, but still around and fighting for its existence. So they wanted to have friendly rulers in the oil rich countries in the region. Oil was increasingly the key to economic prosperity. The new kings all over the region (Jordan, UAE, Iraq, etc.) had been British allies against the Ottoman Empire back during WW1. Keeping these allies happy and in power was seen as essential for keeping influence in the region and creating stability.
It’s doubtful the British and Americans would have intervened in Iran, if they had not nationalized to oil industry so abruptly.
Agree that Mossadegh was imperfect but, in the eyes of many, Western meddling was a direct contributer to the revolution, opening the door for the Mullah regime. It exemplifies the hipocrisy of the US/British as they claim to stand for democracy while installing autocratic puppets around the world to meet their needs. They have dutifully deprived millions of the very self-determination they claim is one of their core values.
I very clearly mentioned the 1925-1979 social progress, but even during that time it was a centralized autocratic power under the singular rule of the Shah, and then it was simultaneously invaded by the UK and the USSR in 1941 before the 1953 coup turned the tides in the USA’s favor until the 1979 revolution turned it back the other way towards the CCP’s favor.
It’s great to oppose authoritarianism, but it’s that disgusting bootlicking you people do where you defend some authoritarianism while condemning others that really pisses me off.
This seems like an inaccurate representation of Iranian history so please feel free to elaborate. Sure Iran was an autocracy in 678 BC, not sure how that’s relevant to today, but Iran’s democracy was overthrown by Western powers when it tried to nationalize its oil in the early 50s. The West then installed an autocrat representing its interests until the revolution in 79.
In fact several Gulf countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar) had prodemocratic nationalist movements during this period that were purposefully squashed by the West.
The purportedly most democratic nations in the world have also been the most active in supressing democracy elsewhere. They’ve had to become very adept at talking through both sides of their mouths, as it’s easier to exert foreign influence / interference via an autocrat versus a messier and less predictable democratic process.
Mossadegh wasn’t the perfect democrat, he’s often painted as in hindsight. How he dissolved parliament wasn’t exactly transparent, and his empowerment law gave him too powers of a dictator. His rule by decree wasn’t the most democratic either.
The Shah was a strict authoritarian, sure. However what the Islamists did once they gained power was far worse than the Shah. In the first year the Ayatollahs killed more people than the Shah did in throughout his reign. Iranians had more freedoms and overall better lives under the Shah than afterwards.
At the time the world powers cared more about stability, economic power, energy availability, spheres of influence than democratic rule. Remember that in the 1950s decolonization hadn’t really started yet. The British Empire was deteriorating, but still around and fighting for its existence. So they wanted to have friendly rulers in the oil rich countries in the region. Oil was increasingly the key to economic prosperity. The new kings all over the region (Jordan, UAE, Iraq, etc.) had been British allies against the Ottoman Empire back during WW1. Keeping these allies happy and in power was seen as essential for keeping influence in the region and creating stability.
It’s doubtful the British and Americans would have intervened in Iran, if they had not nationalized to oil industry so abruptly.
tl;dr western meddling bad, mullah regime worse
Agree that Mossadegh was imperfect but, in the eyes of many, Western meddling was a direct contributer to the revolution, opening the door for the Mullah regime. It exemplifies the hipocrisy of the US/British as they claim to stand for democracy while installing autocratic puppets around the world to meet their needs. They have dutifully deprived millions of the very self-determination they claim is one of their core values.
I very clearly mentioned the 1925-1979 social progress, but even during that time it was a centralized autocratic power under the singular rule of the Shah, and then it was simultaneously invaded by the UK and the USSR in 1941 before the 1953 coup turned the tides in the USA’s favor until the 1979 revolution turned it back the other way towards the CCP’s favor.
It’s great to oppose authoritarianism, but it’s that disgusting bootlicking you people do where you defend some authoritarianism while condemning others that really pisses me off.