So then why don't we lay this at the feet of the British? The CIA was more or less trying to clean up a British mess when they installed the Shah. The middle east is turtles all the way down.
There have been a number of sanctions against Iran imposed by a number of countries, especially the United States, and international entities. The first sanctions were those imposed by the United States in November 1979 after a group of radical students seized the American Embassy in Tehran and took the people inside hostage.
That was my first hit in response to a search for: "do the british still have an embargo against iran"
Everything I have ever heard indicates that the US still is applying tremendous pressure to Iran to this day and it has significant impact. There are other international entities with sanctions against Iran, but the name you hear over and over and over when this comes up in the news or in comments is that it's primarily the US that is riding Iran hard and has been for decades.
[1] Head of State: John Dulles. Head of CIA: Allen Dulles. As for Eleanor Dulles, she pretty much focused on european affairs, but had previously served in a wartime capacity on the "Board of Economic Warfare." (If that sounds insufficiently euphemised, recall that DoD was, in those pre-Orwellian times, simply the "War Department.")
====
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United... it appears that the US refused to share nukes with the UK after the war, pulled Suez as the UK was attempting to independently develop megatonnage, but then relaunched the "special relationship" after Sputnik gave everyone a new appreciation for boffins.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Fou...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World...
"someone must've been doing similar analyses to pick allied bombing targets"
there is somewhat about that, regarding Japan, in the book by Leslie Groves.
Edit: Spoiler: they simply bombed every city that they didn't explicitly decide to spare for the bomb, in Japan. The bombs weren't too precise anyway. Most destruction was intentionally causing the fires.
Edit 2: also absolutely required read: "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" also about how "precise" the bombing actually was.
Jones gives an early intimation of Snowden during a CIA symposium (1993):
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...
> "A point to be made at the outset is the enormous difference between the scale on which you operate today and our own efforts in World War II..."
(As Jones is fond of Kipling, I offer one of the latter's less jingoistic moments:
Children of the yoke and goad,
Pack and harness, pad and load.
...
While the men that walk beside,
Dusty, silent, heavy-eyed,
Cannot tell why we or they
March and suffer day by day.)What I was able to glean from the preview: Groves wanted to bomb 京都, less because he knew exactly what military targets there were there, and more because it would have been "large enough in area for us to gain complete knowledge of the effects of an atomic bomb." I wonder how much this calibration wish factored into his rationalisation (p.266) for not demonstrating the bomb before dropping it on civilians?
Good guys: Stimson (p. 275) and Patterson (p. 265)
https://archive.org/details/nowitcanbetolds00grov/page/274/m...
He explicitly named it "Now It Can Be Told." Only 17 years after the bombs, the whole book. The rationales for the target selection -- yes, it's straight from the horse's mouth, and plausible because it is directly not something somebody would just write to in any way "improve" his own reputation, I'd like to believe. He also wrote there something like, if I remember correctly, that his biggest worry during the last months of the war has been that the war could had been over before he gets to drop the bomb on some city with civilians which would provide for good demonstration. It's also obvious that the existence of "military targets" was totally irrelevant, except as a good excuse to be provided to the current president. Something which sounded like that to me, at least. Maybe somebody will locate the specific words. Also Groves, before the Senate, November 1945, about the suffering of the victims of the bombs:
"As I understand it from the doctors, it is a very pleasant way to die." (1)
Also see the book from my Edit 2, before.
1) https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/survivors-hiroshima-a...
It's about storks, not cranes, but this is a hit soviet anti-war song (mid-80's, roughly contemporaneous with "Top Gun"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oCoVXcZ59Q
Do you mean, this documentary?
The CIA didn't install the Shah; he already was the ruler of the country. Nor did the CIA overthrow his insubordinate minister Mossadegh; the Shah's government did that.
See also the manner in which "the" Shah inherited his job from his father: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah#World_War_II_and_for...
Yes, ruler of the country may be arguable. I note that Churchill, not Elizabeth, is held responsible for the UK's actions.