Iran had a democratically elected government in 1953 when the US and UK overthrew their democracy, and installed the dictator/monarch, the Shaw.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-rol...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-08-08/1953...
The Shaw was in exile at the time of the US and UK led coup.
In 1952, he began invoking emergency powers and arresting his opponents, and in 1953, shortly before the coup that put the Shah back in power, he dissolved the Iranian Parliament, justified by a referendum in which 99.9% of votes were in favor (probably because votes were cast in public and voters were intimidated - no fair election has an outcome like that).
That was the start of the power struggle and the CIA wasn't even involved yet. The Shah issued a royal order dismissing Mosaddegh as Prime Minister (an action legally allowed by the Iranian constitution at the time), but Mosaddegh refused to step down and arrested the commander of the Shah's Imperial Guard, who had delivered the royal order.
That's when the Shah fled to Baghdad and accepted US help. So you see, he was not in "exile" when the struggle began (in fact, he was only out of the country for a few days); he fled only after Mosaddegh arrested the commander of his Imperial Guard.
You also left out the fact that the actual coup was carried out by Iranian citizens and Iranian military forces whose leaders were loyal to the Shah.
The CIA assisted, but their role in the whole thing has been exaggerated. Some portray the CIA as an omnipotent mastermind responsible for everything that happens in the world, but usually, as in this case, they're simply taking sides in existing power struggles.
It was later in 1953 that they had pseudo democracy.
The 1953 coup replaced the system where a democratically elected head of government, Mosaddegh, ruled under the head of state, Shah Pahlavi, with a system where the Shah appoints the head of government.
If a monarch can overrule the “head of government”, then the head of government is not really the head, right?
That's the idea of a functional constitutional monarchy: the long-reigning monarch counterweights the short-governing government.
No, the monarchy has veto power over parliament, and has secretly used the threat of it to shape British law. Apparently most new legislation is run by the ruling monarch's office to make any changes they'd like before it hits the parliament floor for debate. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
King Charles has little actual power, but a ton of theoretical power. If he somehow convinced the military to back him (and he would probably need all of NATO's support) he could do whatever he wanted in the UK too.
And a monarchy isn't incompatible with a democracy.
I mean, the leader of a democratic country having a totalitarian dictator as a dear fried doesn't prove he was plotting to destroy democracy, but it's kinda suggestive. And almost inevitably, by the time you get real proof, it's going to be too late to do anything about it.
A lot of the bad stuff from the 20th century stems from hysterical overreaction to communism.
To wit: this is a natural outcome of a belief that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys because in that case "good == !!good".
But the world is much more in thrall to Interests, which have higher dimensionality than a singular axis of Goodness, and besides, very few people (and fewer states) self-identify as "evil".
See also: "Are We The Baddies?"
Also I don’t think you can draw moral equivalence between Castro and Pol Pot. One of these was far far worse than the other.
Though I'll agree the way it's phrased in the submitted article is misleading, your comment mostly comes off as needless whataboutism.
What kind of chauvinism is that?
I am criticizing the Iranian government on its own terms for being oppressive. The US's conduct doesn't enter into it, and is used a distraction and a false equivalence.
This is not a rhetorical question: how and why do people think they have this right?
> we
> give a pass
You are clearly implying that this is somehow your (collective) business and it is up to you to "give a pass" (also implying that the contrary is an option) to a country that is world away from you.
Imagine someone in Iran/Russia/China saying "we shouldn't give a pass to the US for all the arrests and even a murder during the Capitol riots" - how would that FEEL like? I know empathy doesn't cross western cultural borders, but stepping in someone's shoes is a simple exercise.
You don't even know that I'm American. (I am, but you had no way of knowing that when I wrote my post.)
This is a website for discussing things and having opinions. That's kind of the point.
You're the one who assumed the collective pronoun was nationally based.
I am under no obligation to turn a blind eye to anybody's bad behavior simply because they live in a different country. Nor have I said anywhere that anyone else ought to treat me differently.
If a Russian person wants to critique the US response to Jan 6th, let them. I suspect there would be facts in need of clarifying if they think it's equivalent to Iran, but they're entitled to their opinion.
I don't and I've never implied this in any of my comments, although I definitely suspected it - some cultural things really stick out, no offense.
> This is a website for discussing things and having opinions. That's kind of the point.
Yes it is, and this is me challenging you point. Don't take it the wrong way.
> You're the one who assumed the collective pronoun was nationally based.
I certainly did not, definitely not national, but rather cultural.
> I am under no obligation to turn a blind eye to anybody's bad behavior simply because they live in a different country. Nor have I said anywhere that anyone else ought to treat me differently.
Nobody is under any obligation to do anything towards anybody, obviously. I just try do deconstruct you reasoning and understand why does your whole attitude screams that this whole deal is for you (plural) to manage. No other culture does that even when people completely shit over some other countries governments. Is this just purely a linguistic thing then?
> I suspect there would be facts in need of clarifying if they think it's equivalent to Iran, but they're entitled to their opinion.
You have completely missed my point regarding stepping in someones shoes, but unfortunately I don't have much examples of other nations meddling with some western countries internal affairs tangibly enough to be representative.
Me: "Something bad is happening. We should try to stop bad things from happening and instead encourage good things to happen, even if "
You: "Something bad is happening, but because it doesn't involve me or people culturally related to me, it's none of my business."
I really don't mean this with any animus - I see why a reasonable person might take one approach or the other. And in different contexts, I might take a different approach. It's unlikely that either of us is in favor of the arbitrary detention and execution of protestors, for example, so it's a matter of what we are willing to ignore on the grounds that it's none of our business.
The things that are happening in Iran are over that line for me. I think there is a moral imperative to speak out against, and preferably to act against, actions that are bad enough to cross that line. And while the line is certainly different for different people, I think a lot of people from a lot of different cultures, including the Iranian culture itself, agree with me on this.
> No other culture does that even when people completely shit over some other countries governments. Is this just purely a linguistic thing then?
I don't think this is true. I think I could go to RT or Xinhua or the Times of India and find lots of people criticizing other countries' governments AND cultures. One of the major points that Vladimir Putin loves to make is how degenerate the West is, in his view. India is constantly dunking on Pakistan, and vice versa. Everybody criticizes everybody else.
There is a reason a lot of countries verbally lash out when the US/EU or Western NGOs accuse them of being too authoritarian. The alternative to authoritarianism is often worse.
The CIA should stop meddling in other countries. But the same goes for Western governments and NGOs. The latter is often worse than the former.
Google I'm feeling lucky and Little Britain Computer say's no!