Some of the best engineers I've ever worked with were expat Iranians who left and have no intention of going back there.
Mourners In Iran Refuse To Trample On Swedish, American Flags. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202307280335
Iranian students avoid stepping on images of U.S., Israeli flags. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNJLG8jCq1Q
Taking issue with your use of "westernized" here - it's either misleading or deliberately ambiguous. The US just wanted a less "socialist" leader, similar to how they favored autocrats in Central and South America over communist/socialist leaders, democracy be damned.
The democratically elected president had even more western values and his only flaw was that he was a bit too socialist for the local elites, who couldn't have thrown him off without US pushing for cooperation.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khom...
This is some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. I'll be charitable and assume you're unfamiliar with the history, as opposed to a conspiracy theorist who thinks the CIA is behind everything you think is wrong with the world.
Rightly or wrongly, the US and UK went after Mossadegh precisely because the Shah was pro-Western, anti-Soviet, and a staunch ally of the US. Similar in some respects to why the Saudis have been a US ally for so long, although that is starting to fray. Both were authoritarian governments which nevertheless closely aligned themselves with US foreign policy in the region, and got some of our best gear and support in return . . . this is why Iran to this day flies so many 1960s-late 1970s Western platforms in its Air Force such as F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s. They are the only nation we ever sold the Tomcat to, and the Shah personally picked it over the F-15 Eagle, which was also on the table.
The Ayatollahs hated the Shah and have hated the US since the beginning. They call us the Great Satan. If you aren't familiar with the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran and the consequences that had on US history, then you're talking out the wrong end of your alimentary canal about anything Iran- or Middle East-related. The Carter administration attempted Operation Eagle Claw, a do-or-die hostage rescue attempt using special operations forces which went horribly wrong. The storming of the embassy and the failure of Eagle Claw were a national embarrassment. They fed into an overall narrative that Jimmy Carter was a weak, ineffectual, and bumbling President, and were a key driver in Ronald Reagan winning the Presidency in 1980. As a final stick in the eye, the Ayatollahs waited until Reagan had been sworn in to release the Embassy hostages.
So no, the US and UK didn't "install" a bunch of theocrats. They opposed this, and the results of that opposition had historic consequences throughout the 70s and 80s and beyond to the present day.
You say that as though there were no quid pro quo involved.
And as much as some people on the Internet think this is a Very Bad Thing, oil is and was a critical part of the global economy. An unstable dictator being able to play games with the world's oil supply isn't just a Very Bad Thing for imaginary mustache-twirling capitalists in their monocles and top hats. It's a Very Bad Thing for anyone who has a job or who relies on global trade. Which is, well, everyone. Which is why a multinational coalition under UN authority, which included several other Arab countries, put Saddam back in his place.
Fair point, I missed installing or did not read it carefully enough, this was at best an unintended consequences. But even without intention, there is still responsibility, at least to some extent.
Which is why a multinational coalition under UN authority, which included several other Arab countries, put Saddam back in his place.
Sure, even if oil was not involved, the invasion of Kuwait or any other country should generally not be tolerated. I mentioned this just to point out how quickly and in some sense arbitrarily judgments can change, Iran is also a major oil producer and there Hussein got support for the invasion. The 2003 invasion on the other hand was simply a crime.
The Islamic Revolution didn’t succeed power by chance, whilst the Shah was opposed by many factions form secular communists to religious fanatics the reason why the mullahs came on top was because the majority of the population was a bunch of illiterate religious nut jobs.
This is also why Turkey has regressed so much, the secular metropolitan elite that followed Ataturk’s legacy was and is out numbered by the rural masses at least 3 to 1. At some point something had to give which is now why you have decades of Erdogan.
What gave was the usual brilliance of Brussels. The generals were plotting to kill him on national TV as they usually did, but around 2005-6 EU leaders started pearl clutching about religious freedom and how Turkey would never enter EU if not human rights or similar bullshit - so Turkey is still outside of EU, no chance of getting in, but they enjoy serious regress in freedoms, Islamization and a monkey with a wrench in charge of their economy.
Turkey always had a demographic problem, just like Iran does, it’s not in the EU because it could not resolve its own demographic problem not that it’s demographic problem was somehow due to the EU closing the door on Turkey’s membership.
Of course the EU votes would go to Erdogan - the people that moved to Germany were from his power base demographic.
Measured how?