Drones are a tempting way to "do something" when doing nothing, or doing less, might be wiser.
This is so the populations don't start to get ideas about why their junta's steal so much money and they don't have any freedom. "Democracy and freedom are just lies -- the westerners are degenerates which tolerate homosexuality, etc."
So if Iran couldn't antagonize the West for what you consider "relatively unimportant reasons" (e.g. being one of the world's worst terror supporters), they would just try harder. And still be tight with other juntas which also fear democratic influences of their slav... population.
"Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq[a] (Persian: مُحَمَد مُصَدِق; IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] ( listen);[b] 16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA.[4][5]"
Then...
Uhm, that was 60+ years ago.
The world is a different place now, after the cold war. Before 1989, juntas could say to USA -- "If you don't support us, we'll get support at the other place." Now, mostly Saudi Arabia can say that.
So for informational purposes, since you like to complain about USA, do you have any examples from the last 20 years?
(Please check the Democratic Peace Theory on Wikipedia. Not even USA starts wars with stable democracies.)
Edit: I got a down vote on both my other comments, a few minutes after I wrote this. I guess this one is good? Some other explanation? :-)
How old are you? Are your parents still alive? Are your grandparents?
Surprise surprise, when you overthrow a country's democratically elected government to grab some oil, people tend to remember it for a long time.
What's more is, ordinary Iranians don't particularly like their government. Iran was a moderately religious country, not fundamentalist, before the Revolution, and for the most part, it still is. Iranians are educated and intelligent people.
Iranians know that when they vote, their votes aren't worth much. They know the Council and really, the Supreme Leader call the real shots. But they still vote, and in larger numbers than Americans, primarily to demonstrate that they have faith in their government, and they would rather it exist than not.
Most likely, Iran is going to forget the unspeakable harms the United States has committed against it as its people age and the pain of living under a foreign power's puppet dictator recedes from the national consciousness. And when that happens, Iran will liberalize of its own accord, and all of America's saber-rattling and sanctions will have done nothing.
Iran does not need to make an enemy of the United States. The United States made an enemy out of Iran when it committed acts of war for the sake of corporate profits. Iran just hasn't forgotten.
Everyone but the Palestinians have let go of that period -- the Arab world refuse to give them citizenships, to keep them suffering and hating. (And the Japanese over some islands.)
My point was that juntas must have external enemies, that is hardly controversial. The West is the popular enemy. The juntas which steal countries probably must demonize the working democracies, to motivate oppressing the slaves' demands for human rights.
(But you can join meric and the juntas in demonizing USA instead? :-) Certainly, realpolitik is dirty even for democracies, no country is perfect.)
I discussed the present situation. History is interesting, I agree, but to only start laying blame for events happening generations ago isn't a counterargument, it is lack of arguments.
(And I did answer meric's "argument" that everything happening is USA's fault by pointing out why the situation is different now. No one seems to have a counter argument?)
And for changing things in Iran et al, check the resource curse on Wikipedia. Countries that weren't democracies when they found oil didn't become democracies. (Norway already was democratic before the oil.) It is just too lucrative for the leaders to oppress the population and steal the money.
The current regime is installed after the 1979 revolution against the US installed Iranian government.
Things would be different if U.S. didn't meddle in Iranian politics back in the 1950's.
You claimed that before. I discussed that, despite that it wasn't relevant to my point, in two comments. Including the GP(!).
So I assume you have nothing to say. Except that you want to drown my original point in a sea of text..?
Here it is. There was a democracy in Iran, but since it's been toppled it's going to be difficult to change the authoritarian government that is in place now. This is the result of U.S.'s work. This thread is getting long, so it's easy to miss points of text... If you feel like continuing we can take it to email. Mine is meric.au AT gmail.
The only ones still keeping the indignation alive from that time period are the Palestinians (because they are refused citizenship by the Arab countries) -- and Iran....? (And some Japanese islands?)
Also see my point about things working very differently, now. Go back and see the extinction of the indians or the Spanish war (I think that is the US name?). The same goes for most every country the further back in history you go; e.g. wimpy Sweden taught the Germans everything they know about atrocities to civilians...
If you have nothing to say in four comments, I doubt you have more in email.
You still haven't touched my original point. I really think you (is there more than one person?) write all this irrelevant text since you are unable to answer -- and a True believer can't change your opinion(s). So you just hide it, by damaging HN with drenching it in text.
Deleted comment
>>Your original point is that their actions are close to 60 years ago, right? If not, quote it again please
No, it was not. And I think you know that.
The first thing you commented on was:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7795134
It starts: "It seems that dictators generally need to make enemies out of the world's democracies."
My second comment starts with: "First -- that is not relevant to my point that authoritarian juntas seems to need to make external enemies out of the world's democracies."
(Similar in my third and fourth comment.)
I only read the first sentence you wrote. I lost hope of a serious answer a while back.
Strange that it took you half a dozen comments of repeating other stuff to ask for what I referenced in every comment?
I think you troll or actively try to hide the subject. I just mentioned the trivial point again here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7799415
(And, well, I only read your first sentence again.)
Not that that will stop the US from trying if they ever feel like it. Look at the mess in Iraq, then multiply by 5 or so (Iran + a new civil war in Iraq). You could very well end up with a much worse situation than there is today, loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and a very large chunk of the world with a strong motivation to hate everything and anything the West stands for.
Very Bad Idea.
(I don't have enough information to have an opinion. E.g. something like the bombing of Serbia's infrastructure would be cheap and really bad for Iran, afaik. For a good answer you probably need to ask the military in "relevant" countries.)
And again, for the third time -- this has nothing to do with my point, so you guys can vote this comment down too now, since you obviously just can't give a relevant counter argument. 1/2 :-)