What if instead of a iranian religious revolution there had been a peaceful transistion to a secular democracy. How would this affect iranian american relations? How would it affect the iran iraq war?
What if instead of a iranian religious revolution there had been a peaceful transistion to a secular democracy. How would this affect iranian american relations? How would it affect the iran iraq war?
What if instead of a iranian religious revolution there had been a peaceful transistion to a secular democracy. How would this affect iranian american relations? How would it affect the iran iraq war?
When would this happen?
The Shah wanted and tried to modernize Iranian society and securalize it but met resistance to his effort. But of course he wasn't ready to give away power at least not when percieving his peoples not being ready to be given it. And it was mostly leftist groups and parties that worked to bring down the Shah not exactly the kind of peoples the USA would support. But they would face the religious revolution by Khomeiny.
You need some clear political structure counter to the Shah's regime with a leader ready to go into Iran like Khomeiny would do. Oh and remember Khomeiny was Time Magazine man of the 1979.
Actually the real thing for the US to do would be to support the Shah only as long as he would give political freedom to his peoples.
With less income from oil export Iranian society faced real troubles. And got it.
The problem with democracy is that the people sometimes get the strange delusion that they, rather than multinational corporations, should decide what to do with their land's natural resources.When Iran did have a leader trying to guide Iran down the path of liberal-democracy (Mossadegh), the USA and Britain made sure he was destroyed.
The problem with democracy is that the people sometimes get the strange delusion that they, rather than multinational corporations, should decide what to do with their land's natural resources.
The Shah was resisted because his reforms benefitted a few, and he was obviously a stooge of the West. When Iran did have a leader trying to guide Iran down the path of liberal-democracy (Mossadegh), the USA and Britain made sure he was destroyed.
The problem with democracy is that the people sometimes get the strange delusion that they, rather than multinational corporations, should decide what to do with their land's natural resources.
I'm going to ask for figures to back up this claim. If free-market dictators are so few and far between, who did the US find to lead the dictatorial regimes they set up in Latin America and Asia?It's funny, most dictators believe in state control of the economy, with a substantial chunk believing in corporatism to tame the excesses of capitalism. A commonly favoured left wing solution.
The number of free-market dictators can be counted with fingers.
If these proportions were reversed we would of course NEVER hear the end of it.
I'm going to ask for figures to back up this claim. If free-market dictators are so few and far between, who did the US find to lead the dictatorial regimes they set up in Latin America and Asia?.
And I see you're implicitly defending the overthrow of Mossadegh, because in your book "state control of the economy" is such an evil that it justifies sponsoring coups to remove the offenders.
This "corporatist" thing is awfully convenient. It's like saying that the USSR didn't set up "real" Communist regimes, but Leninist ones. At the end of the day, what matters is that some dictators were put in power with US support, and more than occasionally through force of arms, in order to safeguard the interest of Western corporations over those of their own people. Whether they meet your idiosyncratic and abstract definition of "capitalist" is, quite frankly, a moot point.You're going to have to find some of these regimes first. Most were corporatist.
This "corporatist" thing is awfully convenient. It's like saying that the USSR didn't set up "real" Communist regimes, but Leninist ones. At the end of the day, what matters is that some dictators were put in power with US support, and more than occasionally through force of arms, in order to safeguard the interest of Western corporations over those of their own people. Whether they meet your idiosyncratic and abstract definition of "capitalist" is, quite frankly, a moot point.