That's a bit dicey to say, frankly. The Shah stayed in power because he had so much money to throw around that he guaranteed himself the loyalty of the military leaders. Not to mention SAVAK which, though it did receive some aid and training by the CIA, was a stunningly skillful organ in its own right. Also, while the Shah was certainly pro-Western, he was a very deft international politician; the US knew they didn't have to fuck with him and the Soviets knew they couldn't afford to.I think it is fairly widely accepted that Iran under the Shah was a US puppet state; or if not an actual puppet state, it was true that the Shah stayed in power almost entirely due to CIA support.
Stop calling it that. It's an illegitimate name and a blatant and misleading piece of Islamist revisionism.This was one of the reasons why many Iranian liberals and indeed many Western left-wingers/liberals initially supported the Islamic Revolution.
The '53 coup was going to happen anyways. Frankly, the US is given far more blame in the whole thing than it deserves. A lot of the opposition was homegrown. The Iranian military leaders just weren't all that sure how to go about planning a coup, so when the British feelers met those of the discontented Iranian generals, the former convinced the Americans to come in and help too.I think one way to do it, is have no coup occur in 53. Granted you would have to change alot of things including Ike's support for it, or just have Iran not nationalize its oil. Of course that might not prevent a revolution from happening anyway.
One of the former hostages (the Army Attache' IIRC) had done a tour in Iran in 1963-65 as part of the Military Advisory And Assistance Group, and remarked in a book after the hostages came home that the Shah had a chance to kill Khomeni in 1964 after the latter spoke out against the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iran (which presumably included when and where SAC bombers could use Iranian bases in the event of war) and was tossed into the slammer. The Shah was planning to have Khomeni tried and executed, but there's a local rule: don't kill an Ayatollah, so Khomeni was made an Ayatollah while he was awaiting trial, so the Shah had no choice but to release him. If the Shah had had the guts, saying "Holy man or not, he's still a traitor!" a lot of unpleasantness there since '79 would've been avoided.
Since Baathism is a racist Arab-Nationalist ideology that hates Persians just as much as Jews and Kurds, I highly doubt it.
Did you not hear about the Iran-Iraq war? Well, I can hardly blame you, it only just started thirty years ago.
Stop calling it that. It's an illegitimate name and a blatant and misleading piece of Islamist revisionism.
I always use the term "Iranian Revolution."Well, it is in the name of the thread ('No Islamic Revolution') and the commonly accepted name for that event.
What would you suggest is a more appropriate name?
'Racist' is a bit harsh. Yes, Saddam didn't enact it very well, but at its heart, Baathism is an ideology that promotes secular, rationalistic, pan-Arab nationalism.
Perhaps when things get bad, the Shah abdicates in favor of his son?
That might placate the Iranian population, which didn't like the Shah very much at this point.