I am almost sure that every single person who plotted the 1953 coup is dead. Maybe one of them survives somewhere aged 103 and no longer knowing their name.
Should Macron be judged by what Napoleon III. (or for that matter, I.) did? Surely there is some kind of continuity between those French heads of state, they even fly the some colors and sit in the same palace.
I never understood why some people get so fixated on one event in 1953, as if nothing else mattered after that.
Sure, it had a nontrivial effect. But it also happened in a time when Stalin and Churchill were still alive, there were 6 billion people fewer on the planet and the first antibiotics and transistors barely entered production. Korea was poorer than Ghana etc.
It is 2026, three generations have passed, and not everything can be explained and excused by a 1953 event forever. But it is convenient for autocracy advocates in general.
It reminds me of the worship of the Great Patriotic War in Russia. Again, as if nothing that happened later matters.
The current Ayatollah bullshit cannot be explained without that coup d'état. People flocked to the religious zealots because the alternative was a Western satrap.
It is a bit like explaining the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia (1948) by the Western betrayal at Munich in 1938. It was a factor. But not The Factor. Just one of many.
In case of Iran, there, too, were other factors at play. The general drive of the Shah to be the Iranian Atatürk-like Modernizer, which clashed with the conservative rural population. The abilities of Khomeini, who pursued his goal of overthrowing the monarchy with absolute zeal. (Would Turkey be nowadays a modern state if Atatürk himself faced a similar opponent?) Willingness of France to shelter Khomeini and willingness of some Western intellectuals to fawn over him. Naivete of the Iranian Left that joined Khomeinis movement and hoped to come up on top, only to eventually get slaughtered for being "enemies of God".
Etc.etc. It is somewhat intellectually lazy to just drag out Mossadegh and leave the conversation, like GP did. It also masks other unpleasant facts.
For example, in my opinion, the Western intellectual class of the 1970s made a serious mistake by supporting Khomeini and cannot even bring itself to acknowledge it. I think this was at least as consequential to the eventual birth of the Islamic Republic as the Mossadegh coup. But the more people talk about the latter, the more they tend to forget about the former.
Whenever I see mentions of the protesters asking for the Sha to come back, I can't but to worry for the future of Iran even if the protests succeed.
Fun fact, the clergy was a crucial part of the coup, backed by CIA. The same people in power now, btw.
Fun fact, the same people who preach democracy to you all day,
plotted and went about to oust one of the most democratically legitimate leaders of his country by night.
Let that sink in for a moment.
I’m was under the impression that this was a well known fact. Let what sink in? What are you trying to say?
1 reply →
I am almost sure that every single person who plotted the 1953 coup is dead. Maybe one of them survives somewhere aged 103 and no longer knowing their name.
Should Macron be judged by what Napoleon III. (or for that matter, I.) did? Surely there is some kind of continuity between those French heads of state, they even fly the some colors and sit in the same palace.
6 replies →
I never understood why some people get so fixated on one event in 1953, as if nothing else mattered after that.
Sure, it had a nontrivial effect. But it also happened in a time when Stalin and Churchill were still alive, there were 6 billion people fewer on the planet and the first antibiotics and transistors barely entered production. Korea was poorer than Ghana etc.
It is 2026, three generations have passed, and not everything can be explained and excused by a 1953 event forever. But it is convenient for autocracy advocates in general.
It reminds me of the worship of the Great Patriotic War in Russia. Again, as if nothing that happened later matters.
The question is, how can you be sure anything you see in the (controlled) news is not another instance of covert plots, false flags, and psyops [0]?
How, precisely how?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...
How can I be sure that you aren't a bot or vice versa?
3 replies →
The current Ayatollah bullshit cannot be explained without that coup d'état. People flocked to the religious zealots because the alternative was a Western satrap.
Sorta-kinda.
It is a bit like explaining the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia (1948) by the Western betrayal at Munich in 1938. It was a factor. But not The Factor. Just one of many.
In case of Iran, there, too, were other factors at play. The general drive of the Shah to be the Iranian Atatürk-like Modernizer, which clashed with the conservative rural population. The abilities of Khomeini, who pursued his goal of overthrowing the monarchy with absolute zeal. (Would Turkey be nowadays a modern state if Atatürk himself faced a similar opponent?) Willingness of France to shelter Khomeini and willingness of some Western intellectuals to fawn over him. Naivete of the Iranian Left that joined Khomeinis movement and hoped to come up on top, only to eventually get slaughtered for being "enemies of God".
Etc.etc. It is somewhat intellectually lazy to just drag out Mossadegh and leave the conversation, like GP did. It also masks other unpleasant facts.
For example, in my opinion, the Western intellectual class of the 1970s made a serious mistake by supporting Khomeini and cannot even bring itself to acknowledge it. I think this was at least as consequential to the eventual birth of the Islamic Republic as the Mossadegh coup. But the more people talk about the latter, the more they tend to forget about the former.
It's the nature of fascist countries to be fixated on the past
timothy snyder describes it as the "politics of eternity"
People in general tend to be nostalgic, but yeah, a specific sort of politician will use it for their own purpose.