What If - US Never Overthrows Iran's Government In 1953?

[mrsticka]

In 1953, the US went into Iran, overthrew their government and installed the Shah.  In 1979, he was deposed.  The Iranian Revolution happened and then the hostage crisis afterwards.

But what if none of that happened?  What if the US didn't overthrow Iran's government in 1953 and didn't install the Shah?  And because of that, the 1979 Revolution followed by the hostage crisis never happens either?

How would the world be today?

[lordroel]

Dec 7, 2023 3:31:40 GMT mrsticka said:

In 1953, the US went into Iran, overthrew their government and installed the Shah.  In 1979, he was deposed.  The Iranian Revolution happened and then the hostage crisis afterwards.

But what if none of that happened?  What if the US didn't overthrow Iran's government in 1953 and didn't install the Shah?  And because of that, the 1979 Revolution followed by the hostage crisis never happens either?

How would the world be today?

Okay to start a thread but start a discussion, not just ask questions.

[mrsticka]

Okay, to answer my own question, the world might be a little more peaceful. I'm not saying things would be perfect. Obviously there would be problems, but they'd pale in comparison to what we have now.  The Middle East might not be so bogged down in conflict and turmoil.  If the US government had just minded its own business and didn't go around the world looking for trouble all these years, we'd be a LOT better off.

[simon darkshade]

The Shah was already in power in 1953 and wasn’t ‘installed’. The overthrow of Mossadegh wasn’t a sole American show, either.

Postulating that the world would be somehow better off and that somehow the broader ME would be more peaceful is rather idealistic and limited.

As for ‘minding its own business’, that wasn’t a starter in the Cold War or for a hegemon.

[mrsticka]

Dec 7, 2023 8:57:28 GMT simon darkshade said:

The Shah was already in power in 1953 and wasn’t ‘installed’. The overthrow of Mossadegh wasn’t a sole American show, either.

Then how do you explain the 1979 revolution and the hostage crisis?

[simon darkshade]

Short answer: Subsequent events

Long answer: The liberal modernist policies of the Shah unleashed the conservative backlash by the ultra religious elements that he had been a bit too lax towards. It is notable that in 79, Khomeini’s was only one of the factions amongst the rebels, but the largest one. If the Shah had acted more decisively towards the conservative opposition to the White Revolution instead of wearing kid gloves, a different paradigm emerges. Throw in Carter’s lukewarm support and it was a heady atmosphere made for trouble.

The Shah had been ruling since 1941.

[stevep]

Dec 8, 2023 22:13:41 GMT mrsticka said:

Dec 7, 2023 8:57:28 GMT simon darkshade said:

The Shah was already in power in 1953 and wasn’t ‘installed’. The overthrow of Mossadegh wasn’t a sole American show, either.

Then how do you explain the 1979 revolution and the hostage crisis?

  The US had taken over as the protector/regional strongman for the region including Iran from Britain.  They supported the Shah who seems to have fallen between two stools, unpopular enough to create a lot of dissent but not brutal enough to suppress it.  The US supported him politically but so close of Vietnam were unwilling to provide direct military aid or allow him to be brutal enough so he fell and the fanatics who took over after the revolution sought to secure their position in power by political acts against the US, hence the embassy siege.  - This both demonstrated their 'strength' and independence of international law and opinion and also made any real deal with the US impossible hence undermining assorted more moderate groups.

  This was then boosted further by Saddam's attack which while a disaster for the populations of both countries further tightened the strength of the fanatics as they were able to paint any opposition as treachery, especially unpopular when your nation has been the subject of a brutal attack.

  Basically as well as being an amoral and sociopathic - if not outright psychotic - thug Khomeini was a skilled political operator when it came to seizing and maintaining power.

  PS see Simon has covered a fair amount of the same territory while I was typing.

[mrsticka]

Well, the CIA did something in Iran in '53.

[simon darkshade]

You are approaching the point of simply stating random things rather than presenting a case. Your initial post is also starting from a simplistic and fundamentally incorrect account of facts.

In 1953, Britain and the United States backed pro-monarchist elements in the Imperial Army to overthrow Mossadegh as there were real concerns over the potential for a Tudeh takeover, which were shared by the conservative Shia clergy led by Ayatollah Kashani and other players such as Shaban Jafari. This occurred in the background of the crisis of 1946, 1949 assassination attempt on the Shah, the Abadan Crisis, Attlee's decision not to go in militarily and the broader Cold War, with the changeover from the Truman administration to that of Eisenhower quite significant.

To remove or discount the internal factors in the political development of Iran is to do them the disservice of treating them as children with no agency.

[mrsticka]

What business was it of the US or the UK who came to power in Iran in the first place? How would we like it if another country came in, overthrew our government and installed some puppet who was just there to do the bidding of the other country? This was obviously the reason, or at least one of them, for the 1979 hostage crisis.  The Iranian people got fed up.  They'd had enough.

My point is this: We have no business interfering with the political affairs of another country. Just because their leaders don't like us or their interests don't align with ours doesn't automatically make them evil madmen who want to destroy us.

[simon darkshade]

Now you are crossing from analysis and discussion of historical matters in trying to make a polemical political point in favour of isolationism and non intervention.

Claiming something is 'obviously the reason' when two other men have supplied you with counter arguments and evidence in good faith isn't good form nor any sort of historical argument.

That doesn't cut the mustard here.