The intelligence agencies of the US and the UK overthrew the sovereign, democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah, who, in a nutshell, acted as the classic Third World dictator propped up by a larger, wealthier government: governed extremely economically inefficiently, was very authoritarian, bowed to the wishes of his masters in Washington and London, and established and maintained close ties to the clandestine agents that installed him.

Ow my! And why would they have done that? British and Americans love efficient economies! Tell us more of this great tale.

They did it mostly because the democratically elected government of Iran nationalized their oil industry, which both the company now known as BP and the USA had a substantial stake in.

What is this nationalizing you speak of, StackelbergFollower? How would such a thing work?

This is not a controversial claim; the overthrow of the government of Iran by the Churchill and Eisenhower administrations is something that happened, and it happened in part because the UK did not want to lose its share of Iranian oil wealth.

That's right. They were nationalizing the oil industry (making it horribly inefficient by the way). Nationalizing large industries, there was another country not far north from Iran that did that. Hmm... Let me think.

The UK's control was largely anachronistic and perceived by Iranians through the prior decade as vestigial colonial power; Iran wanted to open negotiations over control of its oil, but the UK instead boycotted Iranian oil to put pressure on its government to cave. When the now-BP refused to neogiate and the UK responded to Iranian discontent with an economic boycott, Iran nationalized the industry in 1951. That was followed by British militarization toward Iranian oil refineries and eventually Operation Ajax, a CIA-orchestrated coup.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but it's not controversial to claim that the 1953 overthrow of Iran's government was probably a mistake in retrospect, and has been accompanied by significant blowback.

Redhouse, you're being so obtuse it's hard to know if you're serious or not. A country deciding to nationalize its oil industry is not, in any universe, remote justification for overthrowing that country's democratically elected government and installing a repressive dictator. You'd have to have the potential for empathy of a fly not to recognize that installing repressive dictators in other people's countries makes people mad, and leads to significant negative repercussions, like the 1979 revolution that dipplayer erroneously cited as the starting point for conflict.

anachronistic? How was it anachronistic?

I see where you're coming from, but at the time it was part of what I believe is either the Truman or Eisenhower doctrine of not letting Soviet communism expand outside its boarders. Given the atrocities of the Soviet regime in that period that was an understandable policy.

The fact that a harsh regime was installed is sad, but the regime they have now, that they voted for themselves, surely isn't a lot better.

Iran often suffers from gasoline shortages. They simply haven't developed the capacity to treat it. Even though they'd have the money to buy the technology, but why invest in your economy when you can invest in anti-Israeli rhetoric and nuclear weapons.

A brief history of American responses to Democracy in Muslim countries...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1949_Syrian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_Democracy_in_Indonesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_Crisis_of_1958
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

I could go on; there are many more examples.

And more recently, when stuff like this happens, can you really, honestly, blame the Iranians (secularists and Islamists, democrats and autocrats) from responding negatively? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html

It's worth thinking about... since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, how many Muslim countries have invaded and occupied a Christian country? How many have successfully engineered regime change and installed a horrific dictator in a Muslim country who is friendly to the interests of Muslim countries?

And now... everyone is shocked and horrified that Obama is facilitating and *gasp* tolerating some semblance of democratic governance in Libya and Egypt.

Islamic extremism is a violent outburst only made popular and possible by decades of repressing moderate dissent. The seeds were sown in the cold war; this is nothing new.

If you're goal with bombing Libya is to continue global hegemony, then it makes sense; go for it. But don't try to kid yourselves that there is some higher moral purpose or justification for your governments actions other than 'might makes right' and 'if we didn't try to rule the world with iron fist, someone else would'.

Do you just not consider citizens of non-Western states people or something? Because the idea that a state can just gallantly traipse around forcing other people to accept its proxy rule instead of leaving them alone to have their own forms of governance how they see fit would only be acceptable, to me at least, if you didn't think those other people had the right to determine their own governance anyway. And lacking the right to self-determination and self-governance is probably the defining step toward regarding a certain class of humans as somehow unworthy of the status of humanity.

And meanwhile, Canada and the Netherlands cheer from the sidelines, because, let's face it, we mostly benefit from the subjugation that occurs elsewhere in the world.

"A country deciding to nationalize its oil industry is not, in any universe, remote justification for overthrowing that country's democratically elected government and installing a repressive dictator."

-If an oil company is yours, and another state takes it away from you, you should do what you believe is in your best interest to respond to that.

-We disagree on what constitutes a democracy.

Does it matter how it became yours?

Does any amount of killing, backstabbing, impoverishing, gunboat diplomacy make the claim illegitimate?

Rehouse's definition of Democracy: a group of people deciding on things Redhouse agrees with??

Was the resisting of slavery legitimate?

Despite being perfectly legal, sanctioned by many spiritual leaders, and done with the view that the protection of personal property was paramount... was there something wrong with slavery that justified opposing and undermining it?

If so, what?

The wikipedia on this subject has a nice anecdote for us!

"
Mohammad Mosaddegh attempted to negotiate with the AIOC, but the company rejected his proposed compromise. Mosaddegh's plan, based on the 1948 compromise between the Venezuelan Government of Romulo Gallegos and Creole Petroleum,[41] would divide the profits from oil 50/50 between Iran and Britain. Against the recommendation of the United States, Britain refused this proposal and began planning to undermine and overthrow the Iranian government.[42]

That summer, American diplomat Averell Harriman went to Iran to negotiate an Anglo-Iranian compromise, asking the Shah's help; his reply was that "in the face of public opinion, there was no way he could say a word against nationalisation".[43] Harriman held a press conference in Tehran, calling for reason and enthusiasm in confronting the "nationalisation crisis". As soon as he spoke, a journalist rose and shouted: "We and the Iranian people all support Premier Mosaddegh and oil nationalisation!" Everyone present began cheering and then marched out of the room; the abandoned Harriman shook his head in dismay
"

Some democracy they had there. An unbiased press corps that asks sensible questions and informs the people of what is happening must have been one of the key pillars of Iranian pre-1953 democracy.

Friendly Sword and that other guy, I applaud you. You explained calmly what I raved about. Everything you said is true; it won't change the minds of the pro-colonization crowd, but it had to be said anyway. Well done.

I take it I'm that other guy?

redhouse, it's not really true to say that the overthrow of Iran was a natural consequence of the Truman doctrine. Truman himself opposed the coup when he was in office (until, as it happens, 1953), and it's kind of far-fetched to claim that Iran would have started backing the Soviets if the AIOC had agreed to split oil royalties more evenly with it.

"-If an oil company is yours, and another state takes it away from you, you should do what you believe is in your best interest to respond to that."

Wrong answer. If you operate in a country nationalizing the industry in which you work, you move out of that country. Let the market teach the lesson. I think the whole notion of nationalizing an industry with the power of the state is bogus, too, since it involves state coercion and prevention of individuals to collect their own resources for profit, and the idea of claiming property that isn't yours is deplorable. But the appropriate response to having your liberties deprived isn't to deprive an entire country of its liberties.

To be fair, the UK boycotting Iranian oil worldwide, and then Attlee tightening the economic boycott further in response, wasn't exactly negotiating in good faith, either.

Your standard for democracy... an unbiased press corps?

So if a country doesn't pass your polite and tidy expectations for due process, well then, it certainly hasn't met the proper expectations for democratic governance so lets bomb away and install a dictator!

Because I am certain that never ever in the history of the United States were the media reduced to patriotic parrots for the government.... (cough, yellow journalism, cough, Cuba, cough)

I am certain the Telegraaf never cheered itself shrill for the cause of Anglo-Franco-Dutch colonization of the entire world and acted as a shill for the 'democratic' government of the turn-of-the-century Netherlands, nosiree.

Interesting logic indeed.

I'm sorry for pouncing on you redhouse. All of the bomb and burn sympathizers appear to have retreated in the face of opposition. :P

Gentlemen,

All of them excellent points. Particularly by Stackelberg, honestly: I don't know, so I must explore that point further. For now, credits go to you dear sir, because I like that line of reasoning.

@PE: let the market teach the lesson? What lesson? People take what's yours, you take it back. I always do that. Don't see why it shouldn't apply on an international scale.

@FS: Telegraaf? Word of the day toilet paper does not go as "media" in my book.

My time's more or less up, although I will make some cheap comments on the more easily rebukable comments made here while ignoring the more dangerous ones to my argument under the banner of freedom of speech, probably filled with ortographic errors and sent from a cell phone. That does not mean I do not love you.

Cheers

The Arab world starts killing people and storming embassies that are protected by hundreds of years of precedent and universally accepted standards of diplomatic immunity just because someone made a video insulting to Islam.

We can no longer afford to pretend that they are civilized human beings.

I disagree quite profoundly. ^^

"universally accepted standards of diplomatic immunity"

Do these standards allow for the planning and funding of anti-democratic coups to occur through embassies?

"just because someone made a video insulting to Islam."

Do you really think that's the only reason? Hell, even other militants in Libya say it was planned already and they were looking for a pretense.... and found in the video.

"We can no longer afford to pretend that they are civilized human beings."

Exactly, just as the Wisconsin shootings prove that you, like all Christian Americans, are a fundamentalist bigoted murderer.

---

Don't get me wrong. I think that political Islam tends toward extremism more than political Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy) and I find most principles of fundamentalist Islam abhorrent. I also think that storming an embassy is quite awful, however understandable. But I think that understanding the reasons and rationales are important, both because they give us the opportunity to find actual solutions, and because maybe, just maybe, we can avoid giving more power to people who think, like gunfighter, that other human beings are no better than animals and deserve to be slaughtered en masse for acts of political violence committed by a tiny minority against an even tinier minority of a people seen as funding their oppressors.

Joke or not, that's got to be the most despicable thing I've seen advocated on this forum in a whole.

I did not say that they are animals and should be slaughtered. I merely pointed out that they obviously have zero respect for the customs and courtesies of the rest of the civilized world and therefore do not deserve the same level of respect as is given to a civilized people. And we're not talking about random mob violence here. According to all reports, the Libyan government wasn't doing anything to protect the American diplomats. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Libyan government is unwilling or unable (but probably unwilling) to control its own people when they decide to go on American killing sprees.

This is a very serious situation. Like I said, storming an embassy and killing an ambassador is an act of war.

Next thing you know, they'll start rounding up the American minority in Libya.

I'm sorry... it's entirely possible I got you partially confused with the voices arguing that the correct response was a military campaign of terror to teach the 'uncivilized' Libyans what's what.

The first official reports of what happened come out last night (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-fast-team/ is the link I have off the top of my head). Based on official accounts, Libyan security forces and local militia were crucial in regaining control of the building after the initial attack, and also in transferring Ambassador Stevens to a hospital.