Interesting points also. It’s always easy to play Monday morning quarterback, and of course at the time the CIA toppled Mossadegh he appeared to be a real threat. And the Shah himself was, of course, pro West, which was at low ebb in the Middle East. The 79 revolution was, as it turned out, a cataclysmic event not just for Iran, but for the freedom-loving world. But I think an honest appraisal of the events leads one to conclude that things could’ve been handled better so that the foundation for the rise of the extremists was never laid. And you’re absolutely right about France. As P.J. O’Rourke said, France’s problem is that they guillotined all the smart and productive people in 1789.
LOL...I love PJ O’Rourke, never heard that!
The Shah and Savak were certainly not the model of democratic government, but life under the Shah was far more desireable than under Khomeini. There were more women in the Iranian parliament under the Shah than in the US Congress. There were about 50,000 Iranians studying in the US, the largest foreign contingent of any nation.
We had important listening stations on the Caspian monitoring Soviet nuclear tests. There were over 70,000 private sector Americans in Tehran, many of them with large American defense contractors like Bell Helicopter. The US was trying to sell a nuclear reactor to the Shah. You could buy alcohol freely. Copies of Playboy were sold in the stores. Iranians were by and large very pro-American and many had familial ties in the US. I see Iran as a once and future ally. Only regime change will suffice to change our relationship.
The Shah's rapid Westernation of Iran and the corruption of his government generated a backlash among the poor and the religious and among the businessmen who had to pay kickbacks to government officials. The seeds of revolution were sown. Unfortunately, Obama's failure to act on the ongoing Green Revolution only helped the mullahs.