REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

It goes back a bit deeper, but remember 1943 that Tehran was the venue for a summit involving the three allied leaders. At the start of the 1950's Iran was breaking out and had a functioning democracy. It was much more in step with the west than any of the other theocracies. Sadly for them they elected Mohammad Mosaddegh and he was worryingly socialist and dangerously non-aligned. The British and the Americans were concerned that he might try nationalising the oil industry and using the profits for the people of Iran. The CIA orchestrated a coup (the dead hand of BP is also in there) and a puppet was installed, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Surprise, surprise, he decided it would be a really good idea to sell Iranian oil on western terms and everything went well for a bit. Iran continued to thrive culturally. If you look at photographs of the country in the 60's you'll see people wearing western clothes and hairstyles etc It was quite a hippy sort of stop off. Inevitably this sort of arrangement starts to come under pressure though as an informed population can see their oil wealth being syphoned off by foreign investors and a ruling elite. By the mid 70's the people were on the move in a series of demonstrations, and rest you know. The Soviet Union had also observed the American mistakes, and they began to take a hand. Their strategic objective was to agitate and influence rather than take ownership though

The building blocks in Iran however, are much stronger than they are in places like Saudi Arabia which are hopelessly marooned about six centuries further adrift

There is something called the laws of unintended consequence. The overthrow of Mosaddegh is a classic case of it, as would be the support for Afghan mujihhadin in the 1980's, or support for Pakistan against India. The Bay of Pigs would be another, this was when Castro announced that what was otherwise a nationalist liberation movement was now socialist in nature and fell into the arms of the Soviet Union. The overthrow of Gadaffi will prove to be another, and we might very well be able to say that Saddam already is since its highly doubtful that ISIS would have flourished in Iraq under his rule

The problem stems from American greed, influence alone isn't normally enough for them. They seem to want control all the time, and you run a very real risk of your puppet failing and creating something much more dangerous

<blockquote data-quote="Warbler" data-source="post: 2575919" data-attributes="member: 65228">It goes back a bit deeper, but remember 1943 that Tehran was the venue for a summit involving the three allied leaders. At the start of the 1950&#039;s Iran was breaking out and had a functioning democracy. It was much more in step with the west than any of the other theocracies. Sadly for them they elected Mohammad Mosaddegh and he was worryingly socialist and dangerously non-aligned. The British and the Americans were concerned that he might try nationalising the oil industry and using the profits for the people of Iran. The CIA orchestrated a coup (the dead hand of BP is also in there) and a puppet was installed, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Surprise, surprise, he decided it would be a really good idea to sell Iranian oil on western terms and everything went well for a bit. Iran continued to thrive culturally. If you look at photographs of the country in the 60&#039;s you&#039;ll see people wearing western clothes and hairstyles etc It was quite a hippy sort of stop off. Inevitably this sort of arrangement starts to come under pressure though as an informed population can see their oil wealth being syphoned off by foreign investors and a ruling elite. By the mid 70&#039;s the people were on the move in a series of demonstrations, and rest you know. The Soviet Union had also observed the American mistakes, and they began to take a hand. Their strategic objective was to agitate and influence rather than take ownership thoughThe building blocks in Iran however, are much stronger than they are in places like Saudi Arabia which are hopelessly marooned about six centuries further adriftThere is something called the laws of unintended consequence. The overthrow of Mosaddegh is a classic case of it, as would be the support for Afghan mujihhadin in the 1980&#039;s, or support for Pakistan against India. The Bay of Pigs would be another, this was when Castro announced that what was otherwise a nationalist liberation movement was now socialist in nature and fell into the arms of the Soviet Union. The overthrow of Gadaffi will prove to be another, and we might very well be able to say that Saddam already is since its highly doubtful that ISIS would have flourished in Iraq under his ruleThe problem stems from American greed, influence alone isn&#039;t normally enough for them. They seem to want control all the time, and you run a very real risk of your puppet failing and creating something much more dangerous</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warbler, post: 2575919, member: 65228"] It goes back a bit deeper, but remember 1943 that Tehran was the venue for a summit involving the three allied leaders. At the start of the 1950's Iran was breaking out and had a functioning democracy. It was much more in step with the west than any of the other theocracies. Sadly for them they elected Mohammad Mosaddegh and he was worryingly socialist and dangerously non-aligned. The British and the Americans were concerned that he might try nationalising the oil industry and using the profits for the people of Iran. The CIA orchestrated a coup (the dead hand of BP is also in there) and a puppet was installed, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Surprise, surprise, he decided it would be a really good idea to sell Iranian oil on western terms and everything went well for a bit. Iran continued to thrive culturally. If you look at photographs of the country in the 60's you'll see people wearing western clothes and hairstyles etc It was quite a hippy sort of stop off. Inevitably this sort of arrangement starts to come under pressure though as an informed population can see their oil wealth being syphoned off by foreign investors and a ruling elite. By the mid 70's the people were on the move in a series of demonstrations, and rest you know. The Soviet Union had also observed the American mistakes, and they began to take a hand. Their strategic objective was to agitate and influence rather than take ownership though The building blocks in Iran however, are much stronger than they are in places like Saudi Arabia which are hopelessly marooned about six centuries further adrift There is something called the laws of unintended consequence. The overthrow of Mosaddegh is a classic case of it, as would be the support for Afghan mujihhadin in the 1980's, or support for Pakistan against India. The Bay of Pigs would be another, this was when Castro announced that what was otherwise a nationalist liberation movement was now socialist in nature and fell into the arms of the Soviet Union. The overthrow of Gadaffi will prove to be another, and we might very well be able to say that Saddam already is since its highly doubtful that ISIS would have flourished in Iraq under his rule The problem stems from American greed, influence alone isn't normally enough for them. They seem to want control all the time, and you run a very real risk of your puppet failing and creating something much more dangerous [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?