Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OperationSpringAwake t1_j9f24bq wrote

Reply to comment by Opposite_Match5303 in If you’ve noticed some protests for solidarity with Iranians going on, this is one of the groups organizing them! by ShahsMan

But it’s happened twice in Iran. First the early 50s and again in 1979?

2

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f2l9w wrote

How are you reading the 1979 revolution as US pressure leading to the overthrow of the regime?

1

OperationSpringAwake t1_j9f3dlo wrote

Well the 50s one was, no? And the US could’ve ended 1979, but decided not to step in.

2

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f5tpg wrote

Even looking at 1953, supporting 1 side in an internal power struggle is pretty different from the North Korea/Cuba methods you are advocating against Iran. And if the Ayatollah thought he had a credible internal challenger the US could support, it would certainly push him to get a nuke as fast as possible.

1

OperationSpringAwake t1_j9g5689 wrote

You said it literally never has - 1953 says otherwise.

In 1979, was it internal though? Khomeini was in France. The US propped up the Shah then took away support. The US could support a govt-in-exile.

If the Ayatollah wanted a nuke, he could get one. He knows doing so would immediately be the end of his country, so he only uses it as threat.

2

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9mkmzv wrote

It wasn't the end of North Korea. Who would attack a country with a nuke?

You're being too unspecific with "it": yes, CIA-caused regime changed happened dozens of times in the last century. Yes, targeted sanctions work for convincing a regime to change concrete policy: the original JCPOA was a great example. But what you're describing is sanctions and external pressure convincing a regime to dissolve its own existence, which has arguably literally never happened (maybe the end of Apartheid in South Africa would count).

1