Iranian women spark debate by defying hijab rule in cars

[N1019]

What would be reasons behind such move?

There are a few reasons why it may have been done. Either way, when it comes to proof, it is no less proven than the standard libtard line of "the overthrow of Mossadegh caused the 1979 revolution".

You may take Her Abubu's post as covering some of the possible reasons why the Anglo-Americans wanted rid of the Shah and/or opted for the ayatollahs. What is clear is that by the mid 1970s, particularly after the fall of Nixon, the Shah was colliding with American and British policymakers on several issues (oil, economics, human rights, military purchases, his ambitions and megalomania, and even nuclear technology; he threatened to buy military hardware from another party [probably the USSR], was becoming critical of the Jewish lobby, British economic management etc) and refused to be treated as a puppet. That reality is something few people seem to realise nowadays, probably because the standard narrative in the West is that the Shah remained a loyal puppet right to the end, when his people overthrew him, but it was not really the case. The left are known for their aversion to fact but on Iran they seem particularly bad.

For what it's worth, it should also be remembered that when the British put the last Shah in power in 1941 following the Anglo-Soviet invasion, they explicitly reserved the right to get rid of him later if necessary.

It is also possible that they were not totally in control of the revolution but simply chose not to support the Shah and did nothing to stop the return of Khomeini (they almost certainly could have prevented his return, even had him assassinated, but as suggested above, it does seem he was in contact with the CIA in Paris and perhaps even earlier, during his exile in Iraq). This theory runs that, having accepted that the Shah was finished, they were faced with a few political movements to fill the void, none of which was ideal, e.g. communists (totally unacceptable during the Cold War), secular nationalists (similar to the Shah and likely another headache), and the Islamists (seen as the least worst option). There is also the fact that the Shah was dying of cancer. No doubt there was some concern at whom would replace him. While this less involved theory is plausible, I suspect the Anglo-Americans played a more direct role in securing the final outcome, but it may be many more years before details of those events are made public. The US is still in the process of admitting to its involvement in the Mossadegh affair, so I'm not holding my breath - 1979 is still a little too recent.

As for the benefits of having the ayatollahs in power, here are a few off the top of my head:
- least worst option compared to communists and Shah-like nationalists
- Islamists would be anti-communist, which was important during the Cold War
- MI6/CIA had an established relationship with the Iranian clergy going back to at least 1953 and in the case of the British probably earlier; perhaps this relationship would endure and assist in Anglo-American control of the country
- anti-democratic, anti-freedom - democracy can be a problem for the world powers; it is easier if the government is not accountable to the people
- regressive, would hold development of Iran back, thereby weakening the country, which was important, since Iran was probably seen as becoming too strong, too ambitious and too big for its boots (another major attempt at weakening Iran was the Iran-Iraq War, which probably wouldn't have happened if the Shah had survived)
- the various other political movements in the country could be stirred up to destabilize and manipulate the regime at will - owing to Iran-Iraq War this may not have been pursued as a serious option but apparently it is now

As it turned out, the ayatollahs' regime was much more like the Shah's than might have been assumed, but to make matters worse, a strong Anti-American stance was quickly revealed (or was it known all along - look at Kissinger's remark in 1976 "if we get rid of the Shah, we will have a radical regime on our hands"). The Islamic Republic continues to pursue independence in foreign policy (now much moreso), continues to pursue a nuclear programme, continues to call for the exodus of foreign militaries from the Gulf, continues to call for a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east, etc. There are many similarities. 'Death to America/Israel', Hezbollah, forced hijab and so on are of course major differences.

Anyway, I hope that's some food for thought.

[Babak]

There are a few reasons why it may have been done. Either way, when it comes to proof, it is no less proven than the standard libtard line of "the overthrow of Mossadegh caused the 1979 revolution".

You may take Her Abubu's post as covering some of the possible reasons why the Anglo-Americans wanted rid of the Shah and/or opted for the ayatollahs. What is clear is that by the mid 1970s, particularly after the fall of Nixon, the Shah was colliding with American and British policymakers on several issues (oil, economics, human rights, military purchases, his ambitions and megalomania, and even nuclear technology; he threatened to buy military hardware from another party [probably the USSR], was becoming critical of the Jewish lobby, British economic management etc) and refused to be treated as a puppet. That reality is something few people seem to realise nowadays, probably because the standard narrative in the West is that the Shah remained a loyal puppet right to the end, when his people overthrew him, but it was not really the case. The left are known for their aversion to fact but on Iran they seem particularly bad.

For what it's worth, it should also be remembered that when the British put the last Shah in power in 1941 following the Anglo-Soviet invasion, they explicitly reserved the right to get rid of him later if necessary.

It is also possible that they were not totally in control of the revolution but simply chose not to support the Shah and did nothing to stop the return of Khomeini (they almost certainly could have prevented his return, even had him assassinated, but as suggested above, it does seem he was in contact with the CIA in Paris and perhaps even earlier, during his exile in Iraq). This theory runs that, having accepted that the Shah was finished, they were faced with a few political movements to fill the void, none of which was ideal, e.g. communists (totally unacceptable during the Cold War), secular nationalists (similar to the Shah and likely another headache), and the Islamists (seen as the least worst option). There is also the fact that the Shah was dying of cancer. No doubt there was some concern at whom would replace him. While this less involved theory is plausible, I suspect the Anglo-Americans played a more direct role in securing the final outcome, but it may be many more years before details of those events are made public. The US is still in the process of admitting to its involvement in the Mossadegh affair, so I'm not holding my breath - 1979 is still a little too recent.

As for the benefits of having the ayatollahs in power, here are a few off the top of my head:
- least worst option compared to communists and Shah-like nationalists
- Islamists would be anti-communist, which was important during the Cold War
- MI6/CIA had an established relationship with the Iranian clergy going back to at least 1953 and in the case of the British probably earlier; perhaps this relationship would endure and assist in Anglo-American control of the country
- anti-democratic, anti-freedom - democracy can be a problem for the world powers; it is easier if the government is not accountable to the people
- regressive, would hold development of Iran back, thereby weakening the country, which was important, since Iran was probably seen as becoming too strong, too ambitious and too big for its boots (another major attempt at weakening Iran was the Iran-Iraq War, which probably wouldn't have happened if the Shah had survived)
- the various other political movements in the country could be stirred up to destabilize and manipulate the regime at will - owing to Iran-Iraq War this may not have been pursued as a serious option but apparently it is now

As it turned out, the ayatollahs' regime was much more like the Shah's than might have been assumed, but to make matters worse, a strong Anti-American stance was quickly revealed (or was it known all along - look at Kissinger's remark in 1976 "if we get rid of the Shah, we will have a radical regime on our hands"). The Islamic Republic continues to pursue independence in foreign policy (now much moreso), continues to pursue a nuclear programme, continues to call for the exodus of foreign militaries from the Gulf, continues to call for a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east, etc. There are many similarities. 'Death to America/Israel', Hezbollah, forced hijab and so on are of course major differences.

Anyway, I hope that's some food for thought.

Pretty accurate lol