It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nakash
That's something which occured to me as well. Under the Shah Iran was prosperous, wealthy, and at peace with it's neighbors. Maybe a little crackdown on Jihadis here and there, but much better than under the Mullahs. Plus he was there before.
In 1953 Iran's prime minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, was removed from power in a plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies to protect their oil interests (dubbed "Operation Ajax"). The operation was conducted following the Prime-Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy, handing power back to former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Following Dr. Mosaddegh's fall, the Shah's rule became increasingly dictatorial, particularly in the late 1970s. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule led to the Iranian revolution in 1979. An Islamic republic was soon established under the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yeah, but he got forced out by the will of the people
people elected another leader, they could have kept the shah if they chose to
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
post id: 2033527
has more on this
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1) iran was better without the shah
2we got rid of mossadaq because of the black lifeblood that flows the the veins of industry. his plan would have been good for iran but bad for the west.
has more on this