Likely but cautious indicators suggest the replacement government will still be better than Assad's reign of terror (but still so many unknowns at this point).
Likely but cautious indicators suggest the replacement government will still be better than Assad's reign of terror (but still so many unknowns at this point).
The Syrian Salvation Government, which is what HTS set up in Iblib, so far has been rather moderate and technocratic, though certainly still with an authoritarian bent. The real question is if they consolidate power will that change?
Yeah, like how Fidel Castro lied about how his motivations were to set up a proper Cuban national government only to end up making it Communist with him on top for life. In short, there needs to be a multi-lateral effort to shape whatever post-Assad government or else it could land on neo-ISIS.
One of IranтАЩs many tragedies was that Ayatollah Khomeini was succeeded by Khamenei, rather than the far-more-moderate and peaceful Ayatollah Montazeri, who was initially designated as successor.
I think we have to go further back than than 1978 fire. The 1953 coup against IranтАЩs democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, instigated by the CIA at the request of the UK and the company that became British Petroleum, should never have happened.
I think that was more complicated than that. Britain set up a boycott until they got recompense for their oil infrastructure that Mossadegh nationalized (and not its return). The US helped broker negotiations, Mossadegh seemed receptive, but then made counter-offers that the UK would never accept (e.g. 25% flat royalties). The US even offered to advance Iran $130 million to be paid back in petroleum deliveries. The hemming and hawing, in the meantime, was risking the global oil trade and the political and economic situation in Iran was teetering.
Mossadegh was going to get couped or shot before long by somebody considering how things were unraveling in Iran in the early 1950s - the CIA did not spend much on Ajax for a reason.
That said, considering its echoes today, it was really dumb/bad in hindsight to get involved in a British dispute like that at all
Yeah, the UK should have cut their losses and settled for a flat profit share until 1999 (when the contract with Iran was set to expire), but Mossadegh was also being a pain, moving the goal posts and putting on bravado to make him look strong.
In fairness, MossadeghтАЩs lionization skims over his anti-democratic tendencies but he was in a really poor position. He could anger foreign elements or his nationalist base and had he taken the UKтАЩs deal
HeтАЩd probably have been pushed out by his base. Damned if he did. Damned if he didnтАЩt
Mossadegh also was on shaky ground and facing snowballing backlash at home. This was also experienced later by Shah Pahlavi, but his issues were further compounded by his notorious indeciveness.
Likely but cautious indicators suggest the replacement government will still be better than Assad's reign of terror (but still so many unknowns at this point).
The Syrian Salvation Government, which is what HTS set up in Iblib, so far has been rather moderate and technocratic, though certainly still with an authoritarian bent. The real question is if they consolidate power will that change?
Yeah, like how Fidel Castro lied about how his motivations were to set up a proper Cuban national government only to end up making it Communist with him on top for life. In short, there needs to be a multi-lateral effort to shape whatever post-Assad government or else it could land on neo-ISIS.
WeтАЩll see. The Iranian Revolution wasnтАЩt inherently theocratic in 1978 and Khomeini was saying all the right things too
One of IranтАЩs many tragedies was that Ayatollah Khomeini was succeeded by Khamenei, rather than the far-more-moderate and peaceful Ayatollah Montazeri, who was initially designated as successor.
Long long list of tragedies in that country since the Cinema Rex burned down
I think we have to go further back than than 1978 fire. The 1953 coup against IranтАЩs democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, instigated by the CIA at the request of the UK and the company that became British Petroleum, should never have happened.
I think that was more complicated than that. Britain set up a boycott until they got recompense for their oil infrastructure that Mossadegh nationalized (and not its return). The US helped broker negotiations, Mossadegh seemed receptive, but then made counter-offers that the UK would never accept (e.g. 25% flat royalties). The US even offered to advance Iran $130 million to be paid back in petroleum deliveries. The hemming and hawing, in the meantime, was risking the global oil trade and the political and economic situation in Iran was teetering.
Mossadegh was going to get couped or shot before long by somebody considering how things were unraveling in Iran in the early 1950s - the CIA did not spend much on Ajax for a reason.
That said, considering its echoes today, it was really dumb/bad in hindsight to get involved in a British dispute like that at all
Yeah, the UK should have cut their losses and settled for a flat profit share until 1999 (when the contract with Iran was set to expire), but Mossadegh was also being a pain, moving the goal posts and putting on bravado to make him look strong.
In fairness, MossadeghтАЩs lionization skims over his anti-democratic tendencies but he was in a really poor position. He could anger foreign elements or his nationalist base and had he taken the UKтАЩs deal
HeтАЩd probably have been pushed out by his base. Damned if he did. Damned if he didnтАЩt
Like Yasser Arafat.
ItтАЩs not complicated at all. He was overthrown by the U.S. and the U.K. End of story.
Mossadegh also was on shaky ground and facing snowballing backlash at home. This was also experienced later by Shah Pahlavi, but his issues were further compounded by his notorious indeciveness.
With the CIA being the catalyst of quite a bit of that backlash.