Americans deliver shock verdict on Trump's controversial new tariffs

Daily Mail ^ | 4-5-25 | John Raasch

[TwelveOfTwenty]

The coup in Iran worked out well for us until 1979.

That was the logical result of throwing out a democratically elected and popular leader, and replacing him with a leader they had rejected but was willing to do our bidding.

You would have no problem understanding why it was wrong if someone did that to us.

By 1979, the damage was done. I'll agree that Carter handled it poorly, but he was left with a no win situation.

BTW, that coup happened under Eisenhower, who allowed the CIA to convince (emphasis on con) him that it was a matter of national security. It wasn't.

I agree with your assessment that Reagan was outstanding, but the rest were a mess.

[socialism_stinX]

Well the coup in 1953 was really part of our Cold War strategy to limit the expansion of the Soviet block. The Soviet Union was a hostile, aggressive nation back in the 50s. They were stubbornly continuing to occupy Eastern Europe, and trying to install communist governments to be their allies all around the world.

We may have had solid information that the Soviets were active in Iran and trying to turn Iran into a socialist ally of the Soviet Union. After all the sacrifice of WW II, we were trying to contain the expansion and influence of these group dictatorships like the Soviet Union, before one of their allies started a real shooting war with us. One thing for sure...it’s very positive that Gorbachev rose to power and ended the Cold War.

[Strict9]

of course! They’re “shocked”

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Let's just say that was the real reason, which it wasn't as we'll see in a minute. Do you honestly believe that throwing out the popular and elected government, and installing a leader they had rejected, would have kept them from turning to the Soviets?

If so, then how come they didn't become a Russian satellite after overthrowing the Shah?

Wouldn't a better strategy have been to work with the new, popular, elected government to ensure they remained our allies, even if it meant the price of oil would go up?

Of course they were nothing but some third world country that would never amount to anything, so why shouldn't we exploit their resources for our own good? That seems to have been our attitude at the time. Now, we're quaking in our shoes at the prospect that they could become a nuclear power.

BTW, it was actually the British that didn't want to lose influence and their investments in Iran, and we sided with them.