Let’s Be Honest: This Was Never About “Saving the Iranian People”
Let’s Be Honest: This Was Never About “Saving the Iranian People”
The rhetoric around Western concern for Iranians—human rights, freedom, democracy—sounds noble. But when you follow the timeline, a consistent pattern emerges: economic interests (especially oil), strategic positioning, and control of the region have driven decisions far more than the well-being of ordinary Iranians.
1. The Monarchy Was a Modern Power Shift—Not Ancient Royal Continuity
The Pahlavi dynasty was not a continuation of ancient Persian royal bloodlines.
Reza Shah rose through the military and took power after a 1921 coup. In 1925, parliament removed the Qajar dynasty and installed him as Shah.
This was a modern political takeover, in a country already heavily influenced by Britain and Russia. Britain didn’t officially “install” him—but it supported a strong central ruler to protect its interests.
2. Oil Was the Foundation of Everything
In 1901, William Knox D'Arcy secured a concession giving Britain dominant control over Persian oil:
£20,000 upfront
£20,000 in shares
16% of profits
This created the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later BP).
From the start, Iran’s most valuable resource was controlled externally, with limited benefit to its own population.
3. 1953 — Democracy Removed When It Threatened Oil Control
Mohammad Mosaddegh was democratically elected and moved to nationalise oil.
His goal was straightforward:
Keep Iran’s wealth inside Iran.
In response, the CIA and MI6 launched Operation Ajax:
Paid protesters
Ran propaganda campaigns
Bribed officials
Backed military intervention
Mosaddegh was overthrown.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was restored and strengthened.
A democratic government was removed not for abusing its people—but for challenging foreign control of oil.
4. The Shah Was Backed Because He Served Strategic Interests
After 1953, the Shah ruled with strong Western support.
Oil access remained stable
Iran became a key Cold War ally
The U.S. provided military and intelligence backing
Yes—there was modernization.
But over time, the regime became more authoritarian, using secret police and suppressing opposition.
Western support continued anyway, because stability and alignment mattered more than democracy.
5. 1979 Revolution — A Direct Blowback
Opposition grew due to:
Repression
Inequality
Anger at foreign influence
Ruhollah Khomeini, exiled and later based in France, used recorded messages to unify resistance.
In 1979, the Shah fell.
This wasn’t a random انقلاب—it was blowback from decades of interference and control.
6. After 1979 — Sanctions, Pressure, and Control From the Outside
After the revolution:
The U.S. imposed sanctions almost immediately following the hostage crisis
Iranian assets were frozen
Economic pressure became the primary tool
For decades, the approach was:
Sanctions, isolation, and containment—not rebuilding or supporting internal reform
7. Negotiations Were Rarely About Human Rights
Yes—there have been negotiations.
The most significant:
2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) under Barack Obama
Focus: nuclear limits in exchange for sanctions relief
Later:
Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018
Replaced it with “maximum pressure” sanctions
Across administrations, the pattern is consistent:
Negotiations focused on:
Nuclear capability
Military reach
Regional influence
NOT on enforcing human rights standards as a central condition
Even policy discussions acknowledge that human rights are often secondary or sidelined in negotiations .
8. The Pattern Over 100+ Years
Oil concessions → foreign control
1953 → democratic government removed
Shah → supported despite repression
1979 → backlash
After → sanctions and pressure
Modern negotiations → focused on security, not human rights
Final Point
Human rights issues in Iran today are real.
There is no denying that.
But if the priority had truly been the Iranian people, the approach would have looked very different:
Sustained diplomatic pressure tied to rights
Consistent negotiation frameworks
Support for internal reform—not regime manipulation
Instead, the record shows:
When Iran aligned with Western interests → support
When it didn’t → intervention, sanctions, or pressure
So when the narrative becomes “this is about saving the Iranian people,” it doesn’t match the history.
Because the history shows something far more consistent:
This has been about oil, power, and regional control—first. Human rights came second, if at all.
From the start, Iran’s most valuable resource was controlled externally, with limited benefit to its own population.
3. 1953 — Democracy Removed When It Threatened Oil Control
Mohammad Mosaddegh was democratically elected and moved to nationalise oil.
His goal was straightforward:
Keep Iran’s wealth inside Iran.
In response, the CIA and MI6 launched Operation Ajax:
Paid protesters
Ran propaganda campaigns
Bribed officials
Backed military intervention
Mosaddegh was overthrown.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was restored and strengthened.
A democratic government was removed not for abusing its people—but for challenging foreign control of oil.
4. The Shah Was Backed Because He Served Strategic Interests
After 1953, the Shah ruled with strong Western support.
Oil access remained stable
Iran became a key Cold War ally
The U.S. provided military and intelligence backing
Yes—there was modernization.
But over time, the regime became more authoritarian, using secret police and suppressing opposition.
Western support continued anyway, because stability and alignment mattered more than democracy.
5. 1979 Revolution — A Direct Blowback
Opposition grew due to:
Repression
Inequality
Anger at foreign influence
Ruhollah Khomeini, exiled and later based in France, used recorded messages to unify resistance.
In 1979, the Shah fell.
This wasn’t a random انقلاب—it was blowback from decades of interference and control.
6. After 1979 — Sanctions, Pressure, and Control From the Outside
After the revolution:
The U.S. imposed sanctions almost immediately following the hostage crisis
Iranian assets were frozen
Economic pressure became the primary tool
For decades, the approach was:
Sanctions, isolation, and containment—not rebuilding or supporting internal reform
7. Negotiations Were Rarely About Human Rights
Yes—there have been negotiations.
The most significant:
2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) under Barack Obama
Focus: nuclear limits in exchange for sanctions relief
Later:
Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018
Replaced it with “maximum pressure” sanctions
Across administrations, the pattern is consistent:
Negotiations focused on:
Nuclear capability
Military reach
Regional influence
NOT on enforcing human rights standards as a central condition
Even policy discussions acknowledge that human rights are often secondary or sidelined in negotiations .
8. The Pattern Over 100+ Years
Oil concessions → foreign control
1953 → democratic government removed
Shah → supported despite repression
1979 → backlash
After → sanctions and pressure
Modern negotiations → focused on security, not human rights
Final Point
Human rights issues in Iran today are real.
There is no denying that.
But if the priority had truly been the Iranian people, the approach would have looked very different:
Sustained diplomatic pressure tied to rights
Consistent negotiation frameworks
Support for internal reform—not regime manipulation
Instead, the record shows:
When Iran aligned with Western interests → support
When it didn’t → intervention, sanctions, or pressure
So when the narrative becomes “this is about saving the Iranian people,” it doesn’t match the history.
Because the history shows something far more consistent:
This has been about oil, power, and regional control—first. Human rights came second, if at all.
posted by Satish Sharma at
14:43
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home