Oxymandias wrote:I simply don't understand how you can assume that a totalitarian monarchy is more democratic and stable than a theocratic democracy. Yes, there are limits to what you can say, but that doesn't mean you aren't represented in the government and, because of this, this means that you have stake in the government itself. This is different from monarchy.
Commercial media convinced Americans that the Shah was a good guy (because he sold oil so cheaply to Western oil companies) and anything else - especially communism (or "sharing") - had to be removed by force.
Our cartoonists and news reporters spent many years painting a picture of Iranian clerics as being close to satanic, while our capitalist class paint themselves as James Bond, or Superman.
Even our historical recall was deformed. On another page, Zamuel starts "the Iran issue" at the time that the Shah is overthrown by popular revolt. HE TOTALLY IGNORES that western capitalists CANCELLED the election of a communist. This is the most important part of the entire story - the USA's capitalist class is totally unable to respect the will of any nation on earth, including the one they share a country with. If Iranians choose communism, the USA poisons them with violence and/or sanctions.
The Shah was the kind of backwards government that capitalism prefers. Just look at Israel, Saudi Arabia, Queen Elizabeth, or American Christianity. - The 13th Century wants their worldview back...