Since the 1980's, Iran and Israel have fought an indirect war involving intelligence operations, cyberattacks, assassinations, and Iranian support for armed groups such as Hezbollah.
Their hostility is primarily a consequence of the Islamic Republic's rise.
the Islamic Republic's rise is a consequence of a harsh authoritarian monarchy imposed on Iran by the US and the UK in 1953 (for oil obviously). Your turn.
Because Iran’s prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, nationalized the country’s oil industry, challenging British economic interests.
America, for its part, was increasingly concerned about communist influence during the Cold War, not oil. In fact, its ventures with Saudi Arabia was the cause of the nationalization by Iran’s prime minister, because they felt being taken advantage by Britain.
Are you saying Britain is hence ultimately responsible?
None of what you wrote makes Britain sound "ultimately responsible". For that matter, oil nationalization is not a reason to remove democratically elected government and replacing it with dictator.
For the coup? Yes, Churchill/British Petroleum (Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company before the rebranding to BP right after the coup) couldn't topple Mosaddegh and asked the CIA for help. Nationalized often means reverting transactions that could be seen as fraudulent, when powerful nations bribe/take advantage of poorly run developing countries/banana republics and suddenly own a large part of the natural resources that then no longer benefit the population. That is the type of communism the US was often afraid of - increasing literacy, healthcare, land reform at expense of foreign private companies.
In my view, Britain is through not much fault of it's own, responsibile. If we go back to the Israel boondoggle, was Britain not weak and weary of colonial projects after ww2, they could have resisted Zionist terrorist blackmail attempts to usurp the land and maintained a brutal no questions asked shoot on sight policy for terrorism whether Arab or Zionist in the region.
They have nothing to do with the war. War stopped the protests. And if anything war killed the internal opposition and cemented power in the armed guards. What was weak unsupported regime gained a lot of strength.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
24 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 26.9 ms ] threadYou can’t claim terrorism after starting a war that killed 100+ school children on the first day of military strikes.
Since the 1980's, Iran and Israel have fought an indirect war involving intelligence operations, cyberattacks, assassinations, and Iranian support for armed groups such as Hezbollah.
Their hostility is primarily a consequence of the Islamic Republic's rise.
Because Iran’s prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, nationalized the country’s oil industry, challenging British economic interests.
America, for its part, was increasingly concerned about communist influence during the Cold War, not oil. In fact, its ventures with Saudi Arabia was the cause of the nationalization by Iran’s prime minister, because they felt being taken advantage by Britain.
Are you saying Britain is hence ultimately responsible?
#NeverForget
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/world/middleeast/iran-how... https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601255198
https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...
I’m sure they appreciate your liberation attempt very much. #AmericaFirst
America's true Achilles heel, history tells us, is very tall commercial office buildings.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.