This, for the most part, is self inflicted by the Iranian regime.
"In 1953, the CIA- and MI6-backed 1953 Iranian coup d'état overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company."
Like: yes, I lay a lot of the responsibility for the nightmare state Iranians live in at the hands of Cold War NATO policymakers, for sure, but I don't think it's all that useful as a positive claim of what happened in the 1970s. The US did not support the Ayatollahs.
I didn't say that. It's just that Iran already had a democratically elected government. However there is some truth to the claim that you put in my mouth, that is, you can see that pattern quite often in history. Chile is another example but let's focus on Iran.
Iran hasn't threatened to destroy, they have made it their stated mission to "annihilate" Israel. I doubt Israel would have any ill-will towards Iran if Iran didn't first say that about Israel.
1. Jolani was propped up by Turkey not Israel, their relations are still tense. E.g. Jolani has been massacring the Druze which are Israel's allies, while Israel-Turkey relations are only getting worse.
Unsure where so many get the idea Israel is excited about an ISIS veterans regime on its border that regularly massacres civilians including on-brand mass rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, cutting hearts out etc
The US had previously imprisoned Jolani and had a 10 million reward on his head until 2024, so, that also doesn't align with your narrative
2. Western governments make sure not to meet the crown prince in a state setting or using high dignities, as to limit their support
3. The Shah government was terrible in some respects but still arguably superior to the current one, in any case hopefully Iranians can find their own new way once they get rid of their current fascist theocracy
4. There is no real evidence that the local revolts are supported by the US or Israel. It is naturally the regime propaganda stance as authoritarian regimes usually turn the blame outwards rather than face their failures (environmental disaster, raging inflation, sanctions, complete regional defeat, unwanted religious laws)
5. Not many dictators in the region historically "accepted Israel's dominance" so I don't think you have many supporting points for your sweeping statements
Probably accurate, but I think if Israel sincerely objected to Jolani's leadership in Syria, a state visit to the White House would not have happened.
Read into that what you will.
Perhaps because they openly provided support to them for years: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/report-israel-treating-al-...
Israel more pressing Islamist threat, Hezbollah, was the focus back then and therefore these organizations were given medical help in turn for agreeing not to kill Druze and to stay away from the Israeli border.
It was quite evident Israel's position as it hasn't tried to fight for Al Nusra when Assad recaptured that area even though it could easily make the Syrian regime forces retreat.
Also, the repeated bombing of the current syrian government forces are probably not due to some outbursting friendship
I despise the Iranian regime, but knowing what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it quite troubling that people are quite giddy about this as though it's not going to result in many lives lost (many more than what the regime is currently responsible for), and destabilisation of the country.
And given the USA's track record in regime changes, and the issues they have in their own country currently, I don't think the US - nor Israel - have any standing to be carrying out a regime change in another sovereign state.
For example, it's interesting that the US would declare Jolani a terrorist if they were in support of his regime.
There was a large bounty on his head until recently because of his atrocities.
2) Nobody is asking to "accept Israel's dominance", but dropping the "Destruction of Israel" as one of the main goals of the state would be a quite welcome.
The world does not revolve around Israel, and the less bloody dictators it has (theocratic or not) the better.
Criticism of Western liberalism is not one of them.
Downvoted!
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d...
"... there will be plenty of voices around Trump advising him to be careful if he does go down that route. The Trump administration would be careful, because the consequences of regime change would be extremely complex ..."
Please enlighten us with some of this easily verifiable information.
The part we're all having trouble with is "and therefore the US wants to install the son of the Shah."
Words are cheap and politicians often do much different than they promised. Remember when Trump said no new wars? Remember when he said we were done in Iran after dropping the bombs, and now intervention is looming?
There is very little in that post that is verifiable. See above for what most people would call the rest of the content.
So when you see Reza Pahlavi suddenly getting airtime in Western policy circles, or street protests getting instrumentalized, or the recent conflict framed as a chance to degrade Iranian capabilities—it's not hard to read that as regime-change-by-attrition rather than genuine concern for what Iranians actually want.
---
And since you are too lazy to google yourself, here's some food for thought for you:
1953 COUP & PATTERN OF UNDERCUTTING INCONVENIENT DEMOCRACIES
The coup itself: - Detailed reconstructions document CIA/MI6 overthrow of elected Mossadegh to restore a pro-Western Shah and protect Western oil interests.[1][2][3][4] - CIA officially acknowledged its role; mainstream sources frame it as toppling Iran's elected government, followed by decades of US-backed dictatorship.[5][6]
The pattern: - Once you map 1953 → Hamas 2006 → ongoing Saudi/Egyptian support, scholars synthesize it into the exact logic described: democracy is fine until it threatens US/Israeli primacy.[2][10][11][13]
HAMAS' 2006 ELECTORAL VICTORY & WESTERN RESPONSE
- Hamas won a free, competitive election in 2006; the US and allies then moved to diplomatically and financially isolate the government unless it met stringent conditions.[7][8][9][10] - Policy analysis shows US-led isolation pushed the Palestinian Authority toward collapse—fitting the claim that "democracy promotion" gets subordinated to Israeli interests once voters pick the "wrong" side.[9][10][7]
BANKROLLING AUTHORITARIAN PARTNERS (SAUDI ARABIA, MUBARAK'S EGYPT)
- US military and economic aid to Egypt under Mubarak continued for decades despite systematic repression; "democracy assistance" remained marginal compared to security aid.[11] - Bipartisan US tolerance for Saudi Arabia and Gulf monarchies persists despite their undemocratic character—even after Khashoggi, even during Saudi counter-revolutionary moves against Arab Spring uprisings.[12][13]
THE STRUCTURAL LOGIC: "PLIANT REGIONAL ORDER" + ISRAELI MILITARY DOMINANCE
- Critical analyses argue Washington's overriding priority is stability of a pro-US security architecture and Israel's qualitative military edge; democracy and human rights are secondary, adjustable variables.[13][12]
REZA PAHLAVI, STREET PROTESTS & REGIME-CHANGE-BY-ATTRITION
- Reza Pahlavi is positioned as a pro-Western, pro-Israel opposition figure amplified in Western forums, despite uncertain domestic support.[14][15][16] - US and allied Iran policy mixes sanctions, information ops, support for exiled media, and military pressure as a long-term weakening strategy—not engagement with any outcome that might produce an independent, nationalist democracy.[17][18][19]
SOURCES:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat [2] https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/iran-coup/ [3] https://www.britannica.com/event/1953-coup-in-Iran [4] https://monthlyreview.org/articles/a-defining-moment-the-his... [5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/in-first-cia-acknowledges... [6] https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e... [8] https://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2006.03.02_united... [9] https://carnegie.ru/2006/05/18/coping-with-hamas-event-885 [10] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/palestinians-fighting-a... [11] https://www.mei.edu/publications/united-states-and-arab-pro-... [12] https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2011/06/the-united-state... [13] https://www.rienner.com/uploads/5d24e20d30b4f.pdf [14] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/7/3/son-of-former-sh... [15] https://tomorrowsaffairs.com/how-much-real-support-does-reza... [16] https://www.cfr.org/event/conversation-reza-pahlavi [17] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/1/5/why-trumps-regim... [18] https://www.hoover.org/research/regime-change-iran-treachero... [19] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/06/03/why-a-us-policy...
Everyone who participates here needs to observe the guidelines. These ones in particular are relevant.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
What part of the comment is disputable?
> Western governments do not want democracy in Iran.
This is purely speculation, and is not generally true based on statements from Western governments. What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation. If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world, weren't actively pursuing the most dangerous military weapon in existence, and hadn't run their country into the ground, I don't think Western governments would spend much time thinking about Iran or its form of government.
> They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs.
The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
> The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME.
I suspect your definition of "dominate the ME" is not very mainstream if you accept this at face value. Iran (along with some other ME nations) has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, which Israel strongly disagrees with.
> Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims.
How did Western governments replace Assad with Jolani? Do you want the leader of Syria to oppose Israel, or should they attempt to normalize relations with a neighbor? Have you considered that he realizes that he can't win that fight and is attempting to cling to the power he seized during their civil war?
> The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel.
Any evidence of this?
> They openly brag about it on every channel.
Any evidence of this?
> They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms.
Any evidence of this?
> They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
Any evidence of this? Again, Western governments are really looking for stability first, and will accept it if a dictator can provide it based on past behavior.
In short, these are a bunch of highly biased and polarizing statements of opinion, some of which might be backed by a shred of truth but then warped to fit a very specific viewpoint.
Its wild that someone can say this with a straight face.
>What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation.
While "stability" is being generous, this is more or less true. Western governments want whatever form of government is most beneficial to them, which usually implies some form of "stability". What it does not imply is any form of democracy or liberalism. The last 100+ years in the region demonstrate this, with the British and US supporting undemocratic, sometimes brutal regimes that were beneficial to them.
>The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
That is literally one of the easiest claims to verify. 5 seconds google search:
"As Iranian protests grow in size, an unlikely figure is gaining prominence—the son of the country’s reviled shah, who was toppled in the 1979 revolution.
Iranians across the country are chanting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi, whose father, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ruled the country for decades."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iranians-are-rallying-a...
Just as one example, how does "Iranians across the country are chanting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi" demonstrate that Western nations want him in power?
And did you miss this in that article: "Few analysts think Pahlavi has a real path to the throne or leadership in Iran."
That’s why the US toppled the democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950s and installed a puppet regime with the brutal Shah? And when the Iranians started a revolution and sent the dictator into exile the West gave money and weapons to Iraq‘s Saddam Hussain and killed 1 mil Iranians? And put Iran under harsh sanctions for decades under which Iranians suffer deerly?
> If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world,
Global terrorism comes from IS/Al Qaeda, which are Sunnis, originating in Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
And speaking of extraterritorial killings: Read the book „Rise and Kill“ by an Israeli. Israel kills people around the globe extrajudicially like no other country. Israel is accused of genocide. Yet the collective West is silent.
The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel. They openly brag about it on every channel. They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms. They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
Edit: Yeah, let’s downvote instead if arguing.
Edit 2: https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/2010798811288133695
> Glenn Greenwald:
> Trump's former CIA Director and the largest newspapers of the Israeli media can state explicitly and clearly that the Mossad is all over the protests in Iran, and yet still people will deny it and say only a conspiracy theorist could believe such a crazy tale.