Biden: Mubarak isn't a dictator

[TragicMonkey]

I don't agree. Egypt controls the Suez Canal. Egypt is one of the most populous nation on the Mediterranean. American has a lot of interests in the region beyond Israel and oil, though those two get the most print. Keeping nations along the Red Sea and Mediterranean either stable or contained is an economic interest of the West.

Realpolitik ain't pretty and it isn't monodimensional either.

Doesn't the oil we get from the Middle East travel through the Suez Canal? I'd hate to think we're wasting time and effort being nice to awful people for their oil and then not be able to get the stuff.

 

[marksman]

Doesn't the oil we get from the Middle East travel through the Suez Canal?

Who is "we"? Most of America's oil comes from pipeline from and through Canada, or by freighter from Mexico and Latin America. The Suez Canal mostly ships stuff to Europe, and yes, it includes lots of oil. But it is more than oil.

I'd hate to think we're wasting time and effort being nice to awful people for their oil and then not be able to get the stuff.

Yeah, that would actually be pretty bad for Europe.

 

[FireGarden]

The Prime Minister overthrown in 1954 was actually the Shah's choice.

[...] So, no. Iran did not have style of government that was democratic in 1950, any more than Egypt now has a style of government that is democratic. They have the trappings of democracy designed to support the autocratic regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh#Election_as_prime_minister

On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.

[...] On 16 July 1952, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mosaddegh insisted on the constitutional prerogative of the prime minister to name a Minister of War and the Chief of Staff, something the Shah had done hitherto. The Shah refused, and Mosaddegh announced his resignation appealing directly to the public for support, pronouncing that "in the present situation, the struggle started by the Iranian people cannot be brought to a victorious conclusion".

[...] After five days of mass demonstrations on Siyeh-i Tir (the 30th of Tir on the Iranian calendar), military commanders, ordered their troops back to barracks, fearful of overstraining the enlisted men's loyalty and left Tehran in the hands of the protesters.[33] Frightened by the unrest, Shah dismissed Qavam and re-appointed Mosaddegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously demanded.

Sounds more democratic than Egypt. And sounds like it was going to get even more democratic. I certainly wouldn't call it the Shah's rubber stamp if the Shah feels he has to appoint who parliament votes for.

 

[marksman]

Sounds more democratic than Egypt.

Why? Because the Shah acquiesced to one minister and then sacked him three months later?!

That's like counting angels on the head of a pin.

And sounds like it was going to get even more democratic. I certainly wouldn't call it the Shah's rubber stamp if the Shah feels he has to appoint who parliament votes for.

I used the phrase rubber stamp to describe the state of affairs from 1905, when the Iranian Parliament was first created, through 1952. 1952 was the first and only instance of the inklings of actual democracy and it was swiftly destroyed.

So to say that Iran had any "style" of democracy is to vastly overstate the case. Which was my point. By the time of the US-sponsored crackdown, Iranian democracy could have been no older than a few months.

And there's no way to know if democracy would have flourished. He did one thing -- nationalize Western industries. Maybe democracy would have flourished. Maybe he would have become a demagogue. We have no idea because it didn't happen.

 

[FireGarden]

Why? Because the Shah acquiesced to one minister and then sacked him three months later?!

Mossadegh resigned. And the general public forced the Shah to have him back.

That's like counting angels on the head of a pin.

We don't seem to use that phrase in the same way, because I don't know what you mean.

I used the phrase rubber stamp to describe the state of affairs from 1905, when the Iranian Parliament was first created, through 1952. 1952 was the first and only instance of the inklings of actual democracy and it was swiftly destroyed.

I didn't get that from your original post. Rereading it... I still don't get that from your original post.

So to say that Iran had any "style" of democracy is to vastly overstate the case. Which was my point. By the time of the US-sponsored crackdown, Iranian democracy could have been no older than a few months.

And there's no way to know if democracy would have flourished. He did one thing -- nationalize Western industries. Maybe democracy would have flourished. Maybe he would have become a demagogue. We have no idea because it didn't happen.

This is very different to your original post. And self-contradictory. Iran did have a democracy, even if it wasn't too old. And then it becomes an argument from ignorance. What we do know is that the reason democracy didn't flourish is because of Operation Ajax. Comfort yourself with the possibility that it might not have flourished anyway, but don't expect that to be a useful debating point -- certainly not in Iran.

And Mossadegh did more than nationalise the oil. He limited the Shah's powers, eg: the aforementioned prerogative to name the minister of war and the chief of staff. And he also limited the Shah's budget.

 

[marksman]

This is very different to your original post. And self-contradictory. Iran did have a democracy, even if it wasn't too old.

If it wasn't old (and it was only three months old) then it can't be a style. If I wear a shirt once, that's to my style. If my country has been a democracy for three months after 2,500 years fo monarchy, I don't think it fair (or useful) to say that the "iranian-style government was a democracy". That's the statement to which I responded.

[quote[What we do know is that the reason democracy didn't flourish is because of Operation Ajax. Comfort yourself with the possibility that it might not have flourished anyway, but don't expect that to be a useful debating point -- certainly not in Iran.[/quote]
It was useful in response to what I was responding. That you've decided to pretned I was arguing something else (and I have no idea what you think we're discussing) is of no concern.

And Mossadegh did more than nationalise the oil. He limited the Shah's powers, eg: the aforementioned prerogative to name the minister of war and the chief of staff. And he also limited the Shah's budget.

Yippee. But those weren't causes of Operation Ajax. I'm sure he did things beyond that which you've written too. BFD.