THERE IS NO SPOON: Part B
The Shah and the US
Early 50s - mid 70s

From the previous part, we have established that the US (through the CIA's Operation Ajax) have overthrown a democratically elected PM in 1953 so that major oil companies of the West can divide the Iranian wealth.
Just to show what we mean by "democratically elected", the vote was 79-12. Yeah. Oil.

But even since 1941 (10 years prior to Mosadagh becoming PM), Mohammad Ritha Bahlawi has replaced his father's throne to become Shah of Iran (another long story which is irrelevant here because it concerns Britain and Russia).
Think of the Shah of Iran in terms of the United Kingdom: The parliamentary government would have the power to make the Shah submit to its opinion (vote).
But despite that, the Shah involved himself a lot in what concerns government, which really is not what he was supposed to do since he was only the constitutional monarch. Pun intended.

So now we arrive back to where we started, 1951, witnessing the election of PM who was overthrown in 1953. Because the Shah opposed the decision to nationalize the Iranian oil sector (under the fear of an economic embargo from the West), he came off as the 'right person' to install in Iran (or better yet, keep in charge), and it did not hurt that Iran was neighbouring the then-USSR Russia. Of course, most important thing was making sure the western oil companies divided Iranian oil.

The Shah afterwards expanded his constitutional powers, taking matters into his own hand and started 'westernizing' Iran. This is now 1954.
It wasn't really all bad if you look at it from a certain perspective. For example, in the early 1960s, he launched a program known as the White Revolution which did benefit Iranians. Somewhat.
Women had more rights, a lot of money was spent on education, and even land reform policies saw that a lot of farmers ended up owning land of their own.
Yet, despite all the 'socio-economic' measures, not much was done to push for democracy inside Iran. I wonder why?
This, as well as minimalising the role the shee3a scholars in matters of education for example, as well as the land owners losing some of their property to the farmers would get on the nerves of a lot of people inside Iran.

To make sure things were going the way he wanted them to, the Shah (for the time being, let's say) founded the SAVAK. House of Sand & Fog? Ben Kingsley's character? Yeah, nevermind.
Anyway, SAVAK was founded with the sole purpose of protecting the Shah against political opposition.
Although founded in 1957, the SAVAK became much more violent starting from 1965. And because they can justify any "type" of arrest to 'maintaining national security' (mn oma pun intended), the SAVAK were pretty much free to do what they wanted. It is estimated that anywhere between 13,000 to 20,000 people were killed (note: killed, not just tortured/arrested) by SAVAK.

And just to show how much of a nice man the Shah was, he ordered the assassination of one of the former directors of the SAVAK in 1970, as well as kept surveillance over the other directors. Who, by the way, were all friends of his (one of them dated back to school, I can check for the name if you want).

Audience: "Okay, wi7na shako? Bil 6agag ely ye6eg'hom, where does the US fit in all of this?"

It fits in all of the above, 'my dear Watson'.

SAVAK was founded with the help of the CIA (what? you thought Iranians were BORN into this?) as well as Mossad. If you don't know what Mossad is, then boy are you reading the wrong post.

"So what, now you're saying the US and the Israelis helped found SAVAK to arrest, torture, and murder the population in order to save the Shah?"

No, I'm reporting (not saying, not making up) that the US, in 1954, vowed to protect the Shah if he agreed to their terms. Terms being? Check the last post: dividing up the Iranian oil for 25 years among the west.

On the condition, if I might add, that Iran can not look over the actual accounts to make sure it was getting its share.

"Price of doing business?"
Fifty percent cut of profits. But with the condition of Iran not being able to look over the actual accounts, I'll leave the actual cut to your imagination.

So yes, I am saying that the US adminstrations overlooked mass murders and arrests, a corrupt system and an unstable political state of affairs in turn to make sure a 'certain industrial sector' was fucking Iran over for its money.

Human rights, democracy, and whatever fed BS these days just was not 'in' "back in the day" I guess. Or they were, bas 3ala naas o naas if you know what I mean.

Note: in 1973, because of the Arab-Israeli war and the consequent oil embargo, the Shah raised oil prices (obviously not joining the embargo) and .. what does he do with the money?

Spend it for 'defense purposes', of course.

Yeah, hmmmm I'm not sure where you can go buy "army stuff" when you have a shitload of cash?

La7tha let me think. "Oh holy-shizzle-in-da-nizzle, Batman. This has got to be the hardest question EVER."

Let me take one very very wild, uneducated guess. The US?

-

With that, we have overseen the:
a) coup d'etat (changing the political system of a country through violent or non-violent means) against a democratically elected prime minister
b) the splitting of Iranian wealth among the western companies
c) under the US promise to protect the Shah as long as he keeps doing that.. through
d) the founding of SAVAK with the directions of your friends over at the American and Israeli "intelligence agencies".
e) who would go on and arrest, torture, and kill people as they wished to secure the 'protection of the Shah'

"Did Iran benefit from all that?"

Sure it did, "little Johnny".

If you call fucking your people over and turning your country into a military and economic base in the Middle East so you can keep the western companies in business. Oh, and just in case you foresaw that in like 30 years later you will have someone who has no idea about history or historical politics to say "Iran was better off with the Shah" .. then yes, "little Johnny", Iran did benefit. *Pat on the head*

Conspiracy theory? No sir, no ma'am. Plain history. Documented and sourced.