Iran 1953. Operation Boot.
Helps to overthrow secular nationalist Mossadegh Regime for nationalizing oil fields. It was the closest thing that Iran has experienced to an actual secular democracy. Brings back archaic Shah regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
Iran 1953-1978.
Shah was actually progressive. But he pushed to ropes a little too hard. Meanwhile top tier universities in Europe (all of them being NATO allies) are devising Islamic populist rhetoric. Yeah, you heard it right. Actual atheist German and French political philosophers are actually contributing to Political Islam.
Why? Because, muh post-modernism.
http://www.telospress.com/re-workin...1979-and-its-quest-for-cultural-authenticity/
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/007863.html
Meanwhile Khomeini is exiled from Iran. A NATO ally, France, opens it's arms for him. No, not as a refugee who needs a shelter. France effectively becomes his headquarters.
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/10th-february-1979/13/frances-gamble-with-khomeini
Iran 1979.
Islamic revolution takes place in Iran. Despite being progressive, archaic Shah regime that is implemented by the Western powers in the Operation Boot is overthrown by another political entity which actually took immense support from Western academia and French government. (Again, a NATO ally)
Eventually Islamic regime nationalizes the entire oil industry, just like Mossadegh regime wanted to. US becomes angry and Iran becomes the arch enemy ever since.
Flash forward today : US public recently learns that there is something called post modernism, which is not an actual philosophical movement but a fraud one and tries to counter that in the name of countering "PC culture" since 2016. It was perfectly acceptable when deconstructing secular promising regimes or actual progressive movements in the ME, but it crossed the line when it started to target "white male".
A little late for it, like 37 years late.
TL;DR : You make a regime change and implement an archaic and brittle regime in a country for oil fields. Then you directly or indirectly support another regime change. This regime becomes much more sturdy then the previous one and becomes permanent. Then you lose the oil fields. Also complain about the new regime being fundamentalist. Why? Because of reasons.
--------------------
Iraq. 14 July Coup.
14 July 1958. Progressive officers make a coup against an archaic Monarchy regime of British implemented King Faisal. They want a secular republic. A movement that was not looked to be democratic at first, but it was definitely the best chance that Iraq, because the movement had the potential to evolve into a working democratic order. UK and US doesn't like them at all, because Faisal was their guy and who the hell demands democracy if the king(or dictator) is your guy.
Iraq 1962, Ramadan Revolution.
Baath party takes over with a really bloody coup that ended up leading to grave massacres in Iraq. A progressive minded political and intellectual class is completely destroyed. No direct involvement of CIA is officially accepted today. Although there are a lot of independent analysts that claims "up to a certain degree" CIA is definitely involved.
There is no official acceptance of the involvement in the Baath coup. But there is definite proof of approval of the Baath regime, financial aid to Baath regime and helping them to cover up their massacres and creating a nice public opinion for them.
"While it's still early, the Iraqi revolution seems to have succeeded. It is almost certainly a net gain for our side. ... We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as we're sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it."
—Robert Komer to President John F. Kennedy, February 8, 1963
Iraq ended up being a dictatorship that is ruled by Saddam Hussein and single party Baathist regime.
22 September 1980 Iran-Iraq war
Supports Iraq for counter balancing newly installed Islamic Regime in Iran.
Obvious flaws in this plan :
- Iraq is a damn Shia majority country. Iran is an Islamic Republic and the epicenter of the Shia sect. How would Iraq win a war against Iran? It's like supporting a Catholic majority country, that has a Protestant King, into a war against the Pope!? Don't you see in the best case scenario, the majority of you population won't support your war effort.
- Iraq has a major Kurdish population and the Kurds were known to riot against Iraq before for having their own state. In 1961 and in 1974. There is no reason to assume that Kurds will take advantage of a major war and riot again to their own government.
What an attentive foreign policy expert would do?
- Prevent Iraq from going into a major war so that the country won't get thorn apart.
- Never sell them heavy weapon which could make them feel overconfident and go to war.
- Sell them lot's of equipment and light weaponry that would help them take control of the already torn apart country in a civilized manner.
- Push for Arabian Nationalism to curb the influence of Shia Islamism.
- Make a lot of trade with Iraq, integrate it into World economy, help to curb unemployment.
- In order to give your "NATO ALLY" Turkey a hand, help Iraqi army take control of Iraq's Kurdish dominated regions in a civilized manner.
What actually happened?
- US didn't even properly analyzed the possibility of Iraq has the will to attack Iran. Incompetence.
- US supported Iraq with heavy weaponry. Foolish move that elongated the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
- Islamic regime in Iran is cemented because it used war effort as an excuse to oppress the social opposition and actually widened it's base because the war appealed peoples nationalist feelings. Foolish move, tied to elongating the war.
- As expected, unlike Washington calculated, Kurds rioted against Saddam, instead of rioting against Iran. This lead to brutal Al Anfal Campaign.
- As expected Shia population in Iraq didn't take going to war with Iran nicely and started rioting against Saddam. That led to 1991 Karbala uprising and 1999 Shia uprising.
- Iraq becomes a failed state. Open failure.
- Iran goes out of the war stronger than it had entered. Open failure.
Aftermath :
- US becomes anti Saddam.
- Saddam informs US that they would make a military operation in Kuwait. US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie says "We don't care about your relations with Kuwait".
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/13/w...eting-of-hussein-and-american-ambassador.html
Later, she says she didn't quite get the seriousness of the situation. Damn superpower with very professional diplomats.
- US starts Operation Provide Comfort in 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort
The operation starts with humanitarian aid for the Kurds who are victims of Al Anfal campaign. Then it suddenly turns into arming Kurdish populace to offer them the means of protecting themselves against their own government. They used Turkish soil, and Turkish military infrastructure to arm Kurdish militias in Iraq, and told Turkey they were sending humanitarian aid.
Turkish soldiers figured out what was going on. And the rest was,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeşilova_incident
Where British Marines and Turkish Special Forces were about to get into firefight in Turkish soil.
As a side note, in 1991, Turkey lost 244 serviceman and 233 civilians to the terror attacks of PKK.
- US ends up invading Iraq and takes down Saddam.
- Country goes into a much worse chaos. ISIS emerges on one side, Shia populace completely becomes pro-Iran on the other.
It's already too long. So I will just leave this here about Afghanistan.
"God is on your side", says US Diplomat and Political Scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski to TALIBAN Forces in 1979. Supporting them against Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. As a side note, Osama Bin Laden was also one of the figurheads in Taliban, back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
I call this Drunk Man's Foreign Policy. Curb every progressive and promising movement. Encourage fundamentalism. Make stupid regime changes that ends up being worse even in 10 years period. Not a long term for foreign policy. Invade ME countries to get rid of regimes that you yourself supported (directly or indirectly) or even created in the past.
Then complain about Radical Islam, complain that there is no democracy in the ME. Invade more countries to bring democracy. Fail in every attempt. Then cry more because of chaos ends up creating more terrorist organizations (oops!?) and because Iran has increasing influence in the ME.
Thanks to American mastermind policy, Iran effectively became a Mediterranean force, which is unseen in the history of Mankind. Also as a result of that mastermind policy, Russia returned as a dominant power in the ME, and took back the ground of USSR. Meanwhile USA lost a NATO ally, Turkey, which was a staunch pro-Western country since 1939 (Anglo-French Treaty with Turkey
) even before NATO came together. They even managed Turkey to become friends with Russians after;
This : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_during_Ottoman_contraction
This : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Albanians_1877–1878
This : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmachi_movement
and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
So, I congratulate USA diplomats, for making miracles, and contributing to seemingly impossible friendships that otherwise wouldn't even exist without your 200 IQ diplomacy.
What a superpower.
Result in Afrin? GG, EZ.
Helps to overthrow secular nationalist Mossadegh Regime for nationalizing oil fields. It was the closest thing that Iran has experienced to an actual secular democracy. Brings back archaic Shah regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
Iran 1953-1978.
Shah was actually progressive. But he pushed to ropes a little too hard. Meanwhile top tier universities in Europe (all of them being NATO allies) are devising Islamic populist rhetoric. Yeah, you heard it right. Actual atheist German and French political philosophers are actually contributing to Political Islam.
Why? Because, muh post-modernism.
http://www.telospress.com/re-workin...1979-and-its-quest-for-cultural-authenticity/
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/007863.html
Meanwhile Khomeini is exiled from Iran. A NATO ally, France, opens it's arms for him. No, not as a refugee who needs a shelter. France effectively becomes his headquarters.
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/10th-february-1979/13/frances-gamble-with-khomeini
Iran 1979.
Islamic revolution takes place in Iran. Despite being progressive, archaic Shah regime that is implemented by the Western powers in the Operation Boot is overthrown by another political entity which actually took immense support from Western academia and French government. (Again, a NATO ally)
Eventually Islamic regime nationalizes the entire oil industry, just like Mossadegh regime wanted to. US becomes angry and Iran becomes the arch enemy ever since.
Flash forward today : US public recently learns that there is something called post modernism, which is not an actual philosophical movement but a fraud one and tries to counter that in the name of countering "PC culture" since 2016. It was perfectly acceptable when deconstructing secular promising regimes or actual progressive movements in the ME, but it crossed the line when it started to target "white male".
A little late for it, like 37 years late.
TL;DR : You make a regime change and implement an archaic and brittle regime in a country for oil fields. Then you directly or indirectly support another regime change. This regime becomes much more sturdy then the previous one and becomes permanent. Then you lose the oil fields. Also complain about the new regime being fundamentalist. Why? Because of reasons.
--------------------
Iraq. 14 July Coup.
14 July 1958. Progressive officers make a coup against an archaic Monarchy regime of British implemented King Faisal. They want a secular republic. A movement that was not looked to be democratic at first, but it was definitely the best chance that Iraq, because the movement had the potential to evolve into a working democratic order. UK and US doesn't like them at all, because Faisal was their guy and who the hell demands democracy if the king(or dictator) is your guy.
Iraq 1962, Ramadan Revolution.
Baath party takes over with a really bloody coup that ended up leading to grave massacres in Iraq. A progressive minded political and intellectual class is completely destroyed. No direct involvement of CIA is officially accepted today. Although there are a lot of independent analysts that claims "up to a certain degree" CIA is definitely involved.
There is no official acceptance of the involvement in the Baath coup. But there is definite proof of approval of the Baath regime, financial aid to Baath regime and helping them to cover up their massacres and creating a nice public opinion for them.
"While it's still early, the Iraqi revolution seems to have succeeded. It is almost certainly a net gain for our side. ... We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as we're sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it."
—Robert Komer to President John F. Kennedy, February 8, 1963
Iraq ended up being a dictatorship that is ruled by Saddam Hussein and single party Baathist regime.
22 September 1980 Iran-Iraq war
Supports Iraq for counter balancing newly installed Islamic Regime in Iran.
Obvious flaws in this plan :
- Iraq is a damn Shia majority country. Iran is an Islamic Republic and the epicenter of the Shia sect. How would Iraq win a war against Iran? It's like supporting a Catholic majority country, that has a Protestant King, into a war against the Pope!? Don't you see in the best case scenario, the majority of you population won't support your war effort.
- Iraq has a major Kurdish population and the Kurds were known to riot against Iraq before for having their own state. In 1961 and in 1974. There is no reason to assume that Kurds will take advantage of a major war and riot again to their own government.
What an attentive foreign policy expert would do?
- Prevent Iraq from going into a major war so that the country won't get thorn apart.
- Never sell them heavy weapon which could make them feel overconfident and go to war.
- Sell them lot's of equipment and light weaponry that would help them take control of the already torn apart country in a civilized manner.
- Push for Arabian Nationalism to curb the influence of Shia Islamism.
- Make a lot of trade with Iraq, integrate it into World economy, help to curb unemployment.
- In order to give your "NATO ALLY" Turkey a hand, help Iraqi army take control of Iraq's Kurdish dominated regions in a civilized manner.
What actually happened?
- US didn't even properly analyzed the possibility of Iraq has the will to attack Iran. Incompetence.
- US supported Iraq with heavy weaponry. Foolish move that elongated the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
- Islamic regime in Iran is cemented because it used war effort as an excuse to oppress the social opposition and actually widened it's base because the war appealed peoples nationalist feelings. Foolish move, tied to elongating the war.
- As expected, unlike Washington calculated, Kurds rioted against Saddam, instead of rioting against Iran. This lead to brutal Al Anfal Campaign.
- As expected Shia population in Iraq didn't take going to war with Iran nicely and started rioting against Saddam. That led to 1991 Karbala uprising and 1999 Shia uprising.
- Iraq becomes a failed state. Open failure.
- Iran goes out of the war stronger than it had entered. Open failure.
Aftermath :
- US becomes anti Saddam.
- Saddam informs US that they would make a military operation in Kuwait. US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie says "We don't care about your relations with Kuwait".
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/13/w...eting-of-hussein-and-american-ambassador.html
Later, she says she didn't quite get the seriousness of the situation. Damn superpower with very professional diplomats.
- US starts Operation Provide Comfort in 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort
The operation starts with humanitarian aid for the Kurds who are victims of Al Anfal campaign. Then it suddenly turns into arming Kurdish populace to offer them the means of protecting themselves against their own government. They used Turkish soil, and Turkish military infrastructure to arm Kurdish militias in Iraq, and told Turkey they were sending humanitarian aid.
Turkish soldiers figured out what was going on. And the rest was,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeşilova_incident
Where British Marines and Turkish Special Forces were about to get into firefight in Turkish soil.
As a side note, in 1991, Turkey lost 244 serviceman and 233 civilians to the terror attacks of PKK.
- US ends up invading Iraq and takes down Saddam.
- Country goes into a much worse chaos. ISIS emerges on one side, Shia populace completely becomes pro-Iran on the other.
It's already too long. So I will just leave this here about Afghanistan.
"God is on your side", says US Diplomat and Political Scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski to TALIBAN Forces in 1979. Supporting them against Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. As a side note, Osama Bin Laden was also one of the figurheads in Taliban, back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
I call this Drunk Man's Foreign Policy. Curb every progressive and promising movement. Encourage fundamentalism. Make stupid regime changes that ends up being worse even in 10 years period. Not a long term for foreign policy. Invade ME countries to get rid of regimes that you yourself supported (directly or indirectly) or even created in the past.
Then complain about Radical Islam, complain that there is no democracy in the ME. Invade more countries to bring democracy. Fail in every attempt. Then cry more because of chaos ends up creating more terrorist organizations (oops!?) and because Iran has increasing influence in the ME.
Thanks to American mastermind policy, Iran effectively became a Mediterranean force, which is unseen in the history of Mankind. Also as a result of that mastermind policy, Russia returned as a dominant power in the ME, and took back the ground of USSR. Meanwhile USA lost a NATO ally, Turkey, which was a staunch pro-Western country since 1939 (Anglo-French Treaty with Turkey
This : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_during_Ottoman_contraction
This : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Albanians_1877–1878
This : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmachi_movement
and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
So, I congratulate USA diplomats, for making miracles, and contributing to seemingly impossible friendships that otherwise wouldn't even exist without your 200 IQ diplomacy.
What a superpower.
Result in Afrin? GG, EZ.
Last edited:
