Did USA/UK support the fall of the Shah?

>>1553036
No, they didn't. If anything it hurt US interests to lose the Shah who was anti-British but heavily pro-American. Imperial State of Iran under the Pahlavis, especially Reza's son, were heavily invested in augmenting their military assets and were even more prioritized when it came to US connections then Israel in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. And when inevitably the tenuous hold of the clerics fades away in Iran, it will still likely distance itself from the US.

>>1553059
Did you look at my links and evidence. The Carter administration was constantly complaining about the Shah's human rights abuses as a pretext to support Khomeini and the downfall of the Pahlavi Dynasty. Carter even called Khomeini a saint.

The Shah was starting to be sovereign after William E. Simon made a deal with Saudi Arabia, check the source I gave. This is why Carter was starting to oppose the Shah's rule. Both the BBC and Carter administration wanted the Shah gone for economic reasons. They switched from supporting Iran as a regional power to Saudi Arabia as the regional power.

>>1553076
I know of the link between the Carters and the Shah but I don't think that relates to anything tangible to aiding his fall or wanting the country to be destabilized in the first place. Regardless, they only switched to focus on the Gulf Arab states and Arabia ONCE the American hostage crisis went down after the Shah's exile.

I simply don't agree with the conspiracy theory the Americans wanted the Shah to lose power.

>>1553099
>they only switched to focus on the Gulf Arab states and Arabia ONCE the American hostage crisis went down after the Shah's exile.
No. Are you even reading the sources I gave? They switched focus from Iran to Saudi Arabia in 1974 due to a deal William E. Simon, a powerful man from Wall Street at that time, made with Saudi Arabia to "neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth". The Shah didn't agree to this demand, hence why he was called a nut by one of the most powerful man from the Anglosphere at that time, William E. Simon. Read the third link.

>>1553099
>I simply don't agree with the conspiracy theory the Americans wanted the Shah to lose power.
It's not a fucking conspiracy theory if you read the goddamn links I gave.

>>1553036
>William E. Simon
Was appointed U.S. Treasury secretary, meaning he was one of the most powerful men at that time. He basically switched from focusing on Iran to Saudi Arabia due to economic reasons. Read the link.

>>1553107
US was already maintaining 50-50 crude oil profit splits with various Arabian countries while the UK was doing the 90-10 deal to Iran. That's already well known. Hell its the root cause in Mossadageh being usurped by the Eternal Anglo in the first place after Truman told Churchill to fuck off.

>>1553123
The secret deal with Saudi Arabia, done by William E. Simon, indicates the USA was starting to do most of its business with Saudi Arabia.

From the article:
>King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud demanded the country’s Treasury purchases stay “strictly secret,” according to a diplomatic cable obtained by Bloomberg from the National Archives database.

http://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ixYnQekxmTfw/v2/-1x-1.png

The information has been leaked out, and the USA was making a crazy amount of crude oil profits in order to "buy bonds and all that was a strategy to recycle petrodollars back into the U.S.".

>>1553137
>leaked out
disclosed due to policies of transparency*

>>1553137
He's talking about the pre-50s stuff, amte.

>>1553151
I know. I'm just trying to elaborate my position regarding the 70s stuff. The Shah began as very despotic and a puppet for US interests, but he was starting to disentangle himself from that, hence why him being overthrown was INITIALLY supported in the 70s.