> So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power?
No, saying something isn't "reasonable to assume" doesn't mean it cannot ever happen. It's hard to prove an hypothetical wouldn't have happened.
I meant that it's unreasonable to suppose the Islamic Revolution would have happened without first the coup (by the West) and then the continued Western support of a tyrannical dictatorship, which gave support to the Islamic revolutionaries that the West was "the devil".
Had Iran had a stable, less tyrannical government for decades, support for a Islamic revolution would have been much, much lower.
Would it have been impossible? No. Would it have been much less likely? Sure.
No, saying something isn't "reasonable to assume" doesn't mean it cannot ever happen. It's hard to prove an hypothetical wouldn't have happened.
I meant that it's unreasonable to suppose the Islamic Revolution would have happened without first the coup (by the West) and then the continued Western support of a tyrannical dictatorship, which gave support to the Islamic revolutionaries that the West was "the devil".
Had Iran had a stable, less tyrannical government for decades, support for a Islamic revolution would have been much, much lower.
Would it have been impossible? No. Would it have been much less likely? Sure.