zlacker

In 1953 the CIA intervened in a power struggle and helped depose the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq, handing power to shah (essentially, 'king') Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose father, a military officer, took power in a coup in the 1920s.

The shah, with US backing, ran a brutal, oppressive regime until 1979, when he was overthrown by a revolution led by the Islamist, theocratic ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini [edit: Khomeini seems to have led one faction, which eventually seized power from the others; see below]. Khomeini's people broke into the US embassy (a major diplomatic violation - even warring parties maintain embassies) and took over 50 hostages, who they held for over a year; one demand was that the US send them Pahlavi (Egypt granted him asylum eventually).

That government still runs Iran, though via Khomeini's political decendents. They see the US as probably their greatest threat, and the US treats Iran as a major enemy. In the 1980s, the US helped Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein fight a war with Iran, including using poison gas. These days, high-ranking US leaders periodically talk of attacking Iran and the US maintains economic sanctions against the country.

Israel is the closest US ally in the region and is seen by Iran as a US proxy, and the US and its allies are seen as competitors for regional power, with the Arabian Peninsula between Iran and Isreal being a sort of battleground. Both countries routinely threaten attacks against each other. Also, to some degree, Israel is a seen by Iran as a Western colony imposed on the Middle East.

Edit: I shouldn't assume this part is known: Iran routinely attacks US interests and destabilizes the region in its drive to dominate the Middle East, and also aligns itself at times with Russia. Particularly, now that the US deposed Hussein in neighboring Iraq, Iran has strong influence there (I think they are the only two majority Shia countries in the world). They also helped Assad in Syria fight a civil war to defeat a powerful revolution, forming a very strong bond; and they have long been the major supporters of Hezbollah, the terrorist/insurgent and Shia group that controls southern Lebanon. If you look at a map, that means Iran now has a logistical route to the Israeli border - they can drive trucks there - as well as influencing a large part of the Middle East.

>>wolver+(OP)
The overthrow of the shah was not "led by Khomeini". He did not return from exile in France until the shah was already gone. The shah was overthrown by a broad coalition that included, for example, also Iran's Communists. That broad coalition was then promptly sidelined by the religious faction once Khomeini returned and took advantage of the power vacuum.

>>OfSang+j1
Khomeini could lead it from France. I didn't mean that he led the charge at the machine guns.

Are you saying he had no part until he returned?

>>wolver+L1
Before he returned, he merely oversaw one faction among many, and should not be singled out as the one leader at that stage. Iran's post 1979 government may well have gone in a completely different direction if he had not personally returned.

People familiar with this history get frustrated by the description you give, it is simply inaccurate. It is similar to the common misconception that the Bolsheviks in Russia overthrew the tsar, when the tsar had already been deposed months before (in the February Revolution) when Lenin returned from exile and launched the October Revolution.

>>OfSang+n3
What you say sounds familiar, though you might forgive a lack of detail in an online post (that was pretty detailed!).

Still, what is the particular frustration? Is it that other participants in that revolution don't want Iran and their revolution painted with a broad brush as theocratic? (And that would be a false image.)

It's a good lesson for anyone who wants to shift power structures: The ones who do the shifting often are not the ones who get the power.