@beckyromero Well, first of all, this post is a guidance manual rather than a prediction.
Secondly, as I‘ve outlined in the post, the absence of a nuclear umbrella - which the Soviets at least theoretically extended to Hungary at the time of the uprising - is not a concern in the case of Iran today. But you‘re right, if the administration were disinclined to follow at least some of the recommendations mentioned above, the outcome in Iran is likely going to resemble the tragic failure of the Hungarian uprising.

@AdmiralPrune
Not all even made it to prison.

@beckyromero Yes, I did mention the 2.000 Iranians who fell victim to the regime‘s politically motivated executions just over the past two years.

@beckyromero True

@Persephonee If you meant to say that it was a chance event, then that‘s not a bigoted point of view.

In your first post you referred specifically to regime change brought about by the use of military action so the more indirect interventions in Iran and possibly Brazil are not equal to the level of US effort that usually follows a direct military intervention.

As far as the removal of Mohammad Mossadagh in 1956 is concerned, the decision to back his dismissal was the right course of action. It was appropriate because his rule destabilized Iran and might‘ve created an opening for yet another Soviet invasion, it was justified because Mossadagh, facing domestic and international pressures, displayed more and more authoritarian traits and effectively ruled as an autocrat by decree without the Iranian parliament, the Majles. And finally, the removal was constitutional because the Shah had the legal authority to dismiss his Prime Ministers at will, a prerogative he exercised with the backing of the United States.
Having said that, and despite the noteworthy socio-economic progress of Iran under the Shah, by the 1960s the constitutional monarchy was increasingly being undermined by Reza Pahlavi and transformed into a repressive absolute monarchy. That creeping self-coup should’ve been stopped by Washington, not least because it would’ve prevented the tragic Iranian revolution of 1979.

Just to point out a crucial error in your last post. The US did not back the Taliban regime in the 1990s. On the contrary, it backed the northern alliance made up of Tajik resistance fighters who opposed the Taliban caliphate.
The US supported the Mujaheddin in the 1980s to expel the Soviets who invaded Afghanistan, attempted to spread communism from Kabul to Kandahar and ruthlessly suppressed any opposition to their occupation.
The Mujaheddin were a broad, diverse coalition of insurgents who were only unified by the common goal of defeating the Red Army. After their victory over the USSR, the US lost interest in Afghanistan and civil war broke out between different factions of the former resistance. One of those factions, the Taliban, prevailed until the US removed them from power in 2001. Some of the former Mujaheddin joined the Taliban but that certainly doesn’t mean the US supported the Taliban regime in the 1990s.

It‘s always difficult to define the parameters for the success of an intervention. But let’s just focus on the military regime change efforts by the US that produced at least eventually democratic and stable governance free from tyranny.
Cuba (1898-1930s), Italy (1944), West Germany (1945), Japan (1945), Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1990), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995), Kosovo (1999), Liberia (2003) and Iraq (2003)

More specifically, the Iranian people and the more non-theocratic elites are cultivated, educated, intelligent and increasingly patriotic as well as secular. Iran has a long history of cohesiveness and constitutionalism. A transition to democracy in Tehran promises a return to Iran‘s pre-revolutionary socio-economic success, if managed diligently by United States.

@CedricH You ignore the business interest aspect of wars...

@CedricH
In other words let's ignore all the places where something else happened...

You absolutely can't separate direct military intervention from other kinds of intervention because it's the US and, at least until now, it's always had more resources to throw at something than any other nation since 1945. So sorry we have to include Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Iraq (several times and I'm not sure in 2025 it's exactly a place you'd want to take your girlfriend on holiday, not that Minnesota would be either right now), Iran, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Egypt, Libya, Syria (Asad is hardly missed but I don't think I'm inviting his successor to a drinking competition any time soon), etc.

Especially in the middle east, the United States doesn't have a bloody clue what it's doing. Which isn't a massive surprise from a country and culture that's a mere 250/350(ish) years old. (Pace native Americans but if you can influence Trump then I'll happily include you too. You do have first dibs on the land).

@SomeMichGuy That’s certainly a valid argument.