Posted on 08/19/2005 8:55:10 AM PDT by kellynla
The Iranian military, with the support and financial assistance of the United States government, overthrows the government of Premier Mohammed Mosaddeq and reinstates the Shah of Iran. Iran remained a solid Cold War ally of the United States until a revolution ended the Shah's rule in 1979.
Mosaddeq came to prominence in Iran in 1951 when he was appointed premier. A fierce nationalist, Mosaddeq immediately began attacks on British oil companies operating in his country, calling for expropriation and nationalization of the oil fields. His actions brought him into conflict with the pro-Western elites of Iran and the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. Indeed, the Shah dismissed Mossadeq in mid-1952, but massive public riots condemning the action forced the Shah to reinstate Mossadeq a short time later. U.S. officials watched events in Iran with growing suspicion. British intelligence sources, working with the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), came to the conclusion that Mossadeq had communist leanings and would move Iran into the Soviet orbit if allowed to stay in power. Working with Shah, the CIA and British intelligence began to engineer a plot to overthrow Mossadeq. The Iranian premier, however, got wind of the plan and called his supporters to take to the streets in protest. At this point, the Shah left the country for "medical reasons." While British intelligence backed away from the debacle, the CIA continued its covert operations in Iran. Working with pro-Shah forces and, most importantly, the Iranian military, the CIA cajoled, threatened, and bribed its way into influence and helped to organize another coup attempt against Mossadeq. On August 19, 1953, the military, backed by street protests organized and financed by the CIA, overthrew Mossadeq. The Shah quickly returned to take power and, as thanks for the American help, signed over 40 percent of Iran's oil
(Excerpt) Read more at historychannel.com ...
/sarcasm off/
At least the MSM had some history on their side, since almost nobody disputes the fact that oil was the primary reason why the U.S. helped topple the (elected) government of Iran in 1953.
Time to do it again? Last time we did it, it led to Ayatollah Khomeini and the world's first Islamist regime. Do you have a penchant for Russian roulette?
Well I'll support a coup over an American entry into war with Iran any day, thank you!
I've seen enough dead U.S. Marines to last me a lifetime.
There was also this equally important consideration:
"British intelligence sources...came to the conclusion that Mossadeq had communist leanings and would move Iran into the Soviet orbit if allowed to stay in power."
It may have been Cold in over-all perspective, but it was actually a War; and it became very hot in many instances.
1. A potential adversary indicates that it intends to nationalize a key industry.
2. "Intelligence sources" indicate that the country in question represents some kind of threat (close ties with the Soviet Union, support of terrorism, "mass graves," involvement in the Latin American narcotics trade, etc.).
3. Direct or covert U.S. military intervention is deemed necessary to "protect our freedom," "promote democracy," "save the human race," "[INSERT ANY OTHER PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN HERE]," etc.
4. After a regime is toppled, major business deals are cut between the new regime and major corporate players in the industry that was originally targeted for nationalization.
5. The reasons provided to the public for going to war are quickly forgotten, and in many cases later turn out to be completely false and/or inconsequential.
A coup and any other methods to topple the jihad pushing, nuclear weapons building mullahs must be done, prior to Iran triggering the unthinkable.
But then again why should the Arabs be mad at us, we don't bother them, pick their leaders, decide their form of government, establish their borders, have CIA operatives in their country. Right?
Anyone with an understanding of these historical events knows why most people in foreign countries realize that a U.S. official who eloquently proclaims that we are "making the world safe for freedom and democracy" is completely full of sh!t.
Well. I'm happy to be enlightened. I guess that whole Soviet-Union-world-conquest thing wasn't exactly what it appeared to be. Tough luck for all those millions who died in the proxy wars of the 20th century. Pawns of commerce, I suppose.
At least the MSM had some history on their side, since almost nobody disputes the fact that oil was the primary reason why the U.S. helped topple the (elected) government of Iran in 1953.
Because we didn't want Iran to become a Soviet sattelite!!
You could have given every able-bodied male in South Vietnam an M-1 tank, a helicopter gunship, 100 AK-47s and a million rounds of ammunition.
And Saigon still would have fallen to the North Vietnamese.
Perhaps. If you believe General Giap, they were extremely vulnerable to conquest after Tet. We hesitated and played 'nice', allowed them to recover and learn to use their propaganda allies in the USA to assist their ultimate victory. We handed it to them on a silver platter. And we probably should never have taken over that French colonial disaster in the first place.
.... Is it such a stretch to think of the MULLAHS, like the OLD KREMLIN BOSSES. Certainly just a millitant and bloodthirsty, but also just as old and isolated, huddled in their little Turrets.
Why should the CIA be sitting around in IRAQ letting the IRANIANS just send explosives freely over the border. Send somethimg back to them. WHY NOT SEND TO IRAN THE ONE THING THE MULLAHS FEAR MOST....
SATELITE DISHES For roughly the cost of TWO WEEKS of OCCUPYING IRAQ - we could send in enough SATELITE DISHES, on the BLACK MARKET, Literally by the TRUCKLOAD. These babies are practically free and pick up great coverage of all Satelities. They're small too, easily disguisable. And they can be networked easily. Just conects one and the whole neighborhood has free cable. ALL CHANNELS --- I'd give the MULLAHS 4 years before mass chaos break out.
We didn't hand anything to them on a silver platter -- there was no way in hell the U.S. would have had the political will to stay there for that long.
Well, it looked a lot different to me in 1968 than it does in 2005. Westmoreland was asking for a huge increase in troop strength to prepare for a limited invasion of the North following Tet. LBJ was advised that meant reducing troops in Europe or calling up the reserves. He definitely didn't have the political will for that. And he was right in the middle of every large and small decision regarding the war.
Following the decision not to go for the victory, everything seemed to be downhill. There was no clear objective. Ye olde quagmire.
Yeah, I was gonna say 'it worked out so well last time...'
Limited invasion, no formal declaration of war, Gulf of Tonkin incident, etc. The U.S. didn't lose the Vietnam War for political reasons -- we lost the war because we had no freakin' idea what the hell we were even involved in. How could we have "gone for victory" when we hadn't even defined what the word "victory" meant (sound familiar?). The whole thing was a fraud from the start.
I think they were shooting for a Korea-type stalemate. Hold the UN determined border, etc. That was the most recent war model. Once LBJ scotched any agressive moves after Tet, it was all over. There was no goal.
I was opposed to the war based on the way it was conducted. Civilians should state the objective and let the military acheive it. LBJ had his fingers in every little tactical decision and electoral politics and public opinion always seemed to carry the greatest weight with him. It wasn't until later that it was clear to me that Tonkin Gulf was a provocation at best and a total fabrication at worst.
I would make the case that it was all over as soon as it started, since the U.S. government didn't even have the will to formally declare war.
I've carried that cynical attitude with me since I was 15 years old. If Uncle Sam wants me to fight a war for him, he'd better tell me who the enemy is or else I wouldn't even walk across the street to help him. And if he insults my intelligence by calling it a stupid "war on terror," "war on all sorts of bad things," etc., then my attitude will make Cindy Sheehan look like a rabid, flag-waving patriot.
>>British intelligence sources...came to the conclusion that Mossadeq had communist leanings and would move Iran into the Soviet orbit if allowed to stay in power."
Some background.
The iranians were asking for a share of the oil wealth from the AngloIranian/Persian Oil Co, later BP, that didn't even come close to what Aramco was paying the Saudis - 50%.
The Britishers were nickel and diming the Iranians by giving them 12% net of the profits, which after financial accounting games, amounted to a lot less.
The British wanted Mossagdegh gone. Was he as socialist, yes, but who wasn't at that time. He was the duly elected leader of Iran, who was threatening to nationalise the oil co but would have preferred a greater share of the profits and wanted tthe Britishers to alleviate the squalor that the Iranian oil workers lived in.
The Iranians were looking at Saudi as an example.
As a quid pro quo for continued British support in Korea, Truman dispatched Kermit Roosevelt to Teheran to pull of the coup.
Good post, but Truman was long gone by August of 1953. Eisenhower was the president who authorized the CIA to help overthrow Mossadegh.
Of course, you are correct. My mistake.
Actually, I was beginning to wonder if Sheehan's mother is named Alberta.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the British tried to get Truman on board earlier for purely hegemonic reasons (oil), but he wanted no part of it. They later came back to Eisenhower with the "He's a freakin' Communist!" approach, and it worked.
All the preceeding is from declassified CIA docs.
In spite of what FR's resident shahistas put out reza was never the choice of iranians and the much vaunted "dynasty" constisted of two rezas, both usurpers.
The iranians threw reza out after three decades of corruption and the SAVAK. They got more than they bargained for and gave us the first islamic republic, that's true. When they've had enough of the mullahs they'll get busy but there is nothing going on today to indicate that that day is here or even close (except for the Kurds).
Funny thing, the mullahs were part of the unrest against Mossadegh, him being a secularist and all.
The Shah couldn't hold their support, not, as is often asserted, because of the elites western ways, but also because of the rampant, widespread corruption that precluded the rise of living standards for the majority in a country rich with oil.
Shia doctrine does see a mosque/state split; but the Shah's profligateness rendered even the mullahs hostile to him despite his anticommunism.
The Britishers were nickel and diming the Iranians by giving them 12% net of the profits, which after financial accounting games, amounted to a lot less.
Well stated. British meddling in the affairs of Iran dates back to before WWI. An objective review of history would leave no doubt that the limeys are ultimately to blame for all of the current problems in the Middle East / Persia.
With allies like them, who needs enemies?
Thats funny, i thought i remembered something called the Cold War, but thats just me. Oh, and Mossadeq was appointed by the Shah.
----------------------------------------------------
Since the world did not begin in the year 1900 why not go back further to find someone else dead to blame? Why not blame the Crusaders for not destroying islam in their attempts? Or Napoleon for not bringing the empire to heel?
The problems in the ME today are caused by people alive in the ME today.
Well, they certainly bear much of the credit/blame since all these lands were part or controlled by the British Empire.
I wouldn't go as far as you tho, in your blanket statement blaming the Britishers for everything.
However, their policies and decisions, their internal politics, the India House versus the Foreign Office, and support for the Saudi Ikhwanis/Wahhabis, their trade concerns and desire have buffers between encroachments on India by other Great Powers all have contributed in some way to the Muddled East we see and love so much today.
>>Mossadeq was appointed by the Shah.
that's news to me. Which Shah was that?
Hmmm, thinking about it your probably right.
Korea had a HUGE Rice industry that was profitable to U.S. Corporations.
Same with Vietnam, but also dont forget the large amounts of French Capital in Vietnamese Rubber plantations.
I believe Cuba has a sugar industry that was eyed by international financiers.
And those Contras fighting in the Central Americas, nothing but stooges for United Fruit. Its obvious to everyone that the Fruit Corporations have a heavy hand in Washington.
Pinnonchet in Chile: Promised to deliver good rates from the Chilean Copper mines.
Somalia: Mohammed Aidid wouldnt go through with U.S. requests for Sand imports to replace beach erosion pushed heavily by the U.S. resort lobby. The Clinton admin made the decision to take him out.
On which problems in the region would you give them a pass?
That is a rather simplistic question to ask and a complex one to answer when speaking about a region with so much history and empire writ all over it.
Care to be specific. This thread was on Iran and how the coup came about.
The reasons for the coup were being discussed and by extension, how overthrowing a democratically elected leader for short term gain worked.
Read the Farking Article
Mosaddeq came to prominence in Iran in 1951 when he was appointed premier.
Indeed, the Shah dismissed Mossadeq in mid-1952
forced the Shah to reinstate Mossadeq a short time later
Let me guess. You took the leftist line that Iran was a fully functional democracy until the U.S. INSTALLED the Shah, hook, line, and sinker.
I'm confused, who was democratically elected again?
I don't know about fully functional but Mossadegh was elected; if appointed by the then Shah(was it Reza Pahlavi or someone else, his father, perhaps or someone else) then the appointment was the akin to the Monarch of England appointing the PM after elections.
Mossadegh had electoral legitimacy; no one claims the Shah did. He was put in to serve the interests of England with the US implementing the coup.
>>vwho was democratically elected again?
The Shah?
--------------------------------------------------
1.The 1953 coup. The iranians junior officer corps and the shah allowed themselves to be used like puppets by the CIA for the two reasons discussed above in previous posts. The Brits actually ended up losing half of their iranian oil interests to us.
2. The 1979 coup. The iranians had enough of the shah's corruption and his SAVAK's brutality. They let themselves be used again, this time by the theocrats and once again got more than they bargained for.
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, You do of course know that the Shah preceded Mossadeq, that Iran was a Constitutional Monarchy for many years, the Shah inherited the throne from his father, that the Shah appointed Mossadeq to premeir, that Mossadeq assisted the Soviet Union and concentrated power to himself, that Mossadeq overthrew the Shah (article says the Shah left for Medical Reasons? BS) and that the Iranian Military made a Counter Coup only after the Mossadeq led the Country into Soviet style dictatorship... Right???
Reza Pahlavi appointed the Shah. There was pressure from Radicals, Nationalists, and Communists but there is no electoral legitamacy. I wouldn't use the comparison of the Monarch of England certifying the PM. It would be more accurate to compare to The monarch of Italy appointing Mussolini to power after his fascists threatened violence. A failed attempt to moderate/appease a radical leader, but in both cases it led to disastor.
At this time their were Pro Shah rallies that Clashed with the Pro Mossadeq rallies. So any electoral legitamacy given to Mossadeq would also have to be given to the Shah.
>> after the Mossadeq led the Country into Soviet style dictatorship
If you say so. The Persians did not want the embrace of the Bear, the country had been occupied by the Red Army in the northern areas.
It's misreading to see Mossadegh's action solely in the prism of the communist threat. There were legitimate national and selfdetermination and economic concerns ofthe Iranian people we was responding to.
But, we'd love to have a Mossadegh ty[e figure, warts and all, in office now.
>>we was responding to.
>>He was responding to.
No country ever did, but through shady finacial dealings, capitalizing on anti-colonialism, nationalization, and a vast network of promiment politicians willing to concentrate power and hand it over to Moscow on a silver platter, its amazing how many countries did.
The ICBMs and nukes are already paid for. I doubt we'll even bother replacing them. That is about as cheap as it gets.
That is the choice now. Nuke them before they nuke us. MAD will NOT work with these madmen. If the resistence doesn't take them out within say 6 months then this is the inevitable and irrevocable conclusion.
Seventy million Iranians, guilty and innocent, versus 300 million Americans, guilty and innocent. I know where my vote lies.
It was the legally elected iranian majlis (parlaiment) who appointed Mossadegh PH, not the shah.
I wouldn't exactly call a retired General junior officer, and i dont know how much convincing it took for the CIA to get a mostly traditionalist Pro-Shah military to stage a COUNTER-Coup against a Soviet-support communist in the aftermath of a Coup that forced the shah out of power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.