WAR

thetruth: Why do you think

thetruth: Why do you think I'm a jew? What does being a jew have to do with anything related to Iran' regime warmongering?

Do you think Iran's policy toward Israel or the US is conducive to Peace? Forget for a moment that Israel is a Jewish country. If Country X threatnes country Y, what would you do as leader of the country under assault? You just shrug it off just as mere rhetoric? Suppose you were the President of country Y, what would be your response to the barrage of threats by Country X?

the last comment was

the last comment was directed to touriniran

Leave Mr. Kinser out of it.

Leave Mr. Kinser out of it. You are deliberately polluting and derailing things. You can remove leaders from power with out an all out war. That's all most people, inlcuding Kinser think.

Stop with the Jew mongering. I like Jews too, but this whiney rhetoric about what some emabatteled jackass says is like 2 siblings crying to Mommy everytime one fires off a missive. Let the people of Iran dispense of him. we don't need the US or Israel to interfere and Spread "democracy". We've seen how well it works here.

Remember, freedom of speech isn't just reserved for what's in keeping with your ideology. Let him speak his way out of favor.

thetruth: I'm no one and

thetruth: I'm no one and have no agenda. I seek the truth and don't trust any group connected to the left or right in the US. I try to be the devil's advocate and present different perspectives.

Solution for what?

the truth is

the truth is that the CIA documents were released as public record in 2003, 3 years after these letter were written. You may know of some other leak, ,but these letters (maybe partially true) are simply trying to perpetuate a 50 year lie. The CIA documents may not tell the whole truth, but they clearly outline the fact that Shah was getting more than "advice" from the US. It's emabarassing! They are public record and anyone can go and read them.

So anyway, if you don't buy teh CIA documents, and you don't believe in the monarchy, what is your point/agenda/thesis?

Are you Jewish and you want Israel to run/infleunce Iran? Or are you just an agent of chaos?

Do explain! I'm curious to learn your solution. Your truth, seeker!
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

to: the truth: You're wrong.

to: the truth:

You're wrong. Farah's letter to NY times is after the release of CIA papers.

The CIA papers were published to appease the mullah's regime during the Clinton years. CIA has become a political institution and there are highly partisan agents in that agency.

I don't care much for the monarchy or the Shah. Shah was a coward and I hope he rots in hell for leaving Iran to these monsters. However, I hate lies.
And as for his son, he has no credibility whatsoever as long as he does not relinquish his claim to the throne.

to truth seeker

These letters by Farrah Pahlavi & Ardeshir Zahedi
were written prior to the release of "secret" documents being made public in the Library of Congress in 2003, 50 years after the coup.

Don't get me wrong, I think Iran would probably benefit from a monrachy again. Iranian people clearly need to emulate a class of people with education, manners and dignity. But more along the lines of what England has (only better looking). With no political power. These are wonderfully eductated bon-vivants who are wonderful role models for Iranians, as long as they don't feel compelled to lead and mislead. It's not fair to them or to the people of Iran.

Under them, Iran needs another free thinking series of presidents/prime ministers that obey the will of the people.

That for Iran, is the best solution.

Ahmadinejad In New Attack On

Ahmadinejad In New Attack On "Savage Animal" Israel

February 20, 2008
AFP
Dow Jones Newswires

TEHRAN -- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wednesday launched a new strongly-worded attack against Israel, describing the Jewish state as a "dirty microbe" and a "savage animal". "World powers have created a black and dirty microbe named the Zionist regime and have unleashed it like a savage animal on the nations of the region," he told a rally in the southern city of Bandar Abbas broadcast on state television.

Ahmadinejad has provoked international outrage by repeatedly predicting that Israel is doomed to disappear. He also courted more controversy by playing down the scale of the Holocaust.

The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, on Monday predicted the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah would destroy Israel in the near future.

//www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?c...

Is Mr. Kinser going to have a tour in Iran and asking the supreme leader to have "sane Policy" toward the US and Israel???? I will be interested to know.

What if the US neither pressures nor bombs Iran?

Suppose the Western world just lets the IRI nuclear program proceed without interference. At some point, probably before the IRI has developed a weapon, the Israeli leadership might be sufficiently panicked to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the regime in Tehran (Israel does not have the conventional bombing capabilities of the U.S.). Governments that have to answer to their publics do not voluntarily choose to put their countries in mortal peril, and Israel is no exception. Most "peace activists" don't seem to realize that by pressuring the U.S. to lay off the Iranian mullahcracy, they are making even more likely a truly ghastly and definitive end to the terrorist regime, with the price being paid mainly by innocent Iranian civilians. This is 2008; all the trips down memory lane about Mossadegh with tendentious court jesters like Stephen Kinzer are an absurd and irrelevant distraction.

Mr. Kinser: Was Shah ever

Mr. Kinser: Was Shah ever "deposed"? What is your definition of functioning democracy? You mean democracy within a constituional monarchist system or a Jefersonian democracy?

Mr. Kinser, I have suggestion for you. You can write another book by investigating other sources and perhaps this time you will have more accurate account of history. You can interview them while they are still alive...more money for you...eh?

I'd like to post two accounts here regarding this topic - one by former Imperial Ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi and the following by Farah Pahlavi. You be the judge on WHAT REALLY TOOK PLACE.

Just a note to make is that I believe Dr Mossadegh's efforts in nationalizing Iranian oil were very noble (before him Dr Razmara had initiated the process but he was killed by Islamists) but the the process was not handled in a rational and professional manner which primarily took into consideration the national security of the country - this mistake lead to the downfall of Dr Mossadegh's government coupled with the appeasement of the Tudeh (Communist) Party which took place during the Premiership of Dr Mossadegh. People still remember him as a great nationalist for nationalizing Iranian oil but looking at it rationally, without any emotions involved , the way it was handled hurt Iran much more than it benefited the country.

And for those "Mossadeghists" who claim that Dr Mossadegh was against the Shah the truth is that the late PM was a Constitutional Monarchist himself who favored a Constitutional Monarch that reigned and did not rule - he was never against the abolishment of the centuries old Iranian Constitutional Monarchy - there is nothing more to that.

********************

THE CIA AND IRAN - WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
Ardeshir Zahedi

//www.ardeshirzahedi.org/cia-iran.pdf
//www.ardeshirzahedi.org/main.html

On 16 April 2000, the New York Times published a story on what was presented as a “secret report” by a CIA operative concerning the events of August 1953 in Iran,. The following article is written in the interest of historical truth and attempts to put those fateful events in Iran into prospect perspective.

At this time when the future of relations between Iran and the United States is, once again, debated in public, it is important both sides steer clear of myths that have fostered so much misunderstanding between them.

One such myth has been woven around the claim by a few CIA operatives that they hatched a plot to get rid of Prime Minister Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh in August 1953 and (propelled my father, the later General Fazollah Zahedi into power with the Shah’s blessings.) That claim, first made in the early 1960’s and never corroborated by any hard evidence, has over the years found a niche in the historical folklore of both nations. In a recent feature the New York Times gave the claim fresh publicity, relaunching the debate over what actually happened in Iran in those remote days of the Cold War.

Victory, of course, has a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan. Had the August 1953 efforts to remove Mussadeq from office failed, there would have been no CIA ''heroes'' claiming the credit.

There is a mass of evidence, including US and Iranian official documents and testimonies by people who played a role in the events that give the lie to the CIA operatives’ claim. Briefly, what happened in August 1953 was as follows: the Iranian political establishment was divided between supporters and opponents of Mossadegh. Mossadegh’s opponents looked to the Shah for a rallying point. My father who had served as Interior Minister in Mossadegh’s Cabinet has broken with him and established himself as the leader of the anti-Mossadegh faction.

The Shah was thus under pressure from many powerful circles and personalities inside Iran to dismiss Mossadegh and name my father as the new prime minister. Mossadegh recognized my father as his chief adversary at the time and did all he could to break him.

Mossadegh had been abandoned by many of his former colleagues, among them such personalities as Hussein Makki and Mozzafar Baqai, and opposed by parties that had provided the backbone of his support in 1951.
The most prominent members of the Shiite clerical establishment, including the Ayatollahs Borujerdi, Hakim, Shahresetani and Kashani were solidly opposed by Mossadegh and wanted the Shah to remove him. They were all in contact with my father and supported him in their struggle against Mussadeq.
A leading member of the Majlis (parliament) Hassan Haeri-Zadeh, who had been one of Mossadegh’s strongest supporters until then, even cabled the United nations secretary general to appeal for help against Mossadegh’s increasingly despotic rule.

The Shah had already clashed with Mossadegh’s in 1952 and forced the ''doctor'' to resign as prime minister. At that time, however the ''politics of street'' had turned against the Shah and he had been obliged to reinstate Mossadegh. In August 1953 the tide had turned against Mussadeq who had further undermined his own position by disbanding the parliament elected under his own stewardship.

The rest is history, as the saying goes. Or is it?
It is quite possible that the CIA and its British counterpart were engaged in the usual dirty tricks campaign in Tehran. Tehran had become one of the hottest ''theaters'' of the Cold War with the Soviet Union enjoying a strong presence through a mass Communist Party (the Toodeh), several front organizations and at least four daily newspapers. The Communists had also infiltrated the armed forces and the police, recruiting over 700 officers and NCOs.

What is certain is that Mossadegh’s fall was not due to any dirty tricks that the CIA might have played. Nor did the CIA have the kind of access its operatives claim to have had to the key figures of the revolt against Mossadegh including my father. The only time my father visited the US embassy in Tehran was a function in honour of Averell Harriman on 4th of July 1951, and in his capacity as interior minister, Harriman had come to Tehran with a mission from President Harry Truman to persuade Mussadeq to find a way out of the crisis over the nationalization of Iranian oil. (Cf. Vernon Walters in ''Silent Missions'').
My father never had any meetings with any CIA agents. One operative has claimed that he spoke to my father in German, ostensibly during secret meetings. The fact is that the only foreign languages my father ever spoke was Russian and Turkish, not German or English.

Iranian history remembers my father as a true patriot who wore the wound he had won in battle like so many badges of honour. Fazollah Zahedi had fought for virtually every inch of what he regarded as the sacred land of Iran, against a Bolshevik-sponsored regime along the Caspian coast to a British sponsored secessionist movement in the oil rich province of Khuzestan. During the Second World War had become a war prisoner of the British and sent into captivity and exile in Palestine, then under British mandate. Fazollah Zahedi was always big enough to fight his own fights, backed by his own loyal friends. To try and portray such a giant of Iran’s contemporary history into a bit player in a scenario fit for ''Mission Impossible'' requires a degree of cynicism that only frustrated egomaniacs might master.
Throughout the dramatic events that led to the fall of Mussadeq, I was at my father’s side as one of his principal political aides .Had he been involved in any foreign intrigue I would have known, he was not.

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. Henderson’s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.
The Iranian public, therefore, has a more balanced view of the events than its American counterpart which is fed recycled claims by former CIA operatives. British and Soviet accounts at the time also make it clear that Mussadeq had fallen victim to his own hubris which antagonized his allies and forced the Iranian people into revolt.

More than 100 books, by Iranian and American scholars, give the lie to the CIA operatives ''self-congratulatory'' account.
Barry Rubin writes “It cannot be said that the United States overthrew Mussadeq and replaced him with the Shah… Overthrowing Mussadeq was like pushing an open door.”
Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''
Amir Taheri writes “What happened was not a successful conclusion of a (CIA) conspiracy but a genuine uprising provoked by economic hardship, political fear and religious prejudice.”
Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''
Even Donald Wilber, the CIA operative whose ''secret report'' has been given top billing by the New York Times makes it clear that whatever he and his CIA colleagues were up to in Tehran at the time simply failed.
Wilbert writes:'' headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair… The message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18 said that the operation has been tried and failed and that contrary operations against Mussadeq should be discontinued.''

Mossadegh was overthrown on 19 August when hundreds of thousands to Tehranis poured into the streets to demand his departure and the return of the Shah. This was not a military ''coup d’etat'' since there was no change in the constitution or any of the structures of the Iranian state. Nor was the Shah’s position as head of state affected. Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers. He simply exercised that power by dismissing Mossadegh and nominating Zahedi in a perfectly legal and constitutional manner… Mussadeq tried to resist his dismissal but was swept away by the masses.

The army played a supportive role in the anti-Mussadeq uprising and even then only after the people had taken the initiative. At the time my father was no longer on active service, having retired from the armed forces and engaged in political activities as a senator and leader of the anti-Mussadeq coalition. Mussadeq himself held the portfolio of Defence and enjoyed the support of many key officers of the armed forces, including the Chief of Staff appointed by himself.

Anyone who had studied the history of the turbulent years would also know that Mossadegh was the most pro-American senior politician Iran had produced. He was the darling of the Truman Administration which raised the amount of aid to Iran, distributed through Point IV, from half a million dollars to 23 million dollars. On August 18, 1953, a day before Mussadeq fell, Henderson met Mussadeq and offered him an emergency loan of 10 million dollars on behalf of the Eisenhower Administration.

Mossadegh himself never blamed the Americans for his downfall. He was intelligent enough to know why his political career led into an impasse.
The anti-Mossadegh coalition did, of course, look to the United States, as the leader of the Free World, to counter any ore than the soviets might have, made at the time to intervene in what was a domestic Iranian power struggle. From a geo-strategic point of view, therefore the anti-Mossadegh coalition regarded itself as part of the Free World. But does that mean that all those who fought Communism and upheld the cause of liberty throughout the Cold War were manipulated by the CIA?

Three years ago the CIA announced that almost all of its documents pertaining to the August 1953 events in Iran had been destroyed in a fire. Was someone trying to cover up the CIA’s most dramatic ''success story''? Or did the documents burn because the good ambiance created by the Iranian myth that had been fabricated by a few individuals with a lot of imagination and very little of scruples?

Empress Farah Pahlavi's response to the New York Times

Howell Raines Esq.
Editorial Page Editor,
The New York Times
229 West 43rd ST.
New York, NY 10036-3959
April 20, 2000

Dear Mr. Raines,

The article " a Secret C.I.A History" printed in the New York Times on April 16, 2000 renders a self-lauding, exaggerated, and partial account of the events of 1953. It also makes several erroneous and unfair remarks about my late husband, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Contrary to what the so-called secret history suggests, my husband's hesitation about dismissing Premier Mossadegh did not result from his indecisiveness. The Shah had strongly supported Dr.Mossadegh in the fight for the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, agreeing with him that Iran had been systematically exploited by the British and other foreign powers. For him, the Premier's struggle to emancipate Iran's resources took precedence over all other issue save protecting the nation's independence and territorial integrity. Dr.Mossadegh misperceived the international array of economic and military powers deployed against him and Iran. He overestimated the strategic importance of Iran's oil to the Western world. The country was taken step by step to a political and diplomatic impasse. Iran's economic and social conditions deteriorated. The Communist Party grew inordinately in size and power, penetrating several critical government institutions including the armed forces. In the meantime, his former allies - the middle class, clerics, merchants, and some members of the national front renounced him.

My husband supported Dr.Mossadegh as long as possible. For several months, he resisted many members of the political elite, including several of the Premier's former allies, who insisted that Dr. Mossadegh be discharged. The Shah’s reluctance sprung partly from his wish to be certain that deposing the premier accorded with Iran's constitution. It was only when the Prime Minister arbitrarily dissolved the constitutionally elected Parliament, and the Shah was convinced that the country's national independence and territorial integrity were manifestly threatened, did he decide to dismiss Dr.Mossadegh.

To claim that the Monarchy was saved in 1953 because of the C.I.A involvement and that the late DR. Mossadegh was removed from power with a sum of money is an insult to every Iranian.

The report says that the message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18th was that " the operation has been tried and failed." The Monarchy was saved because it was the will of all Iranians. While some selected documents produced by a specific agency may indeed be conducive to the current disposition of a specific administration, it would be wrong to assume any objective observer, be it an Iranian or foreigner, base his opinion solely on such a limited account.

It is unfortunate that in an attempt to appease the current ruling clerics in Iran, the government of the United States and increasingly the media have chosen to disparage the late Shah of Iran without consideration of his pivotal role in regional and world peace and his service to his country. It is equally unfortunate that they choose to confuse the attitude of the present regime in Iran towards the United States with that of the people of Iran.

The thirty-seven years of the Shah’s reign concurrent with the administration of eight US Presidents shows a close and mutually
beneficial alliance for most of the time.

Contrary to recent statements by US officials, Iranian people never held animus toward American before or after the events of 1953. Witness the friendship Iranians extended to many American in Iran prior to the revolution and the hospitality shown to the few Americans now traveling to Iran. In the interest of the two peoples, it is essential that no one allow this misconception to cloud sound judgment.

Iran will rise from her ashes.

Sincerely yours,
Farah Pahlavi

I also urge Mr. Kinser to

I also urge Mr. Kinser to study American history and revolutionary nature of American spirit...Seeing event from a different lense perhaps will relieve some of Mr. Kinser's guilt and an eventual self-hatred of his country's push for idealism.

Mossadegh was a descendent's

Mossadegh was a descendent's of Corrupt Quajar family and dynasty who cause great harm to Iran. He was also a constitutional lawyer who believed in Constitutional Monarchy. Read "Karnameyeh Mossadegh". I hope someday it's translated into English.

I strongly Mr. Kinser to read about the history of Iran and history of the Cold war and US, specially 18th and 19th century Iran (e.g. Partial occupation of Iran by the Soviets during World War II) in order to get a complete picture of just how backward imbued with superstitions and medieval mentality we were as a nation (thanks to the akhunds (mullahs) and the Qajars) and how far the two Pahlavi kings (albeit not perfect) brought us in a mere 53 years. Our societal and political problems were not caused in these short 53 years. Their roots were long and deep. But the young people of the 1970's were tragically short on memory and long on idealism and unwarranted expectations.

Any fair and balanced analysis of history will not cherry pick certain events and historical facts to serve some interest groups agenda. Mr. Kinser's account of history neither serves America nor Iran in the long run...only his pocket book.

I agree with Zarb-ol-Masal

"programmer craig" has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

He is pulling out all of his facts and arguments out of his rear end.

A typical ignorant American. As we used to say in Iran, "Bache Amrikayee Por-roo Va Nafahm" :)

Can't even Speak Farsi - Well what can I say??

Anonymous8

<i>So you are basically saying CIA bribing of Iranian officials and
coordinating money and intelligence, and bringing together mobs and
helping the 1953 coup operatives means that US was not involved in that
coup because no American actually took up arms in the streets?</i>

That's a pretty fast and loose description, don't you think?

<i>So
because there was no direct participation, US is not responsible?</i>

No, I'm saying what the US did wasn't criminal. The US *has* directly toppled governments in the past. But not in Iran.

<i>And you are also saying that Iranian support for Hezbollah for acts
that were carried out by Lebanese nationals involving no Iranian people
at all, are nevertheless examples of Iranian terrorism?</i>

This is a false argument you are presenting for me. Iran did send IRGC officers to Lebanon to recruit and train Hezbollah members. Iran did arm Hezbollah. Iran did bring Lebanese Hezbollah members to Iran to recieve training. Iran has used Hezbollah members for violent attacks all over the globe. Hezbollah is under the complete control of Iran, and it has been since its inception in 1982. There is no similarity, despite your efforts to try to make it seem that there is. And that's not even getting into the NATURE of Hezbollah's operations, which have always been TERRORISM. It wouldn't be illegal for Iran to support a militia in another country, if that militia wasn't a criminal militia.

Another Zarb-ol-Masal for "programmer craig"

After reading this last Comment by you, I remembered another saying (Zarb-ol-Masal) which reinforces my previous belief about you.

It goes like this:

Khar Issa Garash Be Make' Barand, Cho Baz Gardad Haman Khar Bashad

I am sorry to say this, but the more you write, the more you show your "Ignorance".

If you know anything about the "Persian" Culture, you should have realized by now that People here are "Humoring" You :) - Plain and Simple!!

hey Programmmer Craig,

So you are basically saying CIA bribing of Iranian officials and coordinating money and intelligence, and bringing together mobs and helping the 1953 coup operatives means that US was not involved in that coup because no American actually took up arms in the streets? So because there was no direct participation, US is not responsible?

And you are also saying that Iranian support for Hezbollah for acts that were carried out by Lebanese nationals involving no Iranian people at all, are nevertheless examples of Iranian terrorism?

Do I have this correct?

Re programmer craig : Gooz beh shaghighe che rabti dareh?

Dear friend:
If you want to communicate with us you better learn our language. By the way, how is the pay? Do they still take applications?

Anonymous-2

Furthermore, just because many are against such immoral acts does not
make one a pro-IRI agent, or an advocate of the Islamic Republic. Do
you understand the difference, or do you also require education on
human decency, values and ethics?

It seems to me that you and the "Zarb-ol-Masal" and the one who threatened me could use an education inb all of thoise things, since you seem to believe that US support for the Shah in 1953 justifies mass-murder, hidnbapping, hijacking, assasinations and other acts of terrorism against the innocent, generations later.

Maybe this gentleman would have served huumanity a little better by writing a book that didn't give Iranians even *more* reason to justify the atrocious behavior of their leaders for the last 30 years. You should be ASHAMED of the way your government has acted, not just against the US but against citizens of many nations all over the world... what did Argentina do to you!?... and instead, you are proud?

Insanity. If people with your mentality are representaive of Iran's population, then war is unavoidable.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the e-mail from the "anonymous-patriot" tough guy.

Re: coup of 1953

Dear friend:
You and Professor Rummel are right on the money. Also I have to add black is white and night is day.

What About That 1953 CIA

What About That 1953 CIA Iranian Coup?
By Professor Rummel:

There is no doubt that in 1953 the CIA engineered a coup against Premier Mohammad Mossadeq of Iran that ended up empowering Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. This has been number one on the list of stated reasons for hatred of America by the Iranian Ayatollahs and their revolutionary followers. And it is among the many "evils" of American foreign policy that the left invariably mentions. But the historical context should not be ignored if one is to understand and, indeed, excuse the U.S. decision to engineer the coup.

As World War II came to an end, the Soviet controlled Azerbaijani Tudeh (communist) Party took control of Tabriz in northern Iran. The Soviets then took over the region and blocked Iranian forces from entering it. Next, in December 1945, the Soviets had an Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan proclaimed, and shortly after that the Kurdish People's Republic. This put Northern Iran under Soviet control.

Iran had been an object of Soviet foreign policy for decades. Its rich oil fields, its strategic location, and its warm water ports made it a most desirable target for Soviet conquest and conversion to a communist satellite. Soviet power would then extend from the Baltic Sea, through the Black Sea, Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, to the Arabian Sea, which would open the whole Indian Ocean to Soviet ships and subversion.

Iran demanded that the Soviets withdraw their troops from its territory. The Soviets did so from unimportant areas of Iran, but kept their control over Azerbaijan and the Kurdish Republic. President Truman would not let this stand. Already upset by Stalin's violation of the Potsdam Agreements regarding Eastern Europe, Truman issued an ultimatum. He met with Soviet Ambassador Gromyko and told him that if Soviet troops were not removed in 48 hours, he would drop the atomic bomb. "We're going to drop it on you," Truman is reported to have said to Gromyko.

The Soviets removed their troops in 24 hours. And Iranian forces soon ended communist control of Azerbaijan and the Kurdish Republic.

So, the United States saved Iran from Soviet domination. Without Truman's ultimatum, it is clear that Soviet troops, with the help of a strong Iranian Communist Party, would have extended their control over the rest of Iran. But you never hear about this, and I don't think it is the history that Iranians are taught.

Now, about the coup. Here also the Soviets played an important role, and keep in mind that this was in 1953, the height of the Cold War and the communist scare in the U.S. The Korean War, which began in 1950 and which President Eisenhower saw as outright Soviet aggression, had just ended. By Eisenhower's presidency, the foreign policy of containment, initiated by Truman, had become the settled American policy for meeting the communist challenge. Moreover, having just lost 33,741 American lives to save South Korea, a country far less important than Iran, Ike was hardly going to let Iran fall into Soviet hands.

Now, according to what was a CIA report on the coup, with secret stamped on each page (of course, it was disclosed by The New York Times), events in Iran had aroused these fears:
By the end of 1952, it had become clear that the Mossadeq government in Iran was incapable of reaching an oil settlement with interested Western countries; was reaching a dangerous and advanced stage of illegal, deficit financing; was disregarding the Iranian constitution in prolonging Premier Mohammed Mossadeq's tenure of office; was motivated mainly by Mossadeq's desire for personal power; was governed by irresponsible policies based on emotion; had weakened the Shah and the Iranian Army to a dangerous degree; and had cooperated closely with the Tudeh (Communist) Party. In view of these factors, it was estimated that Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain [that is, under Soviet domination]; if that happened it would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the Middle East. No remedial action other than the covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs.

Thus, the aim of the CIA became:
…to cause the fall of the Mossadeq government; to reestablish the prestige and power of the Shah; and to replace the Mossadeq government with one which would govern Iran according to constructive policies. Specifically, the aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Iranian Communist Party.

The British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) fully agreed with the CIA analysis, and the coup was a joint CIA-SIS operation. I believe that, had I been in charge at that time, I would have fully supported this operation. Even a small chance that the Soviet Union might have gained control of Iran, with its strategic location, and the high probability of a blood bath in Iran was enough for action. Just look at Iran on the map to see how critical it was to keep Iran aligned with the West during the Cold War. Even Iranian independence, if that could be assured, was enough.

Oh yes, it also is often claimed that Iran was a democracy, and that we overthrew a democratic government. Not so. According to the esteemed Gurr's 1989 Polity II codings of political systems, Iran in 1953 was not a democracy.

American actions in Iran saved the country from communist enslavement -- surely the first time when Truman forced Soviet forces to withdraw, and probably a second time with the CIA coup. Iranians should be thankful, but I doubt they will ever learn the facts under the present absolute dictatorship.

Incidentally, the myth about the coup -- that the CIA overthrew a democratic government and thus saddled Iran with a bloody dictatorship -- was a factor in President Carter refusing to save the Shah or support a military coup against the Shah during the 1979 Islamic revolution that brought the present absolute dictatorship to power.

Moreover, during the 1979-1981 hostage crises, when Iran held 66 American diplomats and other embassy personnel prisoners for 444 days, Carter formally apologized to the Iranian government for the 1953 coup in the hope of getting the hostages released. It didn't work. But it did help to set in concrete the myth about the coup.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii. He has spent his career assembling data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. Rummel coined the term democide for murder by government, his research claiming that six times as many people died of democide during the 20th century than in all that century's wars combined.[7] He concludes that democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and that democracies do not (or virtually never) wage war against each other.[8]

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rummel

"programmer craig": A Zarb-ol-Masal For You

In Farsi (Persian), there is a saying (Zarb-ol-Masal) that goes like this:

Amrikayee Ha "Goosaleh" Be Donya Miyand, Va "Gaav" Az Donya Mirand.

When I read your comments, I am reminded of this Zarb-ol-Masal.

P.S. I hope you understand Farsi (Persian) to get the full meaning of this Zarb-ol-Masal :)

I am afraid if I start translating it, it will take away from is full meaning!!

Lack of historical facts and moral consciousness is pathetic!!

To all of those who obviously have not read history, and have no clue about U.S. meddling in the affairs of countries, and in this case Iran, it just shows why the book written by Kinzer is specifically suitable for a target audience like you!!

History PC did not start in 1979 with the taking of 53 American hostages for 444 days. There is a cause and effect for every reaction. Q took the time and patience to provide you with a historical summary, instead of poo, pooing it; I would grab the opportunity to delve into the issues as opposed to remaining in the abyss of darkness and ignorance.

The fact that you are unaware of the 1953 coup by the CIA which became the hallmark of how to topple foreign governments is really shameful. The 1953 coup has been studied by U.S. intelligence officials as a case study for how to overthrow governments.

Since 1953 the U.S. has implemented over 100 covert operations to topple regimes and put in place puppet leaders of its own liking. There is a reason why many of us are quite aware of what the U.S. intentions are with respect to Iran, while some of you are in a world of oblivion.

As for the rest of you who are advocating the bombing of Iran or use of sanctions, which is another form of warfare in order to force a regime change, what kind of animals are you? No country has any right to impose its will on any other country; doing so is not only immoral but illegal by all international norms and rule of law, the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention.

Furthermore, just because many are against such immoral acts does not make one a pro-IRI agent, or an advocate of the Islamic Republic. Do you understand the difference, or do you also require education on human decency, values and ethics?

We need to put an end to this cow boy diplomacy and bring back the moral authority, and respect of this nation.

We need to get out of this warmongering mentality and move forward for a better tomorrow for all of mankind.

Thanks Foaad

I understand there is a new foreword entitled: The Folly of Attacking Iran, however, I have not read it.

I'm reading his new book, "Overthrow" which I also recommend.

L. 

Do Q et al accept the CIA's

Do Q et al accept the CIA's report on the existance of IR's nuclear weapons program?

Thank You Lale

I enjoyed the interview. I was very impressed by the book and interviewed Kinzer myself when it first came out, back in 2004. It's amazing that we are still talking about the possiblity of War with Iran.

This is a must-read for anyone interested in the Middle East today. Do you know if there is any additional text in this new edition?

-foaad

PS

Nazy, thank you for the support :)

Q

This was no "advice"! It was a coup-de-tat, a classic, text-book
foreign intervention in direct violation of the UN charter and Iran's
sovereignty.

Excuse me, but the US did not play ANY direct role in that. Perhaps you need to look up what the word "coup" means before you start citing this as an example of a "textbook case".

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'%C3%A9tat

A coup d’état (also coup) (pronounced /kuːdeɪˈtɑː/ AHD: [ko͞o"dā tä]) is the sudden, illegal overthrowing of a government by a part of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.

No American operative too part in Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax was a written plan that was presented to the Shah. No more, no less. It was a 100% Iranian coup, if you choose to call it that. If this is an example of your reasoning and argumentation, then I'm done talking to you. Talk to the hand :P

R

"PC, Great rebuttle. BTW, Congratualtion are in order for you! The scumbag is dead...hahaha

(Progrmer Craig): “Thanks! I know, happiest day I've had in a while! He deserved worse but we take what we can get, right :)”

Perhaps you misunderstood? That little aside was about Imad Mugniyah and his death the day before.

Thank you Lalé Shahparaki Welsh

Dear friend of humanity and reason:
Thank you for your interview. Please keep on publishing. We need articles such as yours to focus on promoting peace and dialog among people. Do not be intimidated or disappointed by hate mongers.

Dear Attorney: ARe you sure

Dear Attorney: ARe you sure you're not on heavy doses of hallucinogenic drugs? You need to re-read what I wrote. I said would the Islamic Republic like to take their case to Internationl Court and naturally, there will be a counter-charges by the US against the US.

No, thanks for the offer. I will not retain you for anything. If I did have a legal case, I would certainly not hire you...you can't even read and you're out of control...The judge will disqualify you for lack of composure...I would seriously consider another profession.