If you're interested about the beginnings of the Cold War in Iran, read this article by Professor R.J. Rummel (same guy who created the term "democide") and comment on it.
Yeah interesting... It's very opened minded of you guys to post this article to show both sides of the coup. What was gone over in class I was never aware of (well actually almost all details about the coup i was unaware of), but the pro-american perspective of the coup also shed some light onto the whole scenario. Obviously American patriots are going to support and justify the coup while anti-americans will protest and criticize the coup. I'm just writing the obvious but through Keyan and Amir's sharing of knowledge I have become more aware of the situation from both perspectives. It seems America had good intentions but the coup was fueled by other factors other than those associated with pro-democracy.
This professor raises some interesting points. I think one of the most interesting facts that he describes is the way in which the U.S. and Britain worked together to bring about the 1953 coup. I cannot help but think about how the U.S. and Britain acted as a team after WWII to police the world(and in some cases still do). I understand that in this situation the U.S. was trying to limit Soviet expansion, but I think that threatening to use the atomic bomb is completely out of order. If the U.S. would like to receive respect from other countries, it is absolutely necessary that they lead the way in promoting and using constructive measures to diffuse disputes. It also seems like many U.S. presidents have the habit of making very poor decisions that reflect on the image of the U.S. in the international arena!!
The professor's article starts out with a more or less objective stance about American and British involvement in the coup in 1953. He traces some concrete facts with the inclusion of the CIA report. However, Rummel's entire focus is to "excuse the U.S. decision to engineer the coup." As a result, his article dissolves into trying to justify American activities with rather weak or poor evidence. For example, he bases his reasoning that Iran was not a democracy under Mossadegh simply on one group's labeling. Since it supports his theory, he takes it without question as fact. In actuality I think Rummel has several valid points and observations, but his bias and lack of solid evidence devalues the article in my opinion.
In this article, it is highlighted how the cold war context was very important to make the US administration feel like it had to intervene in Iran.
As a matter of fact, Stalin had views on Iran for its oil resources but also because it would have granted the USSR an access to a "hot" see, which has always been important for the country's trade. 1953 was also a turning point in International Relations, with the US concern about the Soviet threat growing faster and faster (Cf. the witch hunt). Indeed, at that time the USSR just tested its new nuclear weapon, it also increased its domination over eastern Europe (by replacing leaders in Hungary and Poland), and the US was involved in its first war since WW2 in Korea, against a USSR backed military force.
But contrary to what the author of the article describes as a partnership between the UK and the US, it seems clear to me that the MI6 exploited the US administration's fear of the USSR threat and the fact that it was very busy dealing with other issues to overthrow an unfriendly Iranian government that wanted to fully benefit of its oil.
As a matter of fact, I don't think that Mossadegh's government was a potential communist threat. It was backed by a communist friendly party (the Tudeh),but it wasn't the main support of Mossadegh. The UK made it become more and more important with its oil embargo that worsened the economic situation of Iran and forced Mossadegh to increasingly rely on the Tudeh.
I still don't buy his argument that Mossadegh was being influenced by Communist Russia, and that it justifies the coup. It is not doubt that Iran would have been a prize to the Soviet Union but once again (as Blum in Killing Hope states about Countercoup) there is no evidence, not even real circumstantial evidence that Iran would have become communist. It seems like an elaboration on the facts. I also distrust anyone who uses the word "subversion" when referring to increasing the Soviet communist fear of influence. I feel it signifies their one snideness on issues in regard to the US's role in international affairs.
6 comments:
interesting article...
Yeah interesting...
It's very opened minded of you guys to post this article to show both sides of the coup. What was gone over in class I was never aware of (well actually almost all details about the coup i was unaware of), but the pro-american perspective of the coup also shed some light onto the whole scenario. Obviously American patriots are going to support and justify the coup while anti-americans will protest and criticize the coup. I'm just writing the obvious but through Keyan and Amir's sharing of knowledge I have become more aware of the situation from both perspectives. It seems America had good intentions but the coup was fueled by other factors other than those associated with pro-democracy.
Holla.
This professor raises some interesting points. I think one of the most interesting facts that he describes is the way in which the U.S. and Britain worked together to bring about the 1953 coup. I cannot help but think about how the U.S. and Britain acted as a team after WWII to police the world(and in some cases still do). I understand that in this situation the U.S. was trying to limit Soviet expansion, but I think that threatening to use the atomic bomb is completely out of order. If the U.S. would like to receive respect from other countries, it is absolutely necessary that they lead the way in promoting and using constructive measures to diffuse disputes. It also seems like many U.S. presidents have the habit of making very poor decisions that reflect on the image of the U.S. in the international arena!!
The professor's article starts out with a more or less objective stance about American and British involvement in the coup in 1953. He traces some concrete facts with the inclusion of the CIA report. However, Rummel's entire focus is to "excuse the U.S. decision to engineer the coup." As a result, his article dissolves into trying to justify American activities with rather weak or poor evidence. For example, he bases his reasoning that Iran was not a democracy under Mossadegh simply on one group's labeling. Since it supports his theory, he takes it without question as fact. In actuality I think Rummel has several valid points and observations, but his bias and lack of solid evidence devalues the article in my opinion.
In this article, it is highlighted how the cold war context was very important to make the US administration feel like it had to intervene in Iran.
As a matter of fact, Stalin had views on Iran for its oil resources but also because it would have granted the USSR an access to a "hot" see, which has always been important for the country's trade.
1953 was also a turning point in International Relations, with the US concern about the Soviet threat growing faster and faster (Cf. the witch hunt). Indeed, at that time the USSR just tested its new nuclear weapon, it also increased its domination over eastern Europe (by replacing leaders in Hungary and Poland), and the US was involved in its first war since WW2 in Korea, against a USSR backed military force.
But contrary to what the author of the article describes as a partnership between the UK and the US, it seems clear to me that the MI6 exploited the US administration's fear of the USSR threat and the fact that it was very busy dealing with other issues to overthrow an unfriendly Iranian government that wanted to fully benefit of its oil.
As a matter of fact, I don't think that Mossadegh's government was a potential communist threat. It was backed by a communist friendly party (the Tudeh),but it wasn't the main support of Mossadegh. The UK made it become more and more important with its oil embargo that worsened the economic situation of Iran and forced Mossadegh to increasingly rely on the Tudeh.
I still don't buy his argument that Mossadegh was being influenced by Communist Russia, and that it justifies the coup. It is not doubt that Iran would have been a prize to the Soviet Union but once again (as Blum in Killing Hope states about Countercoup) there is no evidence, not even real circumstantial evidence that Iran would have become communist. It seems like an elaboration on the facts. I also distrust anyone who uses the word "subversion" when referring to increasing the Soviet communist fear of influence. I feel it signifies their one snideness on issues in regard to the US's role in international affairs.
Post a Comment