To learn more about the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh, I would suggest checking out these links below.NY Times: Secrets of History
National Security Archive: The Secret CIA history of the Iran Coup
For a posting comment, I would like you to answer any or all of these questions:
-Do you feel like you understand why Iran has acted the way it has in the last 28 years, specifically in relations to the U.S., by watching the video today?
-Do you think the U.S. was justified in taking Mossadegh out?
-Do you think Iranians share the blame for what happened to Mossadegh?
-Do you think the CIA should repeat what it did to Mossadegh to other countries, even Iran today?
Remember, the deadline for the first post is coming up.
-Amir
17 comments:
After seeing the video on Tuesday, I feel like I have a better understanding of Iran's policies, or at least those directed towards the US, than previously. Seeing the movie, along with doing the assigned reading, gave me more insight as to why there is a significant amount of angst directed towards US foreign policy among Iranians. I had never heard about the Mossadegh incident, and did not know about US involvement in Iranian affairs was so prolific during the early 1950s. Depending on how one looks at the situation, the US can be shown in a very negative light as a result of this incident. The fact that the CIA (and MI6) manipulated Iran's populace and depopularize Mossadegh to the extent that he was overthrown is particularly disturbing. This was done under the supposition that Mossadegh was affiliated with the Tudeh party, and thus would be likely to support the Soviet Union. However, there does not seem to be reliable data that this was the case, but rather that the US and Britain used the above reason as an excuse for getting rid of Mossadegh because he threatened their oil interests through his efforts to nationalize Iranian oil. So, it seems like Iranians were misled (purposely) to dislike Mossadegh and support his removal from the prime ministerial post. However, after they learned that the CIA was highly involved with the incident, and that Mossadegh was not taking part in any shady activities, there was significant backlash against the US (seen mostly as pent-up frustrations during the 1979 revolution). So, I think it would be in the best interest for the US and for the intended country that the US not insert itself into matters that are not really relevant to Americans' security, as it makes the US look bad and, as a result, makes the people of the country distrustful of American policies.
I couldn't agree more with Jacob. I feel like many Americans don't understand why some Iranians were so hateful of America during and after the revolution in 1979. It wasn't because they hated western ideology or democracy, but rather they felt like just when their country began to take control of its own resources under a democratically elected official (Mossadegh), it was stripped from them. The CIA and MI6 did what they did because of oil and the supposed threat of Communism, although I don't see sufficient evidence to support that. So no, I don't think that the CIA should repeat the coup for any other countries. If it was done again, it would probably be under the context of "spreading democracy" when really what the CIA did to Mossadegh and Iran was stripping democracy and freedom from them for their own financial and social concerns.
In terms of whether or not Iranians share the blame for what happened to Mossadegh, I think that its hard to say. The fact that the Iranian's took the revolution into their own hands after the US instigated it is a huge factor that can't be ignored. I can't say that revolution would have happened without the US but there was clearly some animosity towards Mossadegh within Iran. But then again people can be easily manipulated.
I agree with Roxy that the US should not intervene with other countries like we did in Iran. Its is one thing of an international non-bias organization to go into a country and calm a revolution or stop a genocide, but its another thing to go in as a competing country with its own agenda. Countries should support each other, economically and politically, and not try control each other economically and politically. There definitely were other ways for us to gain access to Iran''s oil and to stop the spread of communism without wrecking havoc in Iran.
The video helped me understand why there has been tension between the United States and Iran. I feel that Iran has reasoning to have some resistance against the United States after all the U.S. transformed the Iran regime and did it in a manner that would get them satisfied rather than look to the best interests of the Iranians that live in Iran. Also, I have learned that the U.S. has a tendency of getting involved with the politics of other countries. For example, they published the Monroe Doctrine to declare to the world, mainly European powers, that the U.S. would have control and take care of any problems that arise in Latin America and its sphere. This clearly indicates that the U.S. wants the world to follow its ways on having a democracy. By taking out Mossadegh out of power, Iran did not face any benefits. Rather the country had to deal with a new form of government and was viewed to be radical throughout the world since it didn’t ease into the plans of the United States. Not only did Iran lose a sense of stability with the change of powers taking place, but it was taken advantage of. The CIA and United States in general need to stop getting involved with the affairs of other countries. It should only deal with its own problems such as poverty and its own economy instead of worrying about another country nationalizing its oil that hurt another foreign country which was Britain. Even after Operation Ajax, the CIA underwent another operation called Operation Success in Guatemala, and as a result the country became unstable politically and economically. This shows that the coups the CIA is carrying out are beneficial to the U.S. and this is because the U.S. doesn’t want any countries to have more power than them.
I mainly agree with the other comments, maybe just want to add some of my opinions. I think that US was not justified to take Mossadegh out and the Operation Ajax in August 1953 had a big impact even on todays relations between Iran and US. In my point of view I also think that Iranians were not to blame what happened to Mossadegh. Because I wasn't in the class on Tuesday, I can't comment the movie shown in the class, but still reading the homework from the reader I got a clear picture how US has involved in other countries policies. After the Operation Ajax the Iranians weren't satisfied that their oil is taken away from them. In the 1970's Iran was the 4th largest oil producing country in the world and anyone in the country would be mad if most of the oil is taken away from them. That deepened the bad relations between Iran and US. Also after the fall of Mossadegh many Iranians saw Reza Shah as a puppet for US who sold their land and oil to foreign countries. He bought American-made weapons and gave all Americans diplomatic immunity. Many Iranians were killed when they protested against US and also the women's suffrage in 1952 has helped me to realize why Iranians feel like that towards US. That's why I'm sure that the CIA and also the US shouldn't involve in other country policies. I think that US involved in Iranian politics, because that was an excuse to get some oil from them. I can see that happening even right now when US has so many troops in Iraq. At least I think that US is acting wrong in that way and they should have learned from past by now.
The movie we watched definitely gave me a better understanding of U.S. Iran politics. It is obvious that the tension between the two countries today is a result of previous encounters, and the movie shows how U.S. intervention with Iran's internal affairs is what brought these tensions to existence. As for the question of whether Iranians carry some responsibility for what happened to Mossadegh, I believe they do carry at least some responsibility. It is true that many people didn't know exactly what was going on, things were happening very fast and were confusing, but the people should've put one and one together to realize the chaos started happening after nationalizing the oil industry and that the overthrow of Mossadegh was a foreign plot. The Iranian people, should know more than any one else, what is right and what is wrong for their country.
Do you think the CIA should repeat what it did to Mossadegh to other countries, even Iran today?
It’s not easy to answer a question like this because no one knows what the situation would have been like today if the CIA did not interfere, however, from an outsider’s perspective it looks like CIA participation did much more harm than good. But I also recognize that it’s easy for Americans to have a strong opinion about how government agencies should act and what is morally right and wrong. The truth is that many measures taken by our government in the past have allowed Americans the freedom to be able to speak out against the government today and participate in forums such as this one. Now don’t get me wrong, in a perfect world governments wouldn’t interfere with other governments, but unfortunately I’m not naive enough to believe we live in a perfect world. I guess what I’m trying to say is – things are much more complicated then they seem and I am far from knowing all of the details that led to the CIA’s involvement in Iran. I wish watching one documentary would turn me into a subject expert. I also would like to add that if the US and Iran were in good relations today, I highly doubt anyone would question the CIA’s past actions.
I agree with Hapchee, it's hard to tell what might or might not have happened, had the CIA not interfered. We live in a country that looks upon itself as the guardian of freedom and democracy worldwide, but sometimes it is hard to tell when to take action. The trouble is, living in a nation that changes so drastically in a short span of time, it is understandable that the Iranians would resent US intervention.
I think it's a mistake for the CIA/US Government to undermine the sovereign rights of other nations. Maybe there are some short term gains to be had, but ultimately, in the long term, it just creates a mess. Iran and Central America are great examples of this. It's a shame that as Chomsky said, Americans don't realize how much blood they have on their hands. I think maybe if they did we would reign in our government and things like this wouldn't happen. Respecting the right of others to national self-determination is the most basic princible of diplomacy and we would do well to keep this in mind going forward.
I find it hard to look very specifically at the CIA's influence over Iran because of what a lot have mentioned earlier. It is hard to know all of the facts and how much United States intervention might have been needed. The Countercoup article written by Roosevelt takes a very positive tone towards the coup but I find it to be positive only due to the successful manipulation of a foreign government. It seemed to be a pat on the back for the CIA who seemed to be exersizing their new found power in terms of foreign policy. While I wish I could honestly say that the United States acted in the interest of aiding a foreign power the motives for the coup appear to be geared towards oil and cold war tensions. It was surprising to me how easily Iran's political base could be changed however. The United States had found a system that could be manipulated. In terms of placing blame it is hard to say who should bear the brunt. The United States in an ideal world would have acted to stabilize an insecure government. While its hard to believe the US motives were anywhere close to this, it was also relatively easy for them to accomplish. Iran seems to have failed to create a secure system that allows leaders to promote positive change while feeling secure in power as well. This seems to be the Shah's problem after Mossadegh's expulsion. The Iran system failed to establish a system that reigned supreme yet fair to the general populatoin at the same time. So there seems to always be an opposing party ready to overthrow the existing power. I imagine it also to be tough that an area so rich in oil could ever be left alone to form its own strong secure form of government. Iran might have been too instable to manage the world's demand for its oil while control and successfully run its own country? It could be a lot to say but I imagine countries such as the US or Britain who were growing in need for oil would turn straight to Iran to fullfill their interests. The US could simply have been taking care of itself first.
Once unclear to me why there was such animosity between America and Iran, I recognize where these feelings sprouted from. America's habit of sticking its nose into another countries political and economic affairs is unequivocally illustrated through the coup of Mossadegh. Trying to help Iran's economy by nationalizing oil instead of letting the profits fall into the laps of the British and Americans, Mossadegh was looking after his country. He was stripped of his power through the wealth and affluence America accumulated after WWII by the same forces that exploited an entire country's population. Though some blame must fall on the backs of the Iranians, it is the Anglo-Saxon alliance of Britain and America that are at fault.
America knifed its way into Iran's media, such as the radio and newspaper, reporting malicious facts and attacks on Mossadegh. He wanted nothing more than to nationalize Iran, take it back to the strength it had in the days of Darius and Cyrus, yet his lofty dreams fell through. America and Britain made the case that they were fighting communism and that their presence was a response the the communist influence in Iran, yet those claims were never proven to be true. The main purpose was to keep control of the oil. Once the Iranian population was enlightened with the facts of American involvement, it has formed and held a grudge, lasting to this very day. The anger, hate, and contempt they feel for America, or "The Great Satan", is justified, for the dignity of an entire government was misled and tarnished over oil.
The video makes the actions of Iran and the anger of some Iranians toward the U.S. much more understandable. Placing myself in the shoes of an Iranian, I would probably be angry if a foreign government came in and overthrew a democratically elected official for their own gain.
I think Americans too often generalize that 1) all Iranians hate us and 2) they hate us for the sake of hating us, or because we're democratic Westerners. The video alone shows plenty of reason for hostility. It doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. is completely at fault for the tensions today, but it certainly makes Iran's antipathy more understandable.
As for repeating these actions today: the CIA has undertaken several other covert operations similar to the one in Iran throughout its history, and to the best of my knowledge few if any have been very successful in the long term. I don’t think the CIA’s job is to overthrow governments.
Do you think the CIA should repeat what it did to Mossadegh to other countries, even Iran today?
The CIA's involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh and the installment of Mohmammad Reza Shah Pahlavi is one that can not be looked on as beneficial or detrimental because the arguments on both sides are valid. In my opinion, however, U.S intervention in a sovereign country's politics for its own benefit is not just. Although, many might argue that the CIA's intervention was for the benefit of Iran, I would disagree simply because Mossadegh was beginning to put Iran back up on its own feet through actions such as the Oil Nationalization Act. The people in Iran were satisfied with Mossadegh, but it was the foreign superpowers he was bothering. Clearly, the British did not like this because they needed Iran's oil and the U.S was worried that Iran's relation with the Soviet Union was becoming stronger, thus operation ajax (overthrow Mossadegh). I do not think that intervention by any country on another country's territory can be deemed acceptable, unless it is not for the sole benefit of the intervening country. If, for example, Iran was in dire need of help and asked for the intervention or help of the U.S that is acceptable, but if the U.S or any other country is invading (intervening) Iran for its own benefits, I believe this is wrong. What is funny about when countries intervene with other countries is that the reason is always something along the lines of "we are installing peace," or "establishing a democracy." If this is true, then why is the U.S not helping countries that actually need our help ( such as sudan). The U.S declared war on Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction but that was proven to be false, and now we are establishing a democracy...? It is hard to tell why we are truly there, many say for oil, but whatever the reason there is something there that will benefit the U.S. Therefore, 'establishing peace' is just a front for 'we need an excuse for being here.' Obviously, I do not think the CIA or any other country or nation should intervene in any other country's politics, but clearly this is something that cannot be stopped, and honestly nobody can truly say if this is good or bad unless we had a time machine to see how the world would be with and without intervention.
Aside:
It is amazing to see to what extents the CIA will go to in order to perform a coup or any other political interference. Just by the extents the CIA took in performing operation ajax, it is quite obvious that Iran was an important and still is an important nation in the future of politics.
I've heard about the Mossadegh incident before in other classes and was always appalled by the way our government acted, but am pretty much always appalled by the way our government acted during the coldwar, and lately for that matter. I do not think that we should have tried to dismantle Mossadegh since he represented the democratic process of that country. I believe that it was hypocritical of the United States to go into Iran and stage a coup against a popular, democratically elected leader, while preaching the superiority of democracy to communism during the coldwar era, which shows the importance of oil as an American resource. The coup was a preemptive attack on an unjustified threat made by a paranoid American government that unfortunately ruined our relations with that country. Thus, through the context of this event it is easier to see how the relations between the United States and Iran have been so hostile and understandably so. The United States was not trying to uproot a leader that was performing crimes against his people, for he was only acting in the best interest of his country who democratically elected him, and from that standpoint the American and British secret services should have never gotten involved in Iran.
The video combined with the readings have really clarified the different motivations of the various countries involved.
Yes, on the one hand, the US and Great Britain were interested in sustaining their country's development and defenses. However, it did come at a cost to the Iranian people and their protential democracy. That being said, in retrospect, the US and Great Britain can be legitimately blamed for the hard times and revolutions that Iran has had to go through since the overthrow of Mossadegh.
If one were to strip the history down to one phrase, the successes of two nations came at the cost of a third's. That being said, I cannot say that Iranians are not justified in their grudge towards Americans. The actions were self-serving, but given the situation of America at the time (i.e. Cold War) any other nation would have acted to save their own ass.
1) The video definitely demonstrated the close relationship that Iran and the U.S. held during most of the 20th century. I felt it gave a great deal of information and didn't try to make the subject matter difficult to understand.
2) I personally don't believe that the U.S. was justified in overthrowing Mossadegh. Mossadegh served as the representative of the Iranian people and was just attempting to improve conditions for the people. If you look at how much money Western businesses made off of Iranian oil, I think they could have afforded to be generous in their dealings.
In terms of U.S./Western interests, I'd say that the U.S./U.K. governments were justified in overthrowing Mossadegh. He was unintentionally inserting himself into their strategic interests. An abundance of oil and Iran's proximity to the U.S.S.R. made Iran a far too important ally to allow any instability within the country.
3) No, Iranians do not share in the blame. The CIA-M16 did an excellent job in propaganda campaigns against the regime. The average Iranian, according to the readings, was not well educated. The propaganda campaigns likely motivated many of them. In addition CIA bribes influenced many to take up arms so they could have a decent meal for a few days.
4) I'd hope that the CIA has learned its lessons. Blowback from forced regime change hasn't been limited to Iran. Many of our most outspoken critics are consequences of CIA overthrows. The CIA often just makes a bigger mess.
I have not read all of the other student's comments so my response may sound redundant.
With that said, I feel Iranians today have grounds in feeling bitter about past events. While some may argue the U.S. was not fully responsible for the outcome of the coup, I still find that they played a significant and very influential role. The success of the coup could definitely not have been possible with out the actions of Iranian citizens. However it is questionable to say the Iranians would have eventually been radical and embittered enough to start a revolution on their own.
I do not think the CIA should venture to organize a similar coup. I would like to think that there is currently more peaceful diplomacy in the international community than in the past, so a violent overthrow would not be necessary. Also, I think there are other rising superpowers now, so U.S. actions would have to answer to other strong powers.
Post a Comment