If you're interested about the beginnings of the Cold War in Iran, and want to hear a different view on operation ajax, read this article by Professor R.J. Rummel (same guy who created the term "democide") and comment on it.
-Amir
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"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..."
I'm very torn on this issue. A part of me agrees with Rummel, that American interference helped save Iran from Communism (thank you, Truman). But I don't understand why we should be thankful to America for the CIA coup. My prideful, Persian side thinks "Why'd America have to butt in and overthrow the one man who was fighting for Iranians?"
It frustrates me that the Shah went on "vacation" and deserted his country while the CIA and SIS plotted against Mossadegh. I think the CIA coup was a purely selfish act. America and Britain wanted control over Iran's oil, and the Shah just wanted to stay in power and preserve his prestige. It's unfortunate that Mossadegh was overthrown.
I don't know whether I support anyone in this situation. America and Britain were simply looking out for their own interests. And so was the Shah. I don't know what to think about Mossadegh. I'd like to believe he was actually fighting for his people, but I'm not sure...
I do agree that the United States prevented a communist take over when truman threatened the Soviets with the atomic bomb. But I do not believe that the 1953 coup also saved iran from communism, because Mossadegh was fervantly nationalist and would not have let Iran fall under Soviet influence, especially because I am sure he was aware of russian empire efforts to incorporate iran for it's warm water ports and strategic location.
I think it is important to put these events into a bigger picture than just that of the CIA coup in Iran. Many times in the past century the U.S. has intervened in countries where they have "identified" a communist threat. Intervention by coup in Guatemala in 1954, Iran in 1953, and Chile in 1973 were all miscalculated by the US because these countries were not necessarily "going red" but were overwhelmingly countries with nationalist oriented governments that were making economic policy that was counter to US economic and corporate interests. In Guatemala, Arbenz was forcing the United Fruit Company to sell their unused land to the government at very low prices and implementing land redistribution policies. In Chile, Allende was pushing a socialist plan to nationalize the copper mining industry--which was owned by US corporations. In short, judging by the events in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, the cold war rhetoric was just one factor that allowed for justification by the US government to ensure the profitability of its economic interests, and those of its close ally--the UK.
This article shows the transparency in the United States' actions.The obvious goals of the CIA behind their aims "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." The fact is, the CIA was there to make sure Iran would stay on their side, not on the right side.The Americans and British were after oil and keeping communism away for their own sake. They might have prevented communism in Iran but not for the right reasons, and then Carter turned his back on the country that had been "saved" from the red scare by the Americans. I agree with maggiejoon, I am not sure either whether I would support any of the actors of this topic.The fact whether communism would have taken over Iran under Mossadegh will never be known, but there are elements from the past that would definitely question this theory(as ryanlcrumley pointed out).
While constructing an historical narrative of Iranian-U.S. relations, it strikes me as relatively unimportant whether or not American intervention prevented kept the curtain at bay. Not to discount the global reach of cold-war bipolarization, but there's no erasing the discursive effects of the 53 coup, the rallying point it provided for revolution, a revolution which was to a certain extent seemed to be factioning pre-hostage crisis. The consortium agreement probably carries a similar weight, leaving foreign intervention in the Iranian oil. Although relative economic stability provided the Shah with cover, the eventual disparity mobilized a sea of the unsatisfied. And, naturally, the first finger points towards the foreigners extracting profit from the heart of Iran, which brings back the memory of Mossadeq as the figurehead of nationalism.
I disagree with the author of the article and some of the classmates viewers that Iranians should be thankful when President Truman forced Soviet forces to withdraw from Iran.
First of all, we should not forget that Cold War had already started and if Iran would have been falling behind the Iron Curtain (that is under Soviets domination) that would led to victory of Soviet Union and made harder for United Stats to continue the Cold War (which was economical War) due to two simple reasons. On one hand, Iran’s national oil would double the power of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, by taking Iran under Communist control would make easier for Soviets to take control in the Middle East and U.S. would lose the control on Middle East oil which could make economic crisis in the U. S., as it happened in 1970’s when people cold not find gas for their cars. Therefore, based on these facts, the U, S. prevented S. U, to control Iran and Truman did his best to force S.U. forces to withdraw from Iran. In my opinion, President Truman was thinking about his county’s strategy and economy but not about Iranians.
Rummel argues that with out the 1953 Coup Iran would have been taken over by the Soviets, but if this was the case why didn’t the Soviets come to Iran’s rescue during the economic blockade? According to William Blum the author of Killing Hope, “the Soviets took no belligerent steps” to prove this true. According to Rummel “the United States saved Iran from Soviet domination.” This plan to supposedly save Iran was only executed based on Western ambitions to gain power and control over Iran. This was done by placing the Shah back into power; a leader who soon initiated the White Revolution and the westernization of Iran. The creation of anti-Soviet and communist propaganda made it easier for the US to claim hero status even though the West had been colonizing the region for decades; prior to Mossadeq nationalizing the oil Britain was the primary beneficiary of Iran’s oil. Also, what’s so bad with communism, from what I understand it has been difficult for Cuba to fully provide for their people due to the embargoes but even with these limitations the health and education system in Cuba seems to be doing better than here in the US. I also would have to agree with the comment posted under Rummel’s article by Orange_Cross, what has democracy and capitalism given us here in the US? The US can not claim to be the savior of justice and democracy when this country has exploited and oppressed people of color since 1492. I definitely disagree with Rummel’s statement that Iranians should be thankful, this statement is too similar to what historians say of Africans and colonialism- they also argue that Africans should be thankful- but why should Africans be thankful for years of colonization and exploitation and why should the Iranians be thankful for the US preventing self governance and political sovereignty.
Post a Comment