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 this Tuesday. Enjoy the rest of your break!
-Amir
25 comments:
Reading about the coup I was surprised at how hands-off the United States was in the overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh. Certainly, its interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state was reprehensible and undoubtedly would be vehemently scorned should the US be affected in a similar way. But, on further consideration, it seems that the US did not create the will to overthrow Mossadegh but only amplified certain currents in Iranian society. To point to America's role in bribery or propaganda suggests that Iranians cannot turn down money or cannot differentiate fact from lies. Indeed, it seems that the biggest role played by the United States was providing a mimeograph machine to make copies of the Shah's firman. Surely the people who protested that day understood that they were supporting a monarch over a democratically elected leader. Whatever their reasons, they felt that the Shah would better serve their interests. They chose the Shah and thus took upon themselves responsibility for the state created by His Imperial Majesty.
I think it's like those cartoons where two characters have a bit of tension and a third party looking to gain something incites both of them against each other using deceit and trickery... It's true that tension was present between certain factions of Iran, but I don't think there exists a nation where there doesn't exist tension between groups. The U.S. had CIA agents harass religious leaders while dressed up as communists in order to rile the religious community against Mossadegh and his supporters! That is clearly manipulative. The CIA definitely flicked that first domino. At first the other dominos were hesitant to fall, so we think the first domino never hit the rest and they say "things fell into place," but it did, eventually, and it is certainly reasonable to place blame on America's big sloppy hands.
I believe that the United States was justified in taking out Mossadegh. This is not, in anyway, synonymous with the opinion that the United States should or should not have engineered a coup. I believe the U.S. was justified because it keyed into the international geopolitical paradigm of the era, and it is absolutely crucial to understand this paradigm. The "enemy", communism, was monolithic and the international atmosphere was Manichean. According to the documentary, Mossadegh was losing support from all participating parties in his coalition, except the leftists. While, to my knowledge, there was no tangible evidence that Mossadegh would've turned Iran into a Soviet satellite, the possibility and the fear were very real. The United States acted upon its own interests, which encompassed protecting the values capitalism as well. All nations act according to their self interest, and the United States did no differently. The one counterpoint here is that the United States violated the principles of Westphalian sovereignty. The paradigm that was the Westphalian system, however, was dead anyway, and the battle between capitalism and communism took precedence. Was this a limited, flawed view? Considerably so, but that does not detract from the justification behind the CIA's actions.
I don't think the people should carry all or any of the blame. Usually they are following what they see and hear on tv and radio so it is very easy to believe something when everybody thinks the same way. However, I believe people nowadays should be more critical of what the media says because we have learned that many things are lies and other things are the truth told in a different way so we have to be very careful when we hear those type of news. The people acted they way they did because when the masses start to mobilize either you are with them or not and this mentality however wrong, dominates what most people think.
In the case of the United States involvement in Iran, the CIA made a whole extra effort to convince the people that they should be on the side of the Shah and support the army against Mossadegh.
I agree that the United States' actions in Mossadegh's Iran inflamed a situation that, while certainly feeling some tension between opposing parties, would not have resulted in a coup without foreign interference. Had the CIA not stepped in, I doubt that the Iranian people would have overthrown an officially elected leader and replaced him with a monarch, despite the sentiments of Mossadegh's opponents. Therefore, while some responsibility for the coup undeniably lies with the Iranian people who carried it out (or at least the military officers who worked with the CIA and MI6 to provoke unrest), the United States remains the catalyst for the action and is primarily responsible for the consequences.
Although the United States certainly acted in its own self-interest, it seems that the official reason given for overthrowing Mossadegh (i.e. that Iran was in danger of becoming a Communist state), was not a reasonable assessment of the situation or a realistic representation of the threat that Iran actually posed. Mossadegh was in opposition to the Tudeh party, the main group in Iran that could be conceivably linked to the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the Tudeh party was not a particularly strong force in Iranian politics, and the State Department under Truman had already made the assessment that Iran did not seem to be in any way allied with the Soviets. Therefore, the “Communist threat” reasoning seems more like an excuse to depose a government with strong nationalistic priorities and a disinclination to kowtow to Western powers than a reasonable fear.
Either way, the United States violated the sovereignty of another nation, a move that is strongly in opposition to the stated ethos of the country and the standards set by international treaties and organizations. Additionally, the monarch instated after the coup, though closely allied with the West, was a dictator of the sort that America claims to abhor. Free speech and individual rights went by the wayside, and a country claiming to support Democratic ideals cannot help but be seen as hypocritical and unjustified in instating a dictator.
I agree that countries act in self interest and this coup is no different. Supporting interior factions in order to maintain influence and starve off the threat of communism; however, I don't think that the coup was justified. One could argue that in times of war actions such as these may be justifiable but in a cold war and post cold war era the world arena falls into this category. I understand that the fear that the communist threat perpetuated all foreign policy but I still do not think it justifies our imposition. I agree that we pushed the first domino. The dissent existed prior to our involvement but who is to say that would have ever escalated without our help. The US may have helped to "save" Iran from communism but it created many problems in its wake by facilitating distrust of the US and civil unrest.
One thing I am unclear about is why Mossadegh was targeted as a threat. I suppose nationalizing the oil industry would have been a "red" flag but I thought that his party, the National Front, was for secularism and nationalism. In which case the threat he posed was more to Western influence than anything else...
Iran's resentment and distrust toward the United States is understandable. Under Mossadegh's leadership the nation was ending Britain's claim on their oil and finally taking initiative in controlling their own resources. The United States hindered Iran's development and made decisions that should have been left to the Iranian people. A government was installed without any consideration of the people's wishes. Such actions have been viewed as insults to Iran's national dignity, which explains why Iranians have acted unfavorably in relations to the United States.
The CIA should not repeat what it did to Mossadegh in any part of the world, especially with self-seeking motives. Although the CIA has the ability to manipulate through propaganda, people ultimately know what is best for their nations. The case of Iran serves as evidence that CIA intervention brings forth short-term economic benefits for the United States, but leads to large-scale consequences.
I think that the U.S. got rid of Dr. Mossadegh in a time when it felt that it would best serve American interests, and in order to lessen the "communist threat" that seemed to be taking over that geographical region. However, I feel that, as with many other actions that the U.S. took in the face of the communist threat, it was completely unjustified and not only disturbed the peace and welfare of an entire nation, but created for itself a much more difficult situation to deal with today. William Blum, in Killing Hope, points out that the U.S. claim of a Soviet controlled Iran has very little evidence to back it up, and that the coup in his mind, as well as in mine, is unjustified because Dr. Mossadegh was not allying himself with the Soviets, the Americans, or any other sovereignty, but only trying to create a unified and nationalistic state of Iran. As Blum states, Dr. Mossadegh had “campaigned successfully against lingering Soviet occupation of northern Iran” and rejected a “joint Irano-Soviet oil company”. What this says to me is that Dr. Mossadegh was only trying to prevent Iran from being a tool for Western powers, and after 300 years of a weak and submissive government, was trying to bring Iran into a new age by giving Iranian resources back to the people of Iran. The U.S., however, saw the nationalization effort as a threat to worldwide security, and thought that the best way to prevent Communism from reaching Iran would be to have an Iran controlled by U.S. interests. I believe that the U.S., acting on this fear, made a huge and unjustified mistake and stopped the progress of a nation on its way to freedom and democracy.
I think American intervention exhibited during the 1953 coup was despicable. I don't believe there was any real Communist threat that could even come close to excusing Operation Ajax. I think Mossadegh was looking out for the best interest of the Iranian people, and that nationalizing Iran's oil was the best move ever since the Qajar dynasty came in. Mossadegh is a real symbol, and to have the CIA take him out of power because of an American interest in the Cold War is unjustified. Mossadegh was pushed out because the AIOC was angry about losing its profits which is a ridiculously selfish reason. Even more appalling is the blockade that the British imposed on Iranian oil, clearly exhibited when Iran tried to sell oil to an Italian buyer.
I can see how the coup can sow the seeds of mistrust in the Iranian people. I can see how being oppressed by the Shah, who was empowered by the Americans, can lead to discontent. But now, with an Islamic government that was approved of by a national referendum, it looks like the Iranian people finally have the government that they want. But the distant relation that Iran has with America seems to be a separate issue with Westernization, not just the coup. The current government's ideology seems to be a general dislike of all things Western, because the Shah and his father were so vehement in promoting it. The US's intervention seems like an extra reason to dislike anything Western, and I feel that the Iranian government is currently looking for any reason to not cooperate with the Americans.
Learning about the coup somehow explains why Iran has been so prickly to Americans for the last 28 years, but if you look closely, the revolutionary government and that of the Shah's have a lot in common: repression, censorship, and secret police forces. There isn't much difference. One champions the values of Islam, the other of Western values/technology. How Iran has acted for the last 29 years is not a good gauge in reaction to American intervention, because the abuses committed by the shah are still occurring today. Sadly, the revolutionary government in charge today was put into place by its own people and America is not available as a scapegoat this time. While Iran's relations with America are understandable, they certainly aren't justified or effective.
It seems as though the United States did truly believe that the 1953 C.I.A. Coup was justified through the haze of the Cold War. The Cold War did have the U.S. government frightened that Communism could actually take over the world. It seems as though the U.S. may actually have felt a threat due to Mossadegh nationalizing oil, and due to the arguable strength of the Tudeh party in Iran. Because this fear of Communism was so significant, it may have clouded decisions made at this time, including the 1953 CIA coup in Iran and in 1954, the coup that overthrew democratically elected Jacobo Árbenz of Guatemala.
In both of these cases, these two countries were incredibly important in the Cold War, because of the two areas in which they were located and the sphere of influence that a democratically elected president who nationalizes oil would have on surrounding countries.
This brings up the issue concerning economic protection or ideological fears of Communism. So the question still remains. Did the U.S. primarily become involved in these actions due to fear of Communism, or protecting their own economic interests? Although I believe separating the two in these situations is probably impossible, I can’t help but suspect that the latter had more influence on the decision than is acknowledged.
It seems somewhat ironic that after a history in which the U.S. government has contributed to deposing democratically elected leaders and installing leaders whom cater to U.S. interests, the U.S. touts that they want the “spreading of democracy” in current. This seems a bit suspect. I wonder if the hypothetical democratic leader in one of these countries the U.S. yearns to “save,” were to expel all U.S. interests and nationalize oil, would they be compliant and grateful that democracy has finally prevailed in the Middle East? It seems doubtful judging by their track record… Is it democracy or economic and political compliance that they truly want in this region?
b
The video watched in class about the coup provides insight unto Iran's complex, transnational history--existing not only specifically to that time and location, but is seen drawn out presently, in some Iranians hostility towards the United States. "Death to America!" and an American flag being burnt by Iranians, in Iran are the two media images that come readily to mind. Yet, is the media a reliable source? How many Iranians really do burn American flags, maybe the majority of them do just bake cookies, as the Iranian comedian, our future guest speaker...forgot his name!...said. Moreover, how many Americans would love to burn a flag and shout "Death to America!" I sure would, I bet it would be therapeutic. Not that I really wish death to anyone, nor do I believe Iranians do, but all the injustice, corruption, misery, and suffering that one may argue the United States is responsible for, provides enough reason to empathize with Iranian injustice, regarding America. The problems in this country, and with the US' interaction with others, are just as tragic as the dealings with Iran. I hope people can unite and end racism, stereotypes, create community--love the stranger! Not just live in a box like lens of corruptly fed information.
I think the United States was justified in thinking they had to overthrow Mossadegh. Iran was on the border of the USSR, Russia had a history of interfering in Iran and could again, and it wanted to stop the USSR from getting their oil and threatening the Middle East. Using propaganda to anger the Iranians against Mossadegh was unethical and contrary to stated American policies, but it did play upon some resentment of Mossadegh's platform and his party. The Iranian people did play a part in ousting Mossadegh. Some were willing to join the mobs and agree with overthrowing Mossadegh. The army itself seized power and threw out Mossadegh.
The video clearly stated that the CIA and MI6 were directly involved with the coup which somewhat justifies Iran's feelings towards the U.S. for the past 29 years. What I don't understand is why not having the same attitude towards the UK? As far as I understood the British were as much involved as the Americans.
I strongly disagree with the idea that the U.S. was justified in taking Mossadegh out. I believe the U.S. used the communism threat as an excuse to justify its actions but the truth is they just acted according to their own interests.
The Mossadegh era stands out the most in Iran's contemporary history because after ages of Iranian government being controlled by foreign forces, Mossadegh stood up to his belief of creating an independent state and the people of Iran should be blamed for not taking advantage of such opportunity.
I understand that Iran has a right to be upset over the incidents that occurred prior to Mossadegh's impeachment. In my opinion, operation Ajax a coverate operation between the United States and British embassy was uncalled for, in the eyes of Iranians. The United States did not justify clearly why they took out Mossadegh, when he was a favorite among is fellow countrymen. The sole blame is on the media that was manipulated by the "Allied" forces, in order to turn the countries own citizens on their prime minister. It is unfair, but history repeats itself. The same was done to the Suddam Hussein in Iraq, and likewise, the taliban in Afghanistan. What I do understand is that after FDR's four freedoms, America has made it a conscious effort to make the world safer for everyone. With this in mind, I believe that their actions were justified by their commitment to world peace for all people around the world. Iran is a beautiful place, but if every man and women is not treated equally, than there must be a change made, starting from who is power and down to the single citizen who believes that they are superior to anyone else. Though Mossadehg wished the best for his country, this can be seen in his actions towards the British for ripping of the country in oil revenues, he was in the way of something much bigger; WORLD PEACE. In the next years to come, I believe there will be a lot of countries who will be forced to face what Iran did. America is now the police if the world, so if you are committing a crime, then you are at fault, and no matter how powerful or rich you are, you will have to pay for any crimes committed.
iranian-US relations were strongly hurt by this event, but it was just one (perhaps the first) in a long line of acts of revenge. iranians already had a lack of trust in the british, but i dont think the anti us sentiment existed yet. i can understand that the cia and mi6 can say they were acting out of their countries' self interest in terms of the confrontation with communism, but it is sad to see that the true reason of such occurences is the rise of oil price. however, i do see how the people of iran must feel somewhat responsible. sometimes the masses demand a change, but they do not realize the direction it will take them.
I have a better understanding now of why Iran has held such hostility toward the United States for so long. And honestly, I see their hostility as being nearly or completely justified. Just imagining an extremely popular leader in the US being overthrown by an outside power because that leader wasn't convenient for them makes me angry. Mossadegh was a duly elected prime minister, so for the CIA to "take him out" was entirely unacceptable. I completely understand why Iranians would harbor anger toward the United States after the US carried out a coup. I doubt many Americans are aware of Operation Ajax, but if they were, they'd probably understand the tensions with Iran a bit better.
To answer the question about the CIA repeating such a coup again: no -- they shouldn't, but I know they have, and probably will again. It is dangerous to go overthrowing governments. It almost backfired on the US in Iran, and it has created tremendous instability and animosity in other countries. We should be more careful in our foreign relations and espionage, and employ a policy more along the lines of: if we wouldn't want it done to us, we shouldn't do it to others.
I found the story of Operation TPAJAX very interesting because I had no idea this had happened before I went to class. This CIA initiated coup helps me understand why some Iranians hold a grudge against the United States. I am conflicted as to whether or not this was a good move by the US though. I understand the United States national interest in securing oil resources and insuring that they did not fall into the hands of the Soviets, but I do not feel that such a heavy hand should be used to secure such resources. Obviously the coup has shaped US-Iran relations over the years building a strong relationship with the Shah. It is hard to say how world history would have been affected if we did not reinstate the Shah. I do not think that the United States should have a policy of undermining sovereign governments and instituting regime change unless there is a direct threat to the United States. Still, the United States is not the only party to blame, I think there is enough to go around. To hold the US as the only party accountable, and use the CIA coup as a pillar for hate over 50 years later is unfair, but this is something we must deal with whether or not this is fair or not. Too much time is spent assessing blame and not enough on coming to a compromise for a reasonable solution.
I found the documentary to be very fascinating and enlightening. What I found especially interesting was how the events in Iran in 1953 -- and the essentially failed coup attempt -- were regarded as a CIA success, and how this ended up defining CIA’s actions during the Cold War.
However, I do not think you can completely understand Iran’s actions during these last 29 years, but I do feel that it is easy to understand where anti-American sentiments are derived from. Also, with the kind of hindsight we enjoy now I do not think that the U.S. was justified in taking Mossadegh out. I also think that the kind of reasoning at the time clearly lacked any kind of long-term perspective.
I find the question whether the CIA should repeat the coup attempts in other countries to be truly interesting, and very difficult to answer. My instinctive response is no; in many of the cases where the U.S has interfered a kind of a boomerang effect has occurred. What I am trying to say is that many times the status quo might have been more beneficial to the U.S than the situation it created. Naturally, it is hard to make any counterfactual claims, but I cannot help but wonder if the world would not have looked very different if the CIA had considered its involvement in the coup to have been a failure.
I believe the United States, in their goal to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh, were not justified. The United States was persuaded by the British (whose intentions were more self-interested than anything) to overthrow a regime that seemed unstable to the threat of communism. In this sense the United States seems to be working towards a relatively positive goal. The problem with the United States throwing out Mossadegh with their CIA coup operation is that they are replacing him with someone who is less democratic and less tuned in to the people’s welfare. The shah seemed to help only the people whose wealth was dependent on Iran’s oil. England and the United States basically put in their own puppet leader who had absolute reign over the people and gave away most of Iran’s oil to England and the United States only for the guarantee of his limitless money and power over Iran. This eventually led to his downfall. In conclusion, the CIA operation neglected to realize the repercussions that the people in Iran had to face when they took away their semi-democratic institutions and put in an absolute monarchy.
I agree with the earlier comment that what the CIA did in taking out Mossadegh was not in the interest of the Iranian people and only hurt Iran's national dignity. Of course their motive was their own self interest in the oil of the country and to prevent the Soviet Union from getting any part of it and also to prevent communism from spreading further, so the Iranian people's feelings and opinions did not matter much in their decision making. They should not repeat what they did in Iran in other countries because it will only create resentment and hatred towards America as it did in Iran. They may have helped save Iran from communism, but also created distrust and skepticism towards America. This is an idea and a feeling that will linger for generations and will hurt relations between the two countries.
The extent to which the US went to prevent communism is unnerving and upsetting. While the panic that the Cold War era ensued is something that few can truly relate with – and there is no doubt that the US, at the time, felt that their actions were justified – I think that underhanded manipulation should never be an option, whether in foreign or in domestic matters. The US’s desire to spread democracy is understandable, but taking advantage of political unrest surreptitiously in order to impose one’s ideology is not. However imposing the threat of communism was, I don’t feel that the US’s involvement in Iran was justified. It’s one thing to outwardly and publicly oppose communism, it’s another to manipulate turbulent countries for one’s own benefit. Although I accept that, at the time of the Cold War era, the US felt that is was a necessary evil, I don’t think that in this case the ends justify the means. The communist threat was never that strong in Iran, and although it was unquestionably at risk, I think that America’s decision to fuel the dissent was more motivated by Mossadegh’s refusal to yield to the western nations than by “saving” them from communist threats. The people of Iran should not be blamed for the overthrow; they were in the midst of a very agitated political atmosphere and the US deliberately aggravated it in order to topple it over. I feel that under no circumstances, present or past, should such the dishonest tactics that Operation Ajax employed be used.
Post a Comment