5 ms·

Iran was THE ally of the United States until the Revolution. We didn't trust the Israelis, who made it very clear they were in it for themselves, the Saudis in

by hguant 10y ago

Iran was THE ally of the United States until the Revolution. We didn't trust the Israelis, who made it very clear they were in it for themselves, the Saudis in the 60's and 70's were not very amenable to US interests - Iran was a stable, regional power with a westernized populace and enough power to counterbalance Soviet influence and Middle Eastern stubbornness. They were such an important ally that when they elected a moderately socialist president who didn't want to play the Cold War game, the US and UK freaked out and installed a monarch.

tamana 10y ago
So, Iran was more trustworthy, even though the US felt it necessary to depose their leader? How does that make sense?
- banku_brougham 10y ago
  one of the greatest failings of the US 'intelligence' aparatus.
  - ionised 10y ago
    In a long and prolific history of failings.
- spikels 10y ago
  That was in 1953 and lead by the British, not the U.S.
  - karma_vaccum123 10y ago
    Not necessarily true. The United States was indeed involved, orchestrated in part by the grandson of a former US President. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
    - spikels 10y ago
      What part of my comment is "Not necessarily true"? Seems you did not know that the coup was lead by the British. From the Wikipedia article you linked: "Classified documents show that British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup"
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        If you're agreeing that the US was involved in the Mossedegh coup, it's only sufficient to say so. Not to insist in apparent contradiction of that fact that the effort was led by what Noam Chomsky calls the junior partner in the Middle East, Britain. Yes, Britain precipitated the effort. The US, however, enabled its success.
        spikels 10y ago
        Everyone already "knows" the US was "involved" in the 1953 coup but very little more. Britain was not the junior partner - as you say Chomsky thinks - but the instigator of the entire operation. Britain has been deeply involved in the Persia/Iran for hundreds of years including multiple occupations and coups. In 1921 the British installed original Shah Pahlavi, father of the Shah Pahlavi deposed in the 1979 revolution. And before Pearl Harbor brought the US into WWII the British - in cooperation with the Soviet Union! - occupied Iran. If Britian had not been weakened by WWII and terrible economic policy it is unlikely that they would have spent a year begging the US to assist them in Iran. Until this time the US had little involvement in the region. We luckily live in a time (post 2013) when you can read the CIA's own fascinating history of the event: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/ http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        I'd slightly misspoken: it's not Chomsky, but the British foreign office itself which coined the "junior partner" label, Chomsky merely notes the fact: "Well, the US took over from Britain in the Middle East and, in fact, much of the world, after the Second World War. In fact actually, replaced Britain and France. France was summarily expelled— they weren’t given the time of day. Britain however, was given a role. It was given the role of “junior partner”, as the British foreign office rather ruefully described it, accurately. Britain was going to be our lieutenant— the fashionable word is “partner”— as they were described by a senior adviser in the Kennedy administration. That’s reasonably accurate— you’re seeing an example of it right now. The lieutenant is doing its job— the attack-dog, maybe." https://chomsky.info/19990404/ https://chomsky.info/19990404/ "U.S. Middle East Policy", Noam Chomsky (1999). Your CIA reference supports my and others' in this thread essential claim: "Recently, the CIA has declassified a number of records relating to the 1953 coup, including a version of an internal history that specifically states the agency planned and helped implement the coup." The matter of the British instigating the action isn't in question, and hasn't been questioned. The relative roles of the US and British -- applied, again, to the middle east as a whole, by the British foreign office itself, is. You have been profoundly insensitive to this distinction. I do appreciate the CIA document reference. You seem to think you're arguing with me over something. Unfortunately, half of what you're arguing is over things I didn't say or misreadings of things I did say. The other half is over points of agreement. Both are tiresome. I doubt this conversation will progress, so will leave this as my final comment.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Lead by the Brits, yes, but the US were in deep. Rather too deep as it turned out. Damnit, Kermit! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpm_8v80hw&t=4m38s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpm_8v80hw&t=4m38s
Chathamization 10y ago
That's not accurate. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah in 1941, after his father was forced to abdicate by the British and Russians. The CIA certainly worked with the Shah to remove Mosaddegh from power (in 1953), but this didn't happen right after he became prime minister (he wasn't elected per se, but appointed by the Shah and approved by the legislature). Rather, this came about after a long and complex political struggle (both internal and external), the end of which saw Mosaddegh dissolving the legislature and gaining emergency powers including the power to personally create laws by fiat.
eternalban 10y ago
> The US and UK freaked out and installed a monarch. This propaganda story of the West needs to die. (They never forgave the Shah for being critical of them in the 70s and to this date their media lists this poor man as one of the "worst tyrants of 20th century". Same century that gave us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, PolPot, .... The man was a saint compared to most world leaders, then and now.) No one installed a monarch in Iran. The late Shah of Iran, who very much cared for Iran, was indeed permitted to succeed his father, Reza Shah ("the great"), by the occupying Alied powers (who had invaded the neutral Iran). This 'transition' to nominal power 'permitted' by external powers that occupied the entirety of Iran is a fact of Iranian history. (In fact, before accepting CIA/NYTimes account of '53 and the Shah of Iran, you may want to read up on the history of Iran from 1850 to 1950.) From that date, until the counter-coup of 1953 in which US and UK participated alongside quite a substantial subset of Iranian society, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi stayed well within the limits of Iranian constitution's limits on royal power. One noteworthy aspect of being the Shah of Iran under the constitutional regime was the ability to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister. Dr. Mossadegh, a member of the Majlis (people's assembly) was indeed put forward by that body as the Prime Minister and the Shah did formally appoint him. After the good Dr. managed to alienate most of his internal allies -- the Mullahs and the Communist Party of Iran -- he assumed dictatorial powers. He even ran an election with "99%" yes vote for his assuming such powers. That is the famous "election" the propaganda organs of the West keep mentioning. The Shah dismissed the Dr. from his office. The Dr. refused to accept this, contrary to the constitution of Iran. The Shah feared for his life, and fled. And meanwhile back in Iran, elements of Iranian military, landed gentry, Mullahs, etc. who no longer supported the (dismissed) Prime Minister organized a counter coup. So, New York Times notwithstanding, little Kermit Roosevelt did not all by his lonesome and a suitcase full of dollar bills create a coup to "install" the legal, standing, Shah of Iran. What happend to the Shah after '53, was that he had decided to push for stability in Iran and began to overstep the constitutional limits. It was during this period that Iran went from helpless victim of the insatiable greed of the British and ambitions of the Russians to a healthy state. It was only then that Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi accepted coronation. And the apparently alarming development of Iran actually got to the point that Iran began to loom as a strategic threat to Western hegemony in the Persian Gulf, having taken over the security role of British in the Persian Gulf with America's blessing and material support; establishing OPEC as a power player; and having publicly announced in '73 that "in 1979" when the oil contracts forced on a bankrupt Iran in '53 reached their term, that Iran would no longer accede to the aggregious demands of the Western Oil Cartel (the famous "seven sisters"). Surprisingly enough, it was precisely in 1979 that "revolution" broke out in Iran and BBC Persian service kindly began announcing the Ayatollah's messages and demonstration schedule. (Fact.) No one installed our King. Good and bad, warts and all, he was OUR King, our Shahanshah, and we Iranians accept full responsibility for the matter.

by hguant 10y ago

tamana 10y ago

So, Iran was more trustworthy, even though the US felt it necessary to depose their leader? How does that make sense?

banku_brougham 10y ago
one of the greatest failings of the US 'intelligence' aparatus.
- ionised 10y ago
  In a long and prolific history of failings.
spikels 10y ago
That was in 1953 and lead by the British, not the U.S.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Not necessarily true. The United States was indeed involved, orchestrated in part by the grandson of a former US President. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
  - spikels 10y ago
    What part of my comment is "Not necessarily true"? Seems you did not know that the coup was lead by the British. From the Wikipedia article you linked: "Classified documents show that British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup"
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      If you're agreeing that the US was involved in the Mossedegh coup, it's only sufficient to say so. Not to insist in apparent contradiction of that fact that the effort was led by what Noam Chomsky calls the junior partner in the Middle East, Britain. Yes, Britain precipitated the effort. The US, however, enabled its success.
      - spikels 10y ago
        Everyone already "knows" the US was "involved" in the 1953 coup but very little more. Britain was not the junior partner - as you say Chomsky thinks - but the instigator of the entire operation. Britain has been deeply involved in the Persia/Iran for hundreds of years including multiple occupations and coups. In 1921 the British installed original Shah Pahlavi, father of the Shah Pahlavi deposed in the 1979 revolution. And before Pearl Harbor brought the US into WWII the British - in cooperation with the Soviet Union! - occupied Iran. If Britian had not been weakened by WWII and terrible economic policy it is unlikely that they would have spent a year begging the US to assist them in Iran. Until this time the US had little involvement in the region. We luckily live in a time (post 2013) when you can read the CIA's own fascinating history of the event: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/ http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        I'd slightly misspoken: it's not Chomsky, but the British foreign office itself which coined the "junior partner" label, Chomsky merely notes the fact: "Well, the US took over from Britain in the Middle East and, in fact, much of the world, after the Second World War. In fact actually, replaced Britain and France. France was summarily expelled— they weren’t given the time of day. Britain however, was given a role. It was given the role of “junior partner”, as the British foreign office rather ruefully described it, accurately. Britain was going to be our lieutenant— the fashionable word is “partner”— as they were described by a senior adviser in the Kennedy administration. That’s reasonably accurate— you’re seeing an example of it right now. The lieutenant is doing its job— the attack-dog, maybe." https://chomsky.info/19990404/ https://chomsky.info/19990404/ "U.S. Middle East Policy", Noam Chomsky (1999). Your CIA reference supports my and others' in this thread essential claim: "Recently, the CIA has declassified a number of records relating to the 1953 coup, including a version of an internal history that specifically states the agency planned and helped implement the coup." The matter of the British instigating the action isn't in question, and hasn't been questioned. The relative roles of the US and British -- applied, again, to the middle east as a whole, by the British foreign office itself, is. You have been profoundly insensitive to this distinction. I do appreciate the CIA document reference. You seem to think you're arguing with me over something. Unfortunately, half of what you're arguing is over things I didn't say or misreadings of things I did say. The other half is over points of agreement. Both are tiresome. I doubt this conversation will progress, so will leave this as my final comment.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Lead by the Brits, yes, but the US were in deep. Rather too deep as it turned out. Damnit, Kermit! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpm_8v80hw&t=4m38s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpm_8v80hw&t=4m38s

Chathamization 10y ago

That's not accurate. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah in 1941, after his father was forced to abdicate by the British and Russians. The CIA certainly worked with the Shah to remove Mosaddegh from power (in 1953), but this didn't happen right after he became prime minister (he wasn't elected per se, but appointed by the Shah and approved by the legislature). Rather, this came about after a long and complex political struggle (both internal and external), the end of which saw Mosaddegh dissolving the legislature and gaining emergency powers including the power to personally create laws by fiat.

eternalban 10y ago

> The US and UK freaked out and installed a monarch. This propaganda story of the West needs to die. (They never forgave the Shah for being critical of them in the 70s and to this date their media lists this poor man as one of the "worst tyrants of 20th century". Same century that gave us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, PolPot, .... The man was a saint compared to most world leaders, then and now.) No one installed a monarch in Iran. The late Shah of Iran, who very much cared for Iran, was indeed permitted to succeed his father, Reza Shah ("the great"), by the occupying Alied powers (who had invaded the neutral Iran). This 'transition' to nominal power 'permitted' by external powers that occupied the entirety of Iran is a fact of Iranian history. (In fact, before accepting CIA/NYTimes account of '53 and the Shah of Iran, you may want to read up on the history of Iran from 1850 to 1950.) From that date, until the counter-coup of 1953 in which US and UK participated alongside quite a substantial subset of Iranian society, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi stayed well within the limits of Iranian constitution's limits on royal power. One noteworthy aspect of being the Shah of Iran under the constitutional regime was the ability to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister. Dr. Mossadegh, a member of the Majlis (people's assembly) was indeed put forward by that body as the Prime Minister and the Shah did formally appoint him. After the good Dr. managed to alienate most of his internal allies -- the Mullahs and the Communist Party of Iran -- he assumed dictatorial powers. He even ran an election with "99%" yes vote for his assuming such powers. That is the famous "election" the propaganda organs of the West keep mentioning. The Shah dismissed the Dr. from his office. The Dr. refused to accept this, contrary to the constitution of Iran. The Shah feared for his life, and fled. And meanwhile back in Iran, elements of Iranian military, landed gentry, Mullahs, etc. who no longer supported the (dismissed) Prime Minister organized a counter coup. So, New York Times notwithstanding, little Kermit Roosevelt did not all by his lonesome and a suitcase full of dollar bills create a coup to "install" the legal, standing, Shah of Iran. What happend to the Shah after '53, was that he had decided to push for stability in Iran and began to overstep the constitutional limits. It was during this period that Iran went from helpless victim of the insatiable greed of the British and ambitions of the Russians to a healthy state. It was only then that Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi accepted coronation. And the apparently alarming development of Iran actually got to the point that Iran began to loom as a strategic threat to Western hegemony in the Persian Gulf, having taken over the security role of British in the Persian Gulf with America's blessing and material support; establishing OPEC as a power player; and having publicly announced in '73 that "in 1979" when the oil contracts forced on a bankrupt Iran in '53 reached their term, that Iran would no longer accede to the aggregious demands of the Western Oil Cartel (the famous "seven sisters"). Surprisingly enough, it was precisely in 1979 that "revolution" broke out in Iran and BBC Persian service kindly began announcing the Ayatollah's messages and demonstration schedule. (Fact.) No one installed our King. Good and bad, warts and all, he was OUR King, our Shahanshah, and we Iranians accept full responsibility for the matter.