3 ms·

Bush the Lesser made no decisions. He did what his handlers told him to do. Of course the same people who did in Mosaddegh and have done dozens of other coups (

Bush the Lesser made no decisions. He did what his handlers told him to do. Of course the same people who did in Mosaddegh and have done dozens of other coups (and much worse besides) wanted a less stable region. Less stable regions lead to increased spending on armaments and "black" budgets. As we're reminded by the recently-completed "Blowback" podcast [0], blowback is a feature not a bug. The machine works the same way every time, not due to a mistake or the bad luck of having bad people in control but because it is a machine that works the same way every time. [0] https://blowback.show/ https://blowback.show/

eternalban 6y ago
You are entirely off on this. (Iranian born, with picture of Mossadeqh on my wall when I was a kid.) Mossadeqh was a destabilizing actor, as a matter of fact. Also, this recent yet-again re-telling (adjusting) the story of the fabled '53 coup to "reinstall" the actual monarch of Iran is interesting. Many of us for years complained "why is the role of UK minimized and America vilified for this coup?". This was specially puzzling since it was the CIA and NYTimes that were screaming 'mea culpa'. Very strange. And we now have the adjusted matter that says, "oh yea, the Brits were 'involed'". It's funny. Even now you don't have the facts, but no excuse for lack of knowledge. You need to review Iran's political situation starting with invasion and occupation of neutral Iran by US, UK, USSR, up to the "reinstalling" of the Shah of Iran. Pay special attention to the "stable" period featuring assassination of prime ministers by "Muslim Brotherhood" (UK "orientalist" spook outfit); attempts at 'liberating' North Western Iran by USSR; attempts on the life of the reigning (not governing) monarch; etc. The counter-coup of '53 was a reaction by elements in Iranian society against other elements in Iranian society. The Western imperial interests of UK and 'cold war' interests of hegemon USA simply aligned with Nationalist Iranians who happened to be Royalists, or vehemently anti-Communist. That is all. The 'National Front' of Iran needs to get over this emotional hangup over '53 and start telling the full truth. Their churlish attitude was certainly instrumental in letting the regressive Islamists hijack Iran and the "revolution" in '79. You would think they've finally learned the lesson but alas.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Sure, Iranians in Iran were responsible for events in Iran. Just as Indonesians in Indonesia were responsible for events in Indonesia. And so on, for forty other nations. 20th-century history rhymes. There's always another fool ready to answer CIA's call. Luis Fernando Camacho is a recent example. Nationalism is overrated, but it's better than CIA-toadyism. Maybe Mossadeqh wasn't perfect? He was elected by Parliament and appointed by the Shah. He was removed from office via royal decree dictated to the Shah by CIA reptile Donald Wilber. In the aftermath his supporters were executed by General Zahedi. This is all public knowledge now. What is your beef? Should the British get more credit? OK, let's give them credit for asking Eisenhower to do the thing, after Truman had refused them. Assuming you're referring to Razmara or Mansur, it's interesting to learn that Fada'iyan-e Islam were run by UK "orientalist" spooks. I'm sure you could teach us lots of other interesting things, if you cared to do so.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    An implied point was that the current strategy of destabilization of the underbelly of Asia [1] is distinct from the post-WW2 "Atlantic Charter" [2]. US had no interest in a destablized Iran in 1953. Far from it, it was clearly understood that the highly organized Tudeh Party (literally "masses" and the Moscow sanctioned and directed (literally) Communist Party of Iran) would eat and chew out Mossadegh without much effort. Iran's military, for example, was also highly penetrated with Tudeh officers. So the issue is not Dr. Mossadegh's merits as a politician, an Iranian nationalist, or even simply a human being. The issue is the strange distortion of this "history" that very clearly not only deligitimizes the Pahlavi dynasty, but also has provided the 'background story' for the song and dance of Iran vs. USA "because America destroyed our chance at democracy" nonsense. USA was quite happy to see the Shah of Iran leave in 1979. Have no doubt about that. And we know why: Because the Trilateral Commission's plan for "arc of instability" needed to get going, and you will note that the exit stage of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran was the opening act of the next 40 years of mayham in the so-called Middle East, including by some accounts nearly a million dead Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. [1]: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1979-03-01/america-and-russia-rules-game-super-rivals-conflict-third https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1... The key words you want to research on are: Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Arc of Instability. On a funny aside note, these items used to be so much easier to dig up 20 years ago. [2]: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/atlantic-charter/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/atlanti...

eternalban 6y ago

You are entirely off on this. (Iranian born, with picture of Mossadeqh on my wall when I was a kid.) Mossadeqh was a destabilizing actor, as a matter of fact. Also, this recent yet-again re-telling (adjusting) the story of the fabled '53 coup to "reinstall" the actual monarch of Iran is interesting. Many of us for years complained "why is the role of UK minimized and America vilified for this coup?". This was specially puzzling since it was the CIA and NYTimes that were screaming 'mea culpa'. Very strange. And we now have the adjusted matter that says, "oh yea, the Brits were 'involed'". It's funny. Even now you don't have the facts, but no excuse for lack of knowledge. You need to review Iran's political situation starting with invasion and occupation of neutral Iran by US, UK, USSR, up to the "reinstalling" of the Shah of Iran. Pay special attention to the "stable" period featuring assassination of prime ministers by "Muslim Brotherhood" (UK "orientalist" spook outfit); attempts at 'liberating' North Western Iran by USSR; attempts on the life of the reigning (not governing) monarch; etc. The counter-coup of '53 was a reaction by elements in Iranian society against other elements in Iranian society. The Western imperial interests of UK and 'cold war' interests of hegemon USA simply aligned with Nationalist Iranians who happened to be Royalists, or vehemently anti-Communist. That is all. The 'National Front' of Iran needs to get over this emotional hangup over '53 and start telling the full truth. Their churlish attitude was certainly instrumental in letting the regressive Islamists hijack Iran and the "revolution" in '79. You would think they've finally learned the lesson but alas.

jessaustin 6y ago
Sure, Iranians in Iran were responsible for events in Iran. Just as Indonesians in Indonesia were responsible for events in Indonesia. And so on, for forty other nations. 20th-century history rhymes. There's always another fool ready to answer CIA's call. Luis Fernando Camacho is a recent example. Nationalism is overrated, but it's better than CIA-toadyism. Maybe Mossadeqh wasn't perfect? He was elected by Parliament and appointed by the Shah. He was removed from office via royal decree dictated to the Shah by CIA reptile Donald Wilber. In the aftermath his supporters were executed by General Zahedi. This is all public knowledge now. What is your beef? Should the British get more credit? OK, let's give them credit for asking Eisenhower to do the thing, after Truman had refused them. Assuming you're referring to Razmara or Mansur, it's interesting to learn that Fada'iyan-e Islam were run by UK "orientalist" spooks. I'm sure you could teach us lots of other interesting things, if you cared to do so.
- eternalban 6y ago
  An implied point was that the current strategy of destabilization of the underbelly of Asia [1] is distinct from the post-WW2 "Atlantic Charter" [2]. US had no interest in a destablized Iran in 1953. Far from it, it was clearly understood that the highly organized Tudeh Party (literally "masses" and the Moscow sanctioned and directed (literally) Communist Party of Iran) would eat and chew out Mossadegh without much effort. Iran's military, for example, was also highly penetrated with Tudeh officers. So the issue is not Dr. Mossadegh's merits as a politician, an Iranian nationalist, or even simply a human being. The issue is the strange distortion of this "history" that very clearly not only deligitimizes the Pahlavi dynasty, but also has provided the 'background story' for the song and dance of Iran vs. USA "because America destroyed our chance at democracy" nonsense. USA was quite happy to see the Shah of Iran leave in 1979. Have no doubt about that. And we know why: Because the Trilateral Commission's plan for "arc of instability" needed to get going, and you will note that the exit stage of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran was the opening act of the next 40 years of mayham in the so-called Middle East, including by some accounts nearly a million dead Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. [1]: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1979-03-01/america-and-russia-rules-game-super-rivals-conflict-third https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1... The key words you want to research on are: Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Arc of Instability. On a funny aside note, these items used to be so much easier to dig up 20 years ago. [2]: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/atlantic-charter/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/atlanti...