https://www.primescholars.com/articles/the-domino-effect-of-operation-ajax-92629.html
The Domino Effect of Operation Ajax

The US simply wanted a strong reliable ally with a pro-western government willing to do its bidding. Something that could explain why American administration had been overzealously selling arms to the Shah. However, nothing turned out the way anyone had hoped and Tehran to this day continues to use the 1953 coup d’état as justification for its fraught relationship with the West. Under the Obama administration, American policymakers embarked on a path to achieve better relationship with Iran as part of a broader policy of rapprochement the Muslim World. In his “New Beginning” speech in Cairo, President Obama acknowledged the role that America had played in the 1953 coup and directly addressing the Iranians youth promised to not intervene in Iran’s internal affairs and provided assurances that his government had neither intention nor any desire to make any decisions for the Iranians. Similarly, Obama’s CIA director John Brennan once wrote: “The next president has the opportunity to set a new course for relations between the two countries through (1) toning down rhetoric, (2) establishing dialogue, and (3) greater assimilation of [Iran’s proxy] Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system.” Brennan [1]. That approach by President Obama was a stark departure from the stated policy of previous American administrations, and viewed by many as a vain and naive attempt by a young overoptimistic President to repair decades of tensions and bad blood that have only seem to worsen throughout generations. Many were left wondering if Americans were ready to forgive the numerous deadly mass attacks Iranians have carried out against American troops and the storming of the US embassy by militant followers of Khomeini in November 1979. Former President Georges W. Bush once included Iran in the axis of evil (along with Iraq and North Korea). Considering all of this, it is very difficult to fathom that once upon a time, in this here galaxy, Washington and Tehran were once very close allies. All of that seems to have changed after the Revolution.

now whenever I hear the phrase.

"Bankrolled by rising oil prices, and renegotiation of more lucrative terms with the western companies extracting Iranian oil, the shah went on outlandish arms shopping sprees, becoming the single largest purchaser of some of the most sophisticated American-made weapons."

Mossaddegh was overthrown by English and US contrivance.

About the only thing missing is that the then current Shah's father had been deposed over increasing partiality to Axis powers, shortly after the 'Golden Square' coup in Iraq early in 1941, which solicited and received military assistance from both Germany and Italy. England and the USSR invaded Iran that summer, and getting the Soviets out in the years just after WWII was a delicate business.

The Shah's regime was a modernizing one; the clerics who gained control with his overthrow rolled most of this back. Unsavory as the Shah was in his attempts to maintain control, it is hard to argue his overthrow improved the lot of the people of Iran, certainly not for its women. Free-thinking intellectuals fared no better under the clerics than under the Shah in his latter days. A lot turns on whether one feels a 'success' notched up against the United States is, by definition, an advance and liberation for someone....

"It's actually not," from BannonsLiver.

You agree that a democratically leader was overthrown by the British and US in 1953, after waiting a decades to run for office, the US and British removed him from power and installed someone friendly to our "oil" interests? The clerics who gained control were a result of putting the Shah back into power instead of Mossadegh, the elected leader by the people. The oil money went to buy arms from the US, almost 70%, the common folk saw this and who came to the rescue ... a religious group.

You said the Shah's regime was modernizing, I'm guessing for those in the upper echelon of the country, but most citizens were living a different life.

I'm not speaking to the Shah's overthrow, I'm speaking to Mossadegh and his overthrow in the 1950's by the British and US and the subsequent consequences. We all are aware of of the hostage situation in '79.

But why did the clerics gain control? Who fills the vacuum when the majority of people feel left out, that is why Trump gained control, he spoke and lied to the people and then cloaks that with the religious right.

There is a parallel happening here and what has happened in other countries, and yes unfortunately with our help sometimes.

Who ultimately suffers, the poor, groups on fringe and then some group comes along, sometimes religious, and gives you a loaf of bread to survive another day.

We've witnessed this in several countries over many decades, the difference is, it is now happening here, and yes we are complicit in what is happening in the ME.

We need to look at what has happened in recent history and how that plays a role in our society today.

He then returned to Iran after the Shah left and got all sorts of international attention and the other revolutionaries were cast aside.

But what on earth does this have to do with Trump??????

He won in 2016.
Are you saying another country came in an overthrew another elected US president????
It's not making any sense to me.

Hilary didn't win for numerous reasons, but we didn't exile Obama to a foreign country. We had an election. She unfortunately did not win. There was not a void in government. We had a president, but he was term limited.

in the form of editorializing 'social movements', the poor, Trump, etc.

Everything was rubber stamped. The Shah appeared to have unlimited funds from the US.

I don't know if the other administrations did this or if it was just unique to Nixon. It was in a documentary. It may just be that the Shah's relationship with Nixon was more well documented than with Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter.

I feel the Shah getting unlimited funds by the US really worked against the people of Iran. He had a huge coronation, which offended many Iranians. The coronation was held in 1967, so the US President was Johnson.

Instability also make countries more vulnerable to crazy leaders. I see lots of back and forth (whiplash) in many emerging nations.

"actually it's not" referred to the balance of the post they responded to - not the assertion of 'coup'.

Mr. Mossadegh faced a good deal of internal opposition. Reigning in a monarch is always opposed by the Crown's adherents, getting land into the hands of tenants is always opposed by their patrons, evidences of Western styles and entertainments in big cities is always opposed by fundamentalist clergy. With the military loyal to the monarchy, and a rising clique of fundamentalist assassins devoted to killing leading intellectuals and government officials as blasphemers and apostates, all the ingredients for a wholly domestic coup against Mr. Mossadegh were present, and likely to ignite soon in any case. The coup contrived by London and Washington, poor policy as it was, could not have been brought off successfully otherwise.

The eventual triumph of the clerics had little to do with Mr. Mossadegh's overthrow. The most radical of them applauded the Shah's restoration: being hostile to both democratic rule and modern ways, they were at least pleased to have half the loaf. Their agitation for the other half, Sharia becoming the governing law of the land, bought them severe repression. In this, the Shah simply continued Mr. Mossadegh's policy towards the fanatic clergy: he just did it to greater effect.

The fundamentalist clergy raising revolution against the Shah did not offer people bread, but spectacular mass murders aimed at 'corruptions' such as movie theaters and liquor stores, railed against women having the right to vote, and at least openly declared their intent of taking power into their own hands in the name of safe-guarding religion, and protecting the people from immodesty. This was much more popular in the countryside than the cities, a pattern which shows up often, and can be observed in our own country today.

It is fairly hard to argue, looking back from the present day, that the reign of the Shah was some period of great woe in Iran. It is also not immediately apparent that the course of events would have been much different had Mr. Mossadegh maintained himself in power. The power which overthrew the Shah opposed them both, and there is little reason to think Iran's economic development under the Shah would have been exceeded, or have much different shape, had Mr. Mossadegh maintained himself in power. His overthrow was not the great inflection point legend has made it.

He is not on the rise, in fact, recent polls having losing by six points to Biden, and by sixteen points among women.

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKshackley.htm

The Iranians once again began taking American hostages in exchange for arms shipments. On 16th March, 1984, William Francis Buckley, a diplomat attached to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was kidnapped by the Hezbollah, a fundamentalist Shiite group with strong links to the Khomeini regime. Buckley was tortured and it was soon discovered that he was the CIA station chief in Beirut.

Shackley was horrified when he discovered that Buckley had been captured. Buckley was a member of Shackley’s Secret Team that had been involved with Edwin Wilson, Thomas Clines, Carl E. Jenkins, Raphael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez and Luis Posada, in the CIA “assassination” program.

Buckley had also worked closely with William Casey (now the director of the CIA) in the secret negotiations with the Iranians in 1980. Buckley had a lot to tell the Iranians. He eventually signed a 400 page statement detailing his activities in the CIA. He was also videotaped making this confession. Casey asked Shackley for help in obtaining Buckley’s freedom.

It was Buckley who gave Iran the details on American involvement in Iran during the '50s. A lot of dark history there.

Sometimes fact come out much later ... and then we wonder why what is going on.

Thanks for the link!

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/

Those phase maps provide a nice perspective on the unfolding of events. Lot of really good info!

Talks about the history of oil in the middle East, including the English in Basra at the start of WW I. Fascinating stuff. Also touches on the 1953 coup and more recent history.



[link:https://m.

|

Best regards,
Sorghum Crow

working as a credit manager in the early 80's for an electrical distributor we were shipping tons of electrical equipment to various cities in Iraq.

Different times, a little more naive back then.

“It’s Always About Oil”: CIA & MI6 Staged Coup in Iran 70 Years Ago, Destroying Democracy in Iran

AUGUST 23, 2023

We look at the 70th anniversary of the August 19, 1953, U.S.- and U.K-backed coup in Iran, which took place two years after Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry that had been controlled by the company now known as British Petroleum. “If nationalization in Iran of oil was successful, this would set a terrible example to other countries where U.S. oil interests were present,” explains Ervand Abrahamian, Iranian historian and author of Oil Crisis in Iran: From Nationalism to Coup d’Etat and The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations. While the CIA has historically taken credit for Mosaddegh’s overthrow, “the British have not admitted their leading role,” notes Iranian filmmaker Taghi Amirani, whose documentary film Coup 53 uncovers the influence of MI6 agents who sought to preserve their imperial-era access to Iranian oil and pulled in the Americans by promising a “slice.”...more
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/8/23/ervand_abrahamian_iran_coup_1953_anniversary

Recall that every night Ted Koppel would host a half an hour about the "Hostage Crisis" - but the full history was never told because the CIA didn't officially acknowledge the coup until 2013.

Liars, Cheats and Thieves

thanks for the link.

I'm afraid that we were allowed to inflict harm on other marginalized citizens and we turned a blind eye. It is now being inflicted on people in our country and many are still blind and do not see the comparison.

Unfortunately it is not until we become affected that we become concerned

It was not until decades later that the truth was told what was taken away from the people of Iran. As we are finding out now in our country, freedom Is easily lost and hard to regain. Thank you!

If one waits for the guilty party to admit it, sure it takes longer.

But paying attention helps too.

Rec

western influence. At least not as I read it.

In any event, I believe the answer is made self evident here:

That would seem to clear enough for most.

For instance, after Pinochet left power, Chile has done quite well.

I certainly don't support coups...., but I believe the coup is only part of the picture....It wasn't the only cause of the Islamic Revolution.

During the hostage situation, there was a plan to overthrow the Shah with a moderate government, but it all went wrong when Khomeini showed up from France.

It is now considered a full democracy.

In September 2006, President Ricardo Lagos signed into law several constitutional amendments passed by Congress. These include eliminating the positions of appointed senators and senators for life, granting the President authority to remove the commanders-in-chief of the armed forces, and reducing the presidential term from six to four years while also disabling immediate re-election.

Sorry if I made it sound like it wasn't a disaster and I certainly didn't support a coup, but after he was gone, it didn't stay a military dictatorship and it is now a full democracy.

In Iran's case, during the 1979 revolution, they had plans for a secular govt., but it fell apart. It would have been much better if that secular govt would have been materialized.

https://1997-2001.state.gov/statements/2000/000317.html

In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.

If I find it, I'll post it here.