Iran Coup of 56 becomes National News

freivolk

As far I know, it was already public knowledge at this time. It was no secret. I think it was even something the CIA was boastig with. "Hey, see, we saved Iran from the commies. We are cool!" The same with Guatemala.
 

MerryPrankster

I remember seeing a TIME magazine cover and article from that time depicting Mossadegh as a charismatic but not totally sane figure, so let's say he wasn't especially popular in the U.S. at the time.
 

Killer300

I know, I'm talking about it at the time.

The reason it matters now is that I don't think the GOP could claim Muslims are generically evil as much if that coup was public knowledge.
 

MerryPrankster

Killer300 said:
The reason it matters now is that I don't think the GOP could claim Muslims are generically evil as much if that coup was public knowledge.
Click to expand...

So this is another one of your ideological axe-grinding threads?

Not that I can complain--I started a thread that was "WI the revisionist theory of the Cold War didn't exist."
 

informationfan

Banned
MerryPrankster said:
I don't think anyone here is defending it NOW and it was not the present-day United States that did this.
Click to expand...


the problem is, the pattern of US-behaviour hasn´t changed a lot in the last 50 years...

you remember the wmd´s of saddam hussein? that is nearly the same as bringing down the rightly government of iran, supporting the military in chile or the mess the american government did in central america.

ask yourself how serious any other nations government take american foreign politics and how serious crippled us international behaviour is since the lies of new york (about Husseins WMDs and the followin iraq war)

sure, the world will forget about it - the question is, what will come next? how could this lie damage the chance to stop the iran to get the bomb?
international "USA" is a synonym for "liar". That is a problem for western community and help the chinese a lot... and chinese domination is nothing i welcome,.
 

Blackfox5

I don't think US involvement with the coup was exactly secret. Nor was the Shah as reviled in 1960 as he would be in 1977-1979.

The US only moved against Mossadegh after it came to the conclusion that he might not have been entirely stable and was not interested in coming to a compromise with the British (even one highly favorable to Iran). Instead, Mossadegh seemed to like escalating the crisis and making it worse.

Furthermore, despite Mossadegh's reputation nowadays, his democratic credentials are actually quite slim. Mossadegh did not build up Iranian democratic institutions. Instead, he amassed personal power into his own hands. By the time of the coup, he was ruling by decree without regard to parliament in the same way that the democratically elected Adolf Hitler and Hug Chavez were ruling.

The United States moved to remove Mossadegh not because it wanted to destroy democracy in Iran, but because it thought Mossadegh was purposefully destabilizing the country and region.

The US was initially very pro-Iran and pro-Mossadegh, but every time American officials met with him they came back with very negative reports about the man.

This does not make the US actions right. But it does mean the situation is a lot more complicated than what people think of when they hear that the US overthrew Mossadegh (which basically involved telling the anti-Mossadegh faction that we would support a coup, and here is lots of money to spend about bribing people and renting mobs).

I imagine in 1960, not much is going to be made out of it. It might give JFK a reason not to use the CIA or approve of other coups against US friends at the time (which would change a lot of his presidency). It might also prompt the US to make democratic and economic reforms a priority in its relatioship with Iran, moving the White Revolution earlier and maybe giving the Iranian middle class more say in the Majlis. Don't know if that would really change things in terms of Iran's internal politics.
 

MerryPrankster

informationfan said:
the problem is, the pattern of US-behaviour hasn´t changed a lot in the last 50 years...

you remember the wmd´s of saddam hussein? that is nearly the same as bringing down the rightly government of iran, supporting the military in chile or the mess the american government did in central america.
Click to expand...

There's a moral difference between deposing a wicked tyrant and attempting to install a democracy using a pretext and overthrowing a democratic government and imposing a dictator.
 

MerryPrankster

And even Bill Blum admits Mossadegh fired on protestors and the like in the later stages of his regime.

And his description of Operation Ajax sounded comical--at one point it involved hiring members of the Tehran weight-lifting club as proxies.

(Of course, not so funny when you realize their purpose was probably thuggery, but one rarely thinks of sports teams being used to overthrow a government.)
 

freivolk

Blackfox5 said:
II imagine in 1960, not much is going to be made out of it. It might give JFK a reason not to use the CIA or approve of other coups against US friends at the time (which would change a lot of his presidency). .
Click to expand...

Wasn´t JFK and especialy Bobby not obssed with all that "James Bond"-Stuff? Wouldn´t encourage it them to use the CIA even more?
 

MerryPrankster

Wolfpaw said:
Then you haven't read enough post-Soviet Russian history.
Click to expand...

The book "McMafia" describes how the wrestling and weightlifting teams ended up being employed as enforcers by the mafias, at least in Bulgaria.

My point was the notion of a government being threatened by a sports team sounded comical, although once you think about it, it really isn't.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
MerryPrankster said:
The book "McMafia" describes how the wrestling and weightlifting teams ended up being employed as enforcers by the mafias, at least in Bulgaria.
Click to expand...
McMafia is good. I'd also recommend Volkov's Violent Entrepreneurs; it is the book on the Russian mafiya. The athletic teams in the post-Soviet Union were similar to the ones in Bulgaria, only oftentimes better armed, more powerful, and more psychotic/nihilistic. And bursting with prisoners fresh-out the old Soviet prisons.
MerryPrankster said:
My point was the notion of a government being threatened by a sports team sounded comical, although once you think about it, it really isn't.
Click to expand...
Quite right.
 

informationfan

Banned
MerryPrankster said:
There's a moral difference between deposing a wicked tyrant and attempting to install a democracy using a pretext and overthrowing a democratic government and imposing a dictator.
Click to expand...


well - yes and no

from a morale pov i agree - destroying a dictatorship is allways good.
But - why had the usa all the time from 1880 til today support so many brutal dictatorships (if it suited them) but fight democratic nations (like chile) if not?

i am no fan of saddam hussein, but it is a fact that the us government lied to the world, cheated and createt false facts. So the usa attacked an "innocent" nation for personell things (most accepted is, that Bush junior wanted to beat Hussein for his try to kill his father and also, because of the chance to get the oil under control)

This created a situation nobody belive the usa anymore... maybe ultra-die-hard-rightwinger us people belive something the us government tells in international things, but the rest of the world just think "the liars"...
this could be irrelevant, but sadly the chinese expand, a nation that lack any democratic or human sense... (from a european pov).. so the stupidity and the moral downfall of the american governemnt elliminated the us influence in world politics... that is a problem, but also (again from a non-us-pov) good... cause to long the usa dominated the world and tried to play a game that costed the others more as they gained.

it isn´t forgotten that the hypris of us economy caused the 2008 crisis
also, if you look to the us economy, it don´t look good. the crash will come, maybe in 3 years, or 10 or 15, but the signs are on the wall.

China - and with some delay india will take over....

the iran was like chile just another "sozialist"-nation the american industry decided to take over... like so many other nations in central america.

So - the interest of iran to get the nukes - as evil and wrong it is - is logical and "right", cause if the usa ignore international laws why should the iranians care?
 

Ak-84

Banned
Do you really think anyone in the United States cared what happened in Iran. Or to put it more bluntly; what happened to a bunch of brown people; in a country from where few Americans traced their decent?
 

NoxAeternum

MerryPrankster said:
I remember seeing a TIME magazine cover and article from that time depicting Mossadegh as a charismatic but not totally sane figure, so let's say he wasn't especially popular in the U.S. at the time.
Click to expand...
Mainly due to the shadow war the Dulles brothers were running. A similar dynamic was used against Allende.

As for the question posited by the OP, it would depend on how it came out. The biggest things are that it would damage the Eisenhower Presidency to some degree, and in turn damage Nixon's run against Kennedy, making the popular vote wide enough that it is clear Nixon lost; and that it could cause a proto-Church Commission in the early 60s.
 

Killer300

It came out through something like the Pentagon Papers. As controversially(in a way good for the journalist and bad for the state) as possible.
 

Blackadder mk 2

NoxAeternum said:
Mainly due to the shadow war the Dulles brothers were running. A similar dynamic was used against Allende.

As for the question posited by the OP, it would depend on how it came out. The biggest things are that it would damage the Eisenhower Presidency to some degree, and in turn damage Nixon's run against Kennedy, making the popular vote wide enough that it is clear Nixon lost; and that it could cause a proto-Church Commission in the early 60s.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Kennedy's campaign stating that Eisenhower was a do-nothing who was letting the Communists win the Cold War?

If it was discovered that Eisenhower had helped take down an unfriendly government then if anything then it might help Nixon more.
 

Killer300

Or Kennedy will run differently to rub it in the face of the GOP, it could go either way, assuming Kennedy even runs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top