Sixty Years Ago
BBC reports that CIA documents acknowledge its role in Iran’s 1953 coup:
The CIA has released documents which for the first time formally acknowledge its key role in the 1953 coup which ousted Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadeq.
That monument to US arrogance was conceived by Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, and executed by his brother, Allen Dulles, who was the Director of the CIA. Naturally they sucked the UK into their insanity.
The Dulles Duo had no regard for democracy or national sovereignty when it came to their crusade against the ‘godless terrorists of Communism’. [Well, and control of oil, of course :twisted:]
The CIA has issued blanket denials of any involvement in the Iranian coup for 60 years, but we are supposed to believe them about an Iranian nuclear weapons program … yeah, right.
And people who wonder why other countries hate the US should look at what the Dulles brothers got up to during the Eisenhower administration [1953-1961].
14 comments
My understanding was that the British basically suckered the Dulles brothers into doing their dirty work for them. Mossadeq had nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which became your favorite company, BP) and the British wanted it back, that was a lot of money that had suddenly just vaporized out of their pockets. So they leaked rumors of Mossadeq conspiring with Communists yada yada yada, and the Dulles brothers, who saw a communist in every pot, bit the bait. And sure enough, BP got 40% of the oil once the Shah came to power, though Chevron, Mobil, Exxon, and Texaco got a chunk as their reward, as well as the French and Dutch getting their own share of the oil as their reward for giving diplomatic cover.
So the Dulles brothers were a) venal, b) easy to snow, and c) in the pocket of Big Oil. Which is different from modern-day administration officials… how?
* Note — I use the modern name for most of the oil companies above, not the historic name as of 1954. Just for the pedantic out there.
From the point of view of the Dulles brothers, nationalization of anything was Communism, so they would have gotten around to Iran. They were also suspicious of Israel for the same reason – the kibbutz was Communism [and WASP antisemitism, no doubt].
We have been dealing with the blow-back from what those guys did ever since.
Especially hilarious was when the Brits told the Americans that the Soviets were conspiring with the Iranians for full basing rights that would give them their long-wanted warm water port… and the Americans bought it! Of course it was ridiculous, the Soviets had occupied the northern part of Iraq during WW2 and hung around for a while afterwards and due to the brutality of their occupation and support for terrorist separatists were about as welcome in Iran as they later were in Afghanistan, Mossadeq would have had little luck getting a law passed in the Iranian parliament giving the Soviets access to a warm water port… but (shrug). People believe what they want to believe, I guess.
The Persians and Russians haven’t been friendly since they first established a common border after the Horde moved out. Things got a bit intense in the 19th century with the Great Game between Russia and British India. The Persians are a people apart in history, language, religion, etc. and tend to like it that way.
The US and UK had a problem because they decided to ‘protect’ Iran during World War II, but no Persian leader would have seriously considered making any deals with the Soviets.
Iran doesn’t like involvements outside of its borders. They are really isolationists which makes their prominence in world affairs rather odd. If you leave them alone, you won’t know they are there. Even under the Shah there was no great support for anti-Soviet activities, although the US was pushing for them. Iran tends to shun enemies, not attack them.
OTOH, no one ever seriously accused the CIA of knowing anything about other countries 😈
Ummm…. Let’s see, Iran. Now why in the World would the USA be interested in Iran? 😉
Could it be… oil? (with 10% of the Worlds oil supply (about 93 billion barrels), and en estimated 70 years before it’s exhausted’?Nahhh… The USA wouldn’t be at all interested in that surely! 😈
How about, Natural Gas? It only has about 21 trillion cubic meters which is about 360 years worth at the current consumption rate.
Hmmm… No. How about the other resources it has in abundance (and which Iraq doesn’t, making Iraq a very poor second) Iran has one of the world’s largest reserves of copper, it also has an abundance of bauxite, coal, iron ore, lead, and zinc as well as some valuable deposits of chromite, gold, manganese, silver, tin, and tungsten! Oh, and not to mention some relatively large deposits of various gemstones, such as amber, agate, lapis lazuli, and turquoise.
But apart from all that abundance (which of course the USU would never consider as a reason to invade a country like Iran on some trumped-up pretext), Iran is unique in the Mid East because over one-third of it’s land is arable and mostly untouched (around 550,000 sq km). This is partly because it has one other rare ME resource, fresh water. Also, some 5% of Iran’s land is forest, mainly in the Elburz & Zagros mountain regions.
But of course… the USA”(or Israel which has almost no real natural resources) wouldn’t want any of that, right? 😉 😈
PS. All that’s in the CIA World Fact Book. 😆 (Which of course no senior staff would ever consider looking at.) 😉
Iran is really quite a rich country. It could even make Saudi Arabia come a close second in terms of total wealth. But as you say Bryan, Iran has never really been interested in the affairs outside it’s borders unless. But that can change. 🙂
One curios, but little known (by most outside of Iran) fact is that the locals have known the country as ‘Iran’ for about 2,000 years, it was derived from the Aryan tribes that settled there a long time ago. Iran was part (the center in fact) of the Persian Empire, but the locals called it Iran. It was the USA & Europeans that called it Persia (thanks to the Greeks actually, who named it after Pars (known as Fars today)), until the then ruler of Iran demanded in 1935 that the country be called by it’s proper name, Iran. 🙂 It didn’t *change* it’s name as most Americans (who know anything about anything anyway) thought. *shrug* 😉
Anyway, I just finished catching up on The Daily Show. Jessica Williams had me PMSL over this:
“Reporting live from “business Harlem,” Jessica Williams reveals that white-collar crime is disproportionately committed by people who fit a certain profile. (02:35) ”
Frisky Business – Jessica Williams
It was in response to a story about the NYC’s “stop-and-frisk” policy, which primarily target’s Black’s (of course!) 🙂 It was a good response and the funniest part is that she’s 100% correct! 😆
Oh! Speaking of TDS… Here, have a laugh on us (Aussies!) 😆
Our Politicians aren’t that much different to US Politicians, we just get over the whole election process a hell of a lot faster! (Otherwise if it dragged on for months or years, it’d be shooting season on Politicians here, believe me!) 😉 😀
“Despite Australia’s short election season, candidates are still able to offer voters clumsy pratfalls and verbal atrocities. (07:49)”
DOWN-UNDERcision 2013 – That’s Not a Campaign, ‘This’ Is a Campaign!
😆 (The difference is, we *KNOW* most of our Politicians are lazy morons, and expect bugger all from them!) 😛
PS. They are mostly Liberal Party! LOL
First of all, I have avoided mentioning the Australian election because I didn’t want to jinx anything. Candidates I like always lose, so I keep their names secret. The segment on TDS was dead on regarding the stupidity of the multi-year US process. The ABC has been entertaining covering the problems on the campaign trail.
Thousands of people watching these early moves in the US campaign are going to be dead before the actual election and won’t be voting [unless they lived in Chicago or Miami], and most of the people who will be voting don’t even think about politics until about a month before the election.
As for Iran, the problem is the Iranians get suicidal on defense. You can destroy the country, but you can’t conquer it. Strategic planners need to consider what you would do if a nuclear aircraft carrier was sunk in the Strait of Hormuz after being attacked by a swarm of small boats. The Iranians would do it.
Just leave them alone and they will ignore you.
Just leave them alone and they will ignore you.
Pretty much. Modern-day Iran hasn’t invaded anybody for longer than the USA has existed. But as Kryten points out — OIL. Sigh…
Yes, oil, and a lot of other raw materials that other people want to exploit.
The USA would be insane (though, it’s looking more likely that’s the case every day) to try to invade Iran. They are FUBAR in Afghanistan, and Iran makes that look like a picnic. I suppose given the USA was stupid enough to think they could do what the USSR and others before them couldn’t, even with International help, it wouldn’t surprise me if it did try to take on Iran.
I was involved in some “what-if” planning scenarios for various regions, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and others for the DIO. The unanimous consensus was that it’s not possible to conquer any of those countries, you could try to bomb them out of existence, but even that was iffy. Those regions have a lot of Mountainous terrain, especially Iran (as the USA has discovered in Afghanistan, that makes things somewhat tricky!) The Iranians would give an entirely new meaning to ‘Gorilla Warfare’. I’ve been trying to remember of the analogy we used in a report. I think we compared the Iranians to a cross between Blue Krait & Brown snakes. They don’t attack unless cornered or very provoked. The blue Krait is nocturnal and extremely aggressive at night They will even hunt and kill other snakes. Fatality rate even with anti-venom is 85%. The Brown snake was chosen because Brown’s generally prefer not to bite at all and to escape rather than attack. However, they will chase and repeatedly attack when seriously annoyed and even the juveniles will strike and can kill an adult human when provoked. Any US troops in Iran would be akin to Rattlesnakes. Can be quite deadly and can strike from quite a distance (for a snake), but not a real match for a Krait. 😉 🙂
But, American’s are quite arrogant and have no interest in learning from History (again, Afghanistan proves that). In some ways, I actually hope that the USA is stupid enough to attack Iran. Maybe it would be the last invasion the USA could mount for a long time. 🙂
Unfortunately for the World, US policies are driven strictly by economics (or greed actually, and a surprisingly large inferiority complex — It’s true. We likened the USA to the schoolyard bully.) The policies have nothing to do with right/wrong or Democracy or even any *real* threats. Our study showed that the USA is probably the most heavily defended and safest country in the World and no other Nation can pose any real threat (except Nuclear, which is a whole different issue). Ehhh… The document was long and involved (and still mostly Classified), and I couldn’t do it justice here anyway. *shrug*
Ah well, “Stupid is as stupid does!”;)
Oh, you can add this to your list of woes Bryan. It *can* get worse!
Former Bush Administration Official Defends Obama’s Embattled Choice for DHS Post
If Alejandro Mayorkas becomes the DH of DHS (sic) things will definitely get worse in the ol’ US of A!
And this, I couldn’t agree more!! Hillary is way over-rated!
Benghazi, No Accountability
That’s actually funny! 😆 ‘accountability’ + ‘USA’. No, sorry… can’t imagine the two in a rational sentence! LOL
The United States has faced no existential threats since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even there, only nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles and cruise missiles were an existential threat to the US, and they weren’t going to be used as long as the US similarly had ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. There is no self-defense rationale for the US to maintain a large and expensive military, because the US is protected by two large moats (the Pacific and Atlantic) which are easily patrolled by aircraft capable of sinking any troop-carrying ships that dare attempt approach the American coastline. Maybe there’s a rationale to keep boomers and attack submarines on station, but a surface navy is not a defense weapon, a surface navy is an offensive weapon. There is no national defense rationale for ten carrier groups…
We should just rename it back to the Department of War. That was, at least, honest.
I’m firmly of the opinion that the sole purpose of the US military is to promote world-wide weapons sales. They exist for corporate welfare and nothing else.
All of the ‘threats’ we face are manufactured, not real, and the combat we get involved in has no real benefit to the US, because, as Badtux keeps pointing out, there is no existential threat to the US.
The Iran-Iraq war went on for a decade and no one won. It was a waste of lives and money. I hope there are enough sane people left in the US military to stop any move on Iran.
Benghazi was a CIA outpost, so we’ll have to wait 60 years to find out what really happened, Kryten. The consulate had no protection because Congress cut the security budget for the State Department, and the CIA was busy protecting its own facilities.
We should just rename it back to the Department of War.
yep.