It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran's coup d'etat

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
In 1953 CIA staged a coup' in Iran that removed a democraticaly elected prime minister and replaced him with a monarch.

To this day I have not been given the "real" reason behind this coup. I am putting this question out as I know that a lot of Iranians even till today are pissed off about this. Can some one out there explain/descrive the American pschyche at the time? what were they thinking? why did they do it? what did they think will/could happen had they not done it?

I am trying to find a solution to this stand off and I think it all start from this coup'. I need a reasonable answer to the constant comment that:

"But CIA staged a coup and removed a democratic government."

Cheers,




posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Wikipedia can provide some good background information on the coup by US/Britain, which is also called Operation Ajax:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   
This pretty much explains everything that you need to know:

look on the right hand side there is a menu bar which further explains each point.
www.nytimes.com...

It was about oil.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by iqonx]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
OK why do you think people of Iran are so pissed off about this coup then?

I mean during Shah and specially compared to when he was gone (79-present) Iran progressed quite a lot. Education level and quality of life increased dramatically. Iran had International respect and Iranians were not treated like criminals once they travelled. I think they were not free but they were a lot freer than present. So where does all this anti americanism come from?

I suppose they were jelous of France and US and really wanted a president!!!


Why is it that people have decided to not see all the good that came from Irans interaction with US/Uk and concentrate on the negatives instead?


Sep

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
OK why do you think people of Iran are so pissed off about this coup then?

I mean during Shah and specially compared to when he was gone (79-present) Iran progressed quite a lot. Education level and quality of life increased dramatically.


Can you, by any chance provide some statistics to further strengthen your points? (I am not contradicting or attempting to argue against your points yet, because I don't have enough knowledge on the topic, so don't take this the wrong way).


Originally posted by zurvan
Iran had International respect and Iranians were not treated like criminals once they travelled. I think they were not free but they were a lot freer than present.


My knowledge of the time of the Shah is very, very limited, but were the likes Ganji or Nabavi present during the time in Iran, writing against the regime's policies and questioning its very foundations?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Have you recently been to Dubai or Qatar? Do you know anybody who has?

Do you know what I hear most about them? I hear they are just like Iran zaman shah ( Iran in Shah's time!)

I have seen pictures, I know people who traveled the world then and know people who travel the world now but mostly without an Iranian passport!!!

Do you consider these evidence enough?

On your second point you are right people were jelous of France and USA and wanted a president really badly. Have you ever pondered that maybe we were/are not ready for it? Why is it that the generation before us can suddenly nullify 2500 of Monarchy in Iran.

We used to have constitutional monarchy. What was wrong with that why did we change?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
Can some one out there explain/descrive the American pschyche at the time?

There was paranoia about an expansion of the communists.


what were they thinking? why did they do it?

The policy was called "Containment". The fear was that the soviets would secretly back revolutions in various countries, and then those new communist countires would back revolutions amoung their neighbhors, and that it would spread like that. This was called the Domino Effect. By acting against perceived revolutions or left leaning governments, soviet imperialism could be :"contained". It was a policy first worked out, I beleive, by Eisenhower, and strongly backed by Kennedy (who went to war in vietnam over it).



what did they think will/could happen had they not done it?

That Iran would've become a leftist communist or socialist republic, alligned within the Soviet "pole" of the 'two world camp'.




"But CIA staged a coup and removed a democratic government."

Interestingly, I have heard that the US government was the one that first started backing the ayatollah kohmeni, the idea was that a religious radical could spur the public into action against threats. The problem was, it worked a little too well, and the religious radicals overthrew the shah and installed their own government.


The installation of the Shah is similar to the US 'chilling' of relations with India, which at the time was 'going to the left', adopting socialist policies, having acting communist and socialist parties, etc.


Do you know what I hear most about them? I hear they are just like Iran zaman shah

Indeed. Just look at pictures of Afghanistan during british rule. It was a paradise. After the soviet war, a hovel.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
why do you think people of Iran are so pissed off about this coup then?

They perceive it as foreign meddling in their own politics, which it was, and which never goes over to well.

Why is it that people have decided to not see all the good that came from Irans interaction with US/Uk and concentrate on the negatives instead?

Because they are in a country that doesn't have an open and liberal policy with respect to freedom of the press, dissent, and discussion.

The anti-US reaction in Iran is similar to the anti-colonial reaction through much of the world. On the one hand, the imperialist colonialists ruled over people against their will. On the other hand, along with their dominion they brought scientific, technological, and economic advances. People tend to take that sort of stuff for granted now, and rather focus on the other aspects, which, were, to be clear, 'bad'.

But I think that the bigget part of it is that people would rather be poor and free, than to have some 'bid daddy' taking care of them, telling them what to do, etc, especially if that person is an outsider (arguably the rule of the mullahs is as oppressive as british rule ever was).



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
I mean during Shah and specially compared to when he was gone (79-present) Iran progressed quite a lot. Education level and quality of life increased dramatically. Iran had International respect and Iranians were not treated like criminals once they travelled. I think they were not free but they were a lot freer than present. So where does all this anti americanism come from?


This is actually not true. Under the Shah Iran didn't actually do much by itself all it's "advances" where purchased from western countries and Iran had very little self reliance in key fields although the Shah did attempt to Improve Irans self reliance.

On the other hand under the Islamic revolution Iran technically has been better of and has become self reliant and advanced way more then they did under the Shah. For example alot of people don't realise that Iran is one of the world leaders in stem cell research and cloning and genetic engineering. They have also cloned animals such as sheep many years ago which only a handfull of countries arond the world have ever achived.

Lets also not forget about Irans space programs which is accelerating at a rapid pace and Irans millitry which is now almost 100% self relient and full indigenous manufacturing capabilities in all key millitry fields such as assult rifles, grenades, Anti tank missiles, tanks, fighters jets(right now at experimentation phase), Subs, surface to air missiles etc....

Iran has advanced in the following fields under the islamic regime :

Science,
Genetic Engineering,
Cloning,
Stem cell research,
Weapons tech,
Space program.


If people strip away there hatred for muslims and look at things objectivly Iran has progressed faster under the Islamic revolution then it ever did under the Shah.

here just some info on stem cell research,Iranian weopons programs and space program etc...:

abcnews.go.com...
www.foxnews.com...

www.space.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Indigenously manufactured Iranian Weopons:
www.network54.com...

Stem cells, cloning etc... :
(goto "watch the report" to see the video)
www.channel4.com...



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
So according to this and given the fact that Iranian regime has access to all this technology and have not attacked any other country maybe we can trust them for a bit longer and give the next generation of Iranians a chance to reform things from the inside?

or else how can we have another coupe? if Americans were so good at staging coupe why don't tehy stage another one? isn't is going to be cheaper than nuclear strikes on Iran?


I think every one is worrying to much. Dont worry Be happy!!!



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
The reason (acknowledged or not) was to deny the USSR access to ice-free ports without chokepoints (think Black Sea fleet), the west never believed (still doesn't) that pre-emptively installing a puppet regime could hurt, despite tons of evidence to the contrary.

just for the record, whatever reason they cite, it's about simple strategic goals, such as keeping or (re)gaining control or preventing development of potential competitors (read: everyone), they will keep ruining south america, africa and to a lesser extent, the entire world (including themselves) until people figure out how to avoid being disappeared or killed for pursuing self-reliance and real independence.

the question isn't IF this empire is going to fail, they don't want to have friends, just vassals and serfs, such a policy is self-defeating, because it deliberately excludes the vast majority of people, relying instead on a secretive elite living in their own, gradually deteriorating fantasy world. therefore the relevant questions are WHEN and HOW it will end.

Of course, all these words will be of little consolation to present and future victims of Leviathan, obviously.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Hey zurvan,

It looks like a lot of people have given you leads to on-line information.

Let me suggest an excellent book, recently published, on the subject:

"All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" by Stephen Kinzer (Wiley, 2003)

This book reads well and fleshes out some of what has been alluded to in earlier posts: the Cold War, Oil, etc.

For some understanding of the roots of the tribal/ethnic divisions in Iraq, see:

"Inventing Iraq: The failure of Nation Building and a History Denied" by Toby Dodge (Columbia University Press, 2003).

Both are available through Amazon.com



[edit on 5/15/2006 by apocalypticon]




top topics



 
0

log in

join