Coup d'etat - "Operation Ajax" happening in Iran again!

Those of you knowledgeable in real history, and it's hidden truth, will see what I'm about to explain reasonably clearly. Those that believe in popular theories need only pay attention to the facts of these events to see the undeniable truth. An open mind and rational approach in your thought process is all that is needed to understand the unpopular truth. This one example, of many, is plain to see and will hopefully set some of you on the path to more of the same?

When paying attention to current events in Iran, keep this in mind before making your final conclusion. Though once secret, the American government's CIA, along with the UK's M16, staged a ridiculously similar Iranian coup d'état in 1952-53 called "Operation Ajax". Later defended as necessary to prevent the Soviet Union from accessing Iran's oil?

en.wikipedia.org...

"Britain accused (Mosaddeq) of violating the company's legal rights and orchestrated a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged the country into financial crisis. The British government tried to enlist the Americans in planning a coup, an idea originally rebuffed by President Truman. But when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, cold war ideologues - determined to prevent the possibility of a Soviet takeover - ordered the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government." [4]
The coup was organized by the United States' CIA and the United Kingdom's MI6, two spy agencies that aided royalists and mutinous Iranian army officers.[5]

CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. carried out the operation planned by CIA agent Donald Wilber.[6] One version of the CIA history, written by Wilber, referred to the operation as TPAJAX.[7][8]

During the coup, Roosevelt and Wilber bribed Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen.[9] The deposed Iranian leader, Mossadegh, was taken to jail and Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi named himself prime minister in the new, pro-western government. The British and American spy agencies returned the monarchy to Iran by installing the pro-western Mohammed Reza Pahlevi on the throne where his brutal rule lasted 26 years. The story is detailed in Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. Pahlevi was overthrown in 1979.[10]

The overthrow of Iran's elected government in 1953 ensured Western control of Iran's petroleum resources and prevented the Soviet Union from competing for Iranian oil.[11][12][13][14] Some Iranian clerics cooperated with the western spy agencies because they were dissatisfied with Mossadegh's secular government.[9]

This was considered a great victory by Dwight D. Eisenhower. To overthrow a democratically elected leader of a foreign nation and install a pro-American dictatorship? This is what the west calls "Spreading Democracy!"? This was the first time this was done, but certainly not the last. The US government went on doing this in many countries across the globe including Haiti, Chili, and most recently Venezuela. Spreading quite the opposite of Democracy, while condemning others for doing the same?

In the summer of 2001, Ervand Abrahamian wrote in the journal, Science & Society that Wilber's version of the coup was missing key information some of which was available elsewhere. Abrahamian wrote:

The New York Times recently leaked a CIA report on the 1953 American–British overthrow of Mossadeq, Iran’s Prime Minister. It billed the report as a secret history of the secret coup, and treated it as an invaluable substitute for the U. S. files that remain inaccessible. But a reconstruction of the coup from other sources, especially from the archives of the British Foreign Office, indicates that this report is highly sanitized. It glosses over such sensitive issues as the crucial participation of the U. S. ambassador in the actual overthrow; the role of U. S. military advisers; the harnessing of local Nazis and Muslim terrorists; and the use of assassinations to destabilize the government. What is more, it places the coup in the context the Cold War rather than that of the Anglo-Iranian oil crisis — a classic case of nationalism clashing with imperialism in the Third World. [21]

In a review of Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes , historian Michael Beschloss wrote, "Mr. Weiner argues that a bad C.I.A. track record has encouraged many of our gravest contemporary problems... A generation of Iranians grew up knowing that the C.I.A. had installed the shah," Mr. Weiner notes. "In time, the chaos that the agency had created in the streets of Tehran would return to haunt the United States."[22]

Despite history proving Eisenhower wrong, the US continues doing this. To this very day they are tearing down Democracy with bribes, spies, riots, protests, murder, etc... Unfortunately, this looks to be happening again in Iran? This process is carried out the exact same way now as it was in 1953. They are so confident in controlling the masses, they don't even bother to change their methods.

For people smart enough to find their own truth, this is easy to see. Most likely the protesting and uprisings there are being carried out by coup participants being paid to do so, just as they did in 1953? By bribing and controlling Iranian Parliament, media, and native dissenters, as well as, bringing in countless actors, the stage is set. Exactly the way they did it the last time. They'll deny involvement, just like last time. You will likely fall for it, just like last time! Then they will win and all else will lose, just like last time.

Ask yourself why the media is so supportive of the protesting, election fraud, side of things in this case? When people in the US wanted the 2000 presidential election investigated, they were met with the opposite viewpoint? Media then sided with the system, not the people? This goes for the government as well? Why the sudden concern with fairness now?

Below are some links explaining "Operation Ajax". Read the now admitted coup of 1953 to see the obvious similarity for yourself. You cannot be so naive to, at the very least, consider the Iran situation today a possible overthrow? Stop believing these criminals NOW!

www.geocities.com...
www.nytimes.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.gwu.edu...

[edit on 6/15/2009 by Zerbst]

IMO everybody who already knew about Operation Ajax are thinking the same thing... Hopefully it won't be the case and if it's the case, the people will take over again... but they probably are like Obama supporters, thinking that Mousavi is some kind of Obama Change BS rhetoric...

We'll see soon enough.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
IMO everybody who already knew about Operation Ajax are thinking the same thing... Hopefully it won't be the case and if it's the case, the people will take over again... but they probably are like Obama supporters, thinking that Mousavi is some kind of Obama Change BS rhetoric...

We'll see soon enough.

I'm not as confident as you about the people taking their country back? The last time it took them 26 years to do so! That success was obtained in the very first American overthrow of a Democracy. They have had many successes since then, the only failure, that I know of, being Chavez in Venezuela?

I'm just curious as to why the Iranian leadership is allowing media reports to get out. I am also surprised they are not blaming the Americans for what is taking place. IMO, things are just out of place.

S+F

Originally posted by jam321
I'm just curious as to why the Iranian leadership is allowing media reports to get out. I am also surprised they are not blaming the Americans for what is taking place. IMO, things are just out of place.

S+F

It's quite early in the process, so stay tuned! The attention this is getting, as well as the support is very suspicious. Before now, the only thing Iranians worried of was their economy? All of a sudden they hate Ahmedinejad? Smells bad to me!

*bump*

just giving this another chance.

A US Sponsored Coup seems relatively unlikely.

The Iranian military sides with Ahmadinejad because he's tough on security, but Khameini seems to be holding their leash, so their involvement will probably never be anywhere near what it could be.

Khameini just needs to save face; he doesn't absolutely need to save Ahmadinejad. Mousavi is part of the establishment afterall; he has a stake in Iran's democracy, but also in the stability of Iran's government- he's not a major threat.
Khameini tested the limits of his authority in a matter that he should have left where it was (beneath the dignity of his office) and he came up short.
He really can't afford to crush them- sure he'd win, but he'd be fundamentally altering the political situation in an unsustainable way.
He can wait a little bit and hope the opposition burns out, and that's probably what the recounts are about, but if the opposition gains strength rather that petering out, he'll have to back down.
The obvious answer then would be to come up with an excuse for a runoff between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad- that could easily be arranged in the recount.

Obama doesn't seem to know anything about a planned coup- he ended up putting himself in a position where this situation is actually bad for him politically. Besides, there is no way that in just 5 months, with many bigger fish to fry and serious staff problems that Obama put together a covert team that is both politically and professionally reliable enough to be trusted with the fate of our mid east policy for the next 4 to 8 years, and still left them with enough time to pull this off.

A coup in this situation doesn't serve the interest of American hawks either. The Military Industrial Complex wants an Iran that will support our efforts in Afghanistan, do whatever we say with their oil, abandon North Korea, and not develop a deeper military relationship with China. This means a military strongman who cares about nothing but profit. This situation cannot produce that result. A later situation that can produce that result is more likely with a madman in power, thus it's a fair bet that hawks were rooting for Ahmadinejad.

There are other ways to interperet the situation which could easily be correct, but I think this one ends before things get too much further out of hand. The opposition needs to keep its numbers and its activity up for as long as necessary, or they'll probably lose. The United States (and the Obama administration) needs to be prepared to make major concessions that will help strengthen Khameini's political position on the condition that he abandon Ahamadinejad, otherwise the they stand to end up a loser regardless of the outcome.

reply to post by Zerbst


I found a PDF labeled secret. It is a critique of operation AJAX for the CIA. There is some very revealing things in it.

cryptome.org...