60 Years Of Middle-East Meddling
Sixty years ago today, the democratically-elected government of Iran was overthrown by a coup d'état. This "revolution" was in fact paid for and created by America's Central Intelligence Agency. It installed the Shah of Iran, who would rule with his people clamped in an iron fist for over a quarter-century. The Shah, of course, was overthrown in 1979. The anniversary of the 1953 coup is remarkable this year not only because 60 years have passed, but because for the first time official CIA documents have been declassified which fully admit:
[T]he military coup that overthrew Mosadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government. It was not an aggressively simplistic solution, clandestinely arrived at, but was instead an official admission [...redacted...] that normal, rational methods of international communication and commerce had failed.
There were two reasons the duly elected government of Iran was overthrown by the CIA. The first was cheap oil. The second was the Cold War. Both put the United States in the position of worshiping "stability" at all costs, not just in Iran but in the entire oil-rich Middle East region. This has led America into supporting dictators and thugs more than once, and in viewing the backlash today against tyrannical regimes across the region -- from Egypt to Libya to Syria to Iraq -- it bears remembering that meddling in the region even under the most noble of intentions sometimes leads to devastating consequences.
America didn't even really have a direct problem with Iran, back in the early 1950s. Britain did, however. When the newly-elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq entered office, his parliament immediately nationalized the oil industry. This meant kicking the Brits out, who had been there since oil was first extracted back in the 1900s and 1910s. In language that reeks of imperialism, the same recently-declassified CIA document explains the problem:
The target of this policy of desperation [i.e., the coup attempt], Mohammad Mosadeq, was neither a madman nor an emotional bundle of senility as he was so often pictured in the foreign press; however, he had become so committed to the ideals of nationalism that he did things that could not have conceivably helped his people even in the best and most altruistic of worlds. In refusing to bargain -- except on his own uncompromising terms -- with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, he was in fact defying the professional politicians of the British government. These leaders believed, with good reason, that cheap oil for Britain and high profits for the company were vital to their national interests. There had been little in their experience to make them respect Iranians, whom company managers and Foreign Office representatives saw as inefficient, corrupt, and self-serving.
You just have to love calling the Iranians as "corrupt, and self-serving" right after pointing out that British "professional politicians" all agreed ("with good reason") that "cheap oil for Britain and high profits for the company" were enough of a reason to justify overthrowing another country's government. Corrupt is arguable, but that certainly sounds pretty self-serving to me.
Of course, being in the depths of the Cold War in 1951-53, fears of a Soviet takeover were also used as justification for America and the CIA to get involved. America, at the time, was heavily involved in the Korean War, remember. The document spells out, in truly apocalyptic language (for context, such language was actually pretty common in such anti-commie times as the early 1950s) what would happen if the Soviets grabbed Iran's oil:
Then not only would Iran's oil have been irretrievably lost to the West, but the defense chain around the Soviet Union which was part of U.S. foreign policy would have been breached. The Soviets would have had the opportunity to achieve the ancient Russian dream of a port on the Persian Gulf and to drive a wedge between Turkey and India. Under such circumstances, the danger of a third world war seemed very real.
The dominoes, to put it another way, would fall. Which, again, justified a little covert CIA coup, which would magically fix the whole problem.
The CIA tried to put together their coup by a massive infusion of money -- to pay for propaganda, intimidation, bribing politicians, and roaming gangs of thugs to create an uproar in the streets of Tehran. Their first attempt was a spectacular failure. The general recruited to take over as prime minister saw his support evaporate, and had to hide out in a CIA safe house. The Shah was even more terrified at the idea of the coup, and had fled the country after signing documents which would effectively give him power over the country as a monarch. This led to an amusing footnote, as after fleeing to Baghdad, the Shah had his plane fly to Rome -- where, while checking in to his luxury hotel, he bumped into the vacationing Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. Whoops!
The CIA then made their own brand of lemonade from the spectacular failure of their coup attempt. They sent their paid thugs out into the streets to create rioting and mayhem. Except their message -- fed through the propaganda outlets they had purchased -- was that the Shah had fled due to a failed communist uprising. So the gangs were instructed to create as much damage and chaos as they could, while shouting pro-communist slogans. After a single day of this, even larger paid crowds were sent out to the streets, this time shouting anti-Mossadeq, pro-Shah messages.
Incredibly, this time it actually worked. The Shah of Iran was given complete power (once he returned from his Italian hideout). He then used it to create his own secret police ("SAVAK") to keep his people under firm control. The American military and CIA helped create and train this force.
Understanding all of this history is important, but the sad fact is that most Americans aren't even aware of what happened in Iran 60 years ago. It's certainly not a big part of the average American schoolchild's history book, that's for sure. But understanding the history -- especially now that it is being declassified -- is important for understanding how meddling in the Middle East can spectacularly backfire on America, as it did in the Islamic Revolution in Iraq in 1979.
Part of the problem of today's Middle East is that the Cold War ended. Back then, things were simply divided along the East/West line. You were either for us, or you were a victim of "Soviet aggression" (a phrase from the declassified document which is used without any realization of the irony -- the threat of Soviet aggression being the justification for what was essentially American aggression). The lines were clearly drawn, and the choice was binary.
This led America into supporting some brutally tyrannic regimes. If brutal tyranny and an utter disregard of human rights (especially for women) were the prices to be paid for stability and a pro-American regime, then so be it. On the scale of freedom/tyranny, we've supported both lenient and incredibly harsh rulers, as long as they bought American military hardware and not Russian. One of the most repressive and Islamic governments in the entire world has, in fact, been one of our staunchest friends in the region -- even though women in Saudi Arabia aren't even allowed to drive. Hey, as long as the oil keeps flowing smoothly, we'll look the other way. Even traditional "right/left" political niceties were ignored -- America has supported right-wing dictators and left-wing dictators, as the situation demanded. We've even supported rulers only to later wage war against them, the most famous example being Saddam Hussein.
But with the Cold War's dichotomy fading (although Russia and America still vie for influence in the region), things become less obvious. The whole Arab Spring movement has woken America up to the fact that we've been propping up some pretty brutal leaders for a long, long time. Which leads us to the uncomfortable position of not having a clear ideological position. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are cohesively agreed on what should be done in places like Egypt and Syria these days. Continue propping up strongmen, in exchange for relative stability? Or promote democracy and freedom -- even if it leads to the "wrong people" being elected? Is the criteria for changing governments the largest crowd that can be raised in the streets, or will it come from the barrel of a gun?
The questions aren't easy. The answers are elusive, if they even exist. But what would help is if America actually took into consideration our own history in the region, warts and all. How can people understand the anti-American feelings in Iran, to use just this one example, when most of us aren't even aware that we overthrew their democratic government -- 60 years ago, today -- solely to give Britain cheap oil? History, to most Americans, is a dead subject of the dusty past, to be read about in books. History to much of the rest of the world is still unfolding at a frantic pace. There are people in Iran alive today who remember full well what happened 60 years ago. That's a different perspective than reading about some remote event in a textbook or declassified document, to put it mildly.
[Source Notes: The story of the declassified documents on the Iran coup were reported in Foreign Policy. At the end of the article is a three-page document which contains all the quotes used in my article, above, and is well worth reading in full. There is a trove of almost three dozen documents which were released under the Freedom Of Information Act available at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, if you'd really like to dig into the source material. The plot was hatched under the Truman administration, put into motion in the Eisenhower administration, and was led at the CIA by Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt's grandson and F.D.R.'s cousin, making the whole affair about as bipartisan as you can get. Further details on the story of the coup can be found in Chapter 9 of the amazingly-well-researched book Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Pulitzer Prize-winner Tim Weiner]
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I always love your history lessons, CW.. You don't pull any punches, no sugar-coating whatsoever..
However, I dispute that there are no easy answers..
The answer IS easy, once one simple axiom is applied..
An axiom that has been used by the GOP tim and time again..
An axiom that has been co-opted by the Democrats with frightening and undeniable success..
The Ends Justifies The Means
The Ends Justifies The Means
Funny, I had not taken you for a supporter of the modern Iranian state...
On NPR there was an interview with an Author of a new book on T.E. Lawrence. A good reminder that this area of the world has been heavily manipulated by western powers long before the cold war.
Funny, I had not taken you for a supporter of the modern Iranian state...
Funny, I was told once by some Left Wing fanatic back in the early 80s that the saying originated with Adolf Hitler...
But, I notice you did not dispute the validity of Democrats using such a mindset in the last 4+ years... :D
A good reminder that this area of the world has been heavily manipulated by western powers long before the cold war.
So? Life's a bitch...
Hi Chris:
In a way this sorry episode in our history is another sterling example of the truth of the proverb: you reap what you sow.
No matter how evil ya'all try to make it out to be, looking out for our own interests IS a good thing...
Funny how ya'all condemn such actions, yet give the Dem POTUS currently in office a pass over similar/worse actions...
"GEE!! I WONDER WHY THAT IS!!!
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR
Why not lay the current "sorry episode" at the feet of Emperor Barack The First??
Don't bother, I know the answer... Because he has a '-D' after his name...
Michale:
This isn't about political party's, amazingly enough. Rather it's about people, of any party or no party, who absolve themselves from responsibility for the results of their actions by claiming their actions were for some "greater good".
It's about people who look at humans but don't "see" them -- who see slogans, who see concepts, who project their own fears or find rationalizations that, as it happens, usually create the side effect of personally enriching themselves or gaining them power; who then take actions that victimize actual living human beings. Somehow they decide that the actual human beings' wishes simply don't count -- their sufferings don't count; their ability to make their own choices don't count; crimes committed against them don't count.
I think they do count. That's what accountability IS.
One additional point. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is still around. It's changed its name at least once, but it is the company now known as BP.
You always make me feel like a jerk when I am such an arrogant ass and you respond without any rancor whatsoever. :D
Having said that, it just chaps my arse that the Left always likes to point to America's mistakes (of which there are many, no argument from me on that) but then condones (by omission or commission) the exact same "mistakes" in the here and now by the current Administration...
This isn't about political party's, amazingly enough. Rather it's about people, of any party or no party, who absolve themselves from responsibility for the results of their actions by claiming their actions were for some "greater good".
But by not holding the current Party in power to that lofty ideal (which I wholeheartedly agree with, by the bi) you MAKE it about political Partys.
I think they do count. That's what accountability IS.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying.. You know I am big on personal responsibility and what you put forth is the epitome of same..
My only point is that those lofty ideals should be applied to ANY and ALL administrations, regardless of the -'x' behind there name.
Only THEN can one truly say that "This isn't about political Partys"
Glenn Greenwald is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
During the Bush years, GG was the toast of the Left. A liberal's dreamboat...
Under Obama, GG is a pariah and an outcast. Castigated and demonized by the Left that was so in love with him just 4+ short years ago..
Why?? Because he had the audacity, the unmitigated gall to be completely and utterly consistent...
Don't get me wrong. GG is wrong on just about everything he writes and believes in.
But he IS consistent. He has the same attitude, opinions and does the same things, regardless of the -'x' behind the POTUS's name...
He may be always wrong.. But at least he is consistent. No one could accuse GG of being a hypocrite..
I respect that, even if I disagree with him..
That's the attitude that I believe we need more of around here from the rank and file Weigantians. The willingness to call a spade a spade, regardless of the -'x' behind the person's name...
Michale:
"But he IS consistent. He has the same attitude, opinions and does the same things, regardless of the -'x' behind the POTUS's name...I respect that, even if I disagree with him."
It's nice to find something about which we can agree!
Of course, for the most part I agree with Greenwald's positions and respect the fact that most of the time he really focuses his ire on people's actions, not on their personalities. Many people find him too strident and uncompromising but I think he really believes what he believes and he acts on what he believes to the best of his ability. That doesn't mean he is a nice man, or a perfectly wise man. And there's a fine line between strong support and fanaticism and I think he get's close to crossing over, but I don't think he's a fanatic.
And when people are consistent, which you accurately point out that he is, my view is that they have, in some manner, recognized the "rightness" of their feeling and/or thinking about something and they have internalized it. Some people do this via a thorough thought process; some people do this by being sensitive to their own emotional reactions to something and have accurately evaluated them; some do both. But the result is that they are "solid" about the "issue" and/or "belief"; they act upon it, make decisions based upon it, can defend it on the merits, etc.
I think Glenn Greenwald would positively relish an honest debate, a marathon of debates, months and months of open debates, about Civil Liberties, with any and all comers. He would be completely willing to put his beliefs out there for discussion, unequivocally.
I think he wants people to really, really look at the implications of limitations on civil liberties; he wants decisions to be "informed"; not based on short-term fears, exaggerated fears, deliberately fostered fears. And, unlike so many forces out there that flourish most when people know the least, he's prepared to respect people's intelligence and maturity. When there's an honest and open debate about something people can still disagree, but everything about the disagreement is different and everyone ends up smarter.
It's nice to find something about which we can agree!
Agreed.... :D
I think Glenn Greenwald would positively relish an honest debate, a marathon of debates, months and months of open debates, about Civil Liberties, with any and all comers. He would be completely willing to put his beliefs out there for discussion, unequivocally.
Considering my background, I would LOVE to have that debate with him...
My position has always been that safety and security trumps just about anything. I don't feel that my privacy is worth even one single innocent person's life..
"Good talk...."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE: ATLANTIS
:D
Michale [1] -
OK, to go with your premise: but only if you can accurately predict what the "end" is going to be. And that's awfully tough in the ME. Looking out for our own interests is one thing, but predicting how a proposed bit of meddling is going to affect that (for better or worse) is quite another.
Paula [4] -
Good point. Or perhaps "the chickens come home to roost."
Pastafarian Dan [7] -
Oh, SNAP! (do people still say that?)
Excellent reference, and well appreciated.
Michale [8] -
Nice post. I think the phrase you may be looking for here is an older one, circa the Cold War: "Politics ends at the water's edge." It was never as true back then as people now think, but the whole concept of "foreign policy is too large a subject to be subjected to petty partisan bickering" is an interesting one. Of course, this can backfire, as when everybody just stands up and marches in lockstep towards an ill-considered war (which has happened a number of times throughout American history). But still, it's an interesting concept.
As for Greewald, I will personally attest that your position on him has been remarkably consistent as well. You always have said the same thing about him: "I don't agree with anything he says, I think his ideas are dangerously wrong, but he is true to those ideas and must be respected for his unwavering consistency."
Since "hypocrisy" is indeed an ugly word in these reality-based pages, I salute you for your own consistency.
Paula [9] -
Greenwald fascinates me because his knowledge base -- especially on legal matters -- is so broad and deep. Agree or disagree, pretty much anyone who reads his articles comes away learning something interesting about the nuts and bolts of the issue. And that's something I respect highly.
[general comment to all]
What a pleasant and enjoyable exchange of opinions! Best comment section I've read in a while, folks, so I am really glad to see that even though I haven't been watching over the comments nearly as well as I should, that respectful and thought-provoking debate is what I find when I belatedly tune in to offer my responses!
Well done, everyone! Pats on the back all around!
:-)
-CW
CW,
OK, to go with your premise: but only if you can accurately predict what the "end" is going to be. And that's awfully tough in the ME. Looking out for our own interests is one thing, but predicting how a proposed bit of meddling is going to affect that (for better or worse) is quite another.
True enough.. But that actually kind of illustrates my point to Paula.
We tend to think of the leaders in those days who screwed things up so badly as evil, wrong, etc etc.. But we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We see how badly things turned out and demonize those leaders for that...
However, we (and by "we" I mean "ya'all" :D) fail to consider that those leaders likely made those decisions in good faith because they honestly felt that it was in the best interests of their respective country and citizens to make that call..
Oh, and I am just kidding on the we/ya'all part. I myself am guilty of that too...
I blame and demonize Carter for the debacle that was Operation EAGLE CLAW. But I do so only in hind-sight and I must acknowledge that Carter likely made the best decision possible with the best of intentions..
So, mea culpa..
As for Greewald, I will personally attest that your position on him has been remarkably consistent as well. You always have said the same thing about him: "I don't agree with anything he says, I think his ideas are dangerously wrong, but he is true to those ideas and must be respected for his unwavering consistency."
Since "hypocrisy" is indeed an ugly word in these reality-based pages, I salute you for your own consistency.
Thanx.. I DO try to be consistent in my attitudes. It makes it so much easier to keep track of things if one simply remains true to who one is..
"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we truly are."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
Personally, I would rather be caught in a lie than to be caught being inconsistent.. :D
Well done, everyone! Pats on the back all around!
Awww p'shaw... :D
Michale -
I could start with the obvious quote about where the road paved with "good intentions" leads...
But I'll save my snarkiness for writing today's column instead.
Seriously, I came to the same conclusion a while ago, even though it's pretty hard to do initially. While there are indeed opportunists and demagogues in DC, I firmly believe that most politicians from the entire spectrum actually do believe they're attempting to do the right thing.
For instance, although I think Ted Cruz is an opportunist and a demagogue on the issue, I think there are many Republicans who sincerely believe that Obamacare will be the end of America as we know it, and therefore it is their duty to fight against it with every tool at their disposal.
Of course (no surprise), I think they're wrong and deluded, but that doesn't mean they are acting with false motivations. Who am I to know the inner workings of anyone else's mind, after all?
Hey, if you can say nice things about Carter, then I felt it merited saying nice things about the anti-Obamacare crowd. They are going to fail, but they sincerely feel their hearts are in the right place.
The hardest thing to do in politics (as in foreign policy, to get back to the subject at hand) is to put the shoe on the other foot, or walk a mile in the other's shoes. Don't know why the obsession with shoes in these homilies, but you know what I'm saying. Trying to see how "the other side" perceives things is crucial to understanding their point of view, and a precursor for any sort of workable compromise.
Even here in the CW.com comments, we both know that attacking a policy or a position is one thing, but statements like "Politician X is for policy Y because he/she believes Z!" This is worse than putting words into people's mouths, it is putting words into people's heads.
Anyway, got an article to write, gotta run...
-CW
I could start with the obvious quote about where the road paved with "good intentions" leads...
True... However, we only know that it leads there, due to 20/20 hindsight. That's the important point.
And yes, I also tend to forget that when bashing politicians, particularly Democrats...
saying nice things about the anti-Obamacare crowd. They are going to fail, but they sincerely feel their hearts are in the right place.
Do you honestly think they are going to fail, considering what we know... FACTUALLY know about Obamacare???
The hardest thing to do in politics (as in foreign policy, to get back to the subject at hand) is to put the shoe on the other foot, or walk a mile in the other's shoes. Don't know why the obsession with shoes in these homilies, but you know what I'm saying. Trying to see how "the other side" perceives things is crucial to understanding their point of view, and a precursor for any sort of workable compromise.
Exactly!!!
Which is exactly what I try to do when I do what I do here... I try to see the arguments from BOTH sides of the issue w/o any partisan influence whatsoever..
Yea, I may not succeed as often as I think I do, but.... I DO have the best of intentions..
yuk... yuk.... yuk... :D