We Had a Democracy Once, But You Crushed It

Dissident Voice ^ | 08.09.03 | Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

When the Shaw refused to give Mossadegh full control of the military and ministry of war, Mossadegh resigned and the Shah appointed Ahmad Qavam in his place. However, when Qavam announced a reversal of Mossadegh's oil policies he became so unpopular, that the Shah dismissed him and reappointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister.

Taking advantage of his popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to give him increased powers. Including authority over the armed forces - which was illegal, since that power was supposed to be vested in the Shah.

The nationalization of the British oil interests was, more or less, considered by the U.K. as an act of war, so they blockaded Iran.

The CIA sent forces into Iran to agitate against Mossadegh. In return, Mossadegh entered an referendum to dissolve parliament. In a clearly rigged election, Mossadegh won by 99.9%. At this point, his popularity was eroding big time. The Tudeh and conservative clerics abandoned him.

To remain in power, Mossadegh had to get rid of the Shah, who was the only person who constitutionally outranked him (he had already gotten rid of the parliament). Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country, but the Shah refused and fired him. Mossadegh refused to quit, so it became quite evident that he was going to fight.

As a precautionary measure, the Shah flew to Baghdad and from there to Rome.

People assumed it would only be a matter of time before Mossadegh declared Iran to be a republic and he as it's president - something that he had promised he would never do.

Massive riots broke out between the pro monarchy and anti monarchy forces with over 300 dead. With funding from the U.S. and British, the pro monarchy forces quickly gained the upper hand, and pro Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. So Mossadegh surrendered.

From Mossadegh's coup against the Shah, to the Shah's return was less than a week.

• Mossadegh instituted collectivism and Soviet-style agrarian reform. While relations between him and the Tadeh were often strained, he was a practicing socialist.


• He dissolved parliament illegally.

• He did his best to get rid of or marginalize those who disagreed with him.

• He rigged the results of at least one election.

• His very actions bespeak a power-hungry nutter.

All-in-all I wouldn't consider him to have the best character in the world.

[alexfromct]

I know it sounds ridiculous, but when they found American dollars in the pockets of "pro-Mossadegh" protesters, it wasn't so ridiculous.

[alexfromct]

Well I don't consider all of your comments to be true, but it's irrelevant. 1953 was over a long time ago, and it doesn't really matter now anyways.

The story posted is just trash anyways, no one needs to apologize for this 52 years after the fact.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

While my interpretation of the facts may not be to your liking (and may not even be correct), I do think that I have the basic facts correct.

However, that is, as you more or less implied, neither here nor there. What is rather more to the point is Carter's egregarious blundering in the late '70s, since the situtation in Iran is directly related to that.

However, all scape goating aside, the issue is "what can we do about it?" My answer for this is everything and nothing. We, perhaps, should do nothing directly, but do everything indirectly to support and encourage freedom and responsibility in Iran. Right now, it appears that those who have the most freedom there are also those who are most irresponsible.

[MortMan]

The British-Iranian oil company poured a LOT of money into developing the oil fields. The Iranians promised to pay it back using pumped oil. Once the oil was flowing, the Iranians changed their minds and demanded control. Eventually they nationalized the company - leaving the British and American investors holding the bill for the oil field development.

Is that the theft the writer is talking about?

[Dr. Marten]

Thanks to both of you.

I didn't post this because I was in agreement with the Author, but because this issue was a bit before my time and it's not one that I have a great deal of knowledge about. However, I was confident that some fellow freepers would quickly help to educate me.

Thanks! I've bookmarked this thread for future reference.

[conservativeharleyguy]

Unfortunately, if you start looking for info on Lumumba, pretty much all you'll find are left-wing fluff pieces in him.

I'll look around and try to find some old 70's material on him and his pro-Soviet activities. I may have lost it in the intervening years.

He was sort of considered the "Che Guevara" of Africa(another communist scumbag who got his just deserts) by the international left.

The left likes to talk about how he "liberated" the Congo from the Belgians, but they somehow forget to mention how he and his followers did so by liberating the heads from the bodies of hundreds of Belgian civilians, including women, children, priests, and nuns (who were of course gang raped first).

He planted the revolutionary seeds for what became the African National Congress, which was always ans continues to be a communist front organization.

For all their proclamations of "international solidarity w/the oppressed masses.....yadda yadda yadda, the Russians didn't even trust the ANC enough to let it be autonomous, and send an old Czech communist named Joe Slovo to pull the strings in the background.

In many ways, if you scratch the surface, it's not too difficult to draw a line from Lumumba through Slovo directly to Nelson Mandela, and today's version of the ANC.

[Boot Hill]

"I was confident that some fellow freepers would quickly help..."

That's one of the wondrous things about FR. There are a lot of really bright and talented people here.

--Boot Hill

[Dr. Marten]

Nice to have you aboard Old Hoosier.

I'm a young one, but still a hoosier.

See my latest post before this for an explanation.