Posted on 08/19/2005 8:55:10 AM PDT by kellynla
The Iranian military, with the support and financial assistance of the United States government, overthrows the government of Premier Mohammed Mosaddeq and reinstates the Shah of Iran. Iran remained a solid Cold War ally of the United States until a revolution ended the Shah's rule in 1979.
Mosaddeq came to prominence in Iran in 1951 when he was appointed premier. A fierce nationalist, Mosaddeq immediately began attacks on British oil companies operating in his country, calling for expropriation and nationalization of the oil fields. His actions brought him into conflict with the pro-Western elites of Iran and the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. Indeed, the Shah dismissed Mossadeq in mid-1952, but massive public riots condemning the action forced the Shah to reinstate Mossadeq a short time later. U.S. officials watched events in Iran with growing suspicion. British intelligence sources, working with the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), came to the conclusion that Mossadeq had communist leanings and would move Iran into the Soviet orbit if allowed to stay in power. Working with Shah, the CIA and British intelligence began to engineer a plot to overthrow Mossadeq. The Iranian premier, however, got wind of the plan and called his supporters to take to the streets in protest. At this point, the Shah left the country for "medical reasons." While British intelligence backed away from the debacle, the CIA continued its covert operations in Iran. Working with pro-Shah forces and, most importantly, the Iranian military, the CIA cajoled, threatened, and bribed its way into influence and helped to organize another coup attempt against Mossadeq. On August 19, 1953, the military, backed by street protests organized and financed by the CIA, overthrew Mossadeq. The Shah quickly returned to take power and, as thanks for the American help, signed over 40 percent of Iran's oil
(Excerpt) Read more at historychannel.com ...
/sarcasm off/
At least the MSM had some history on their side, since almost nobody disputes the fact that oil was the primary reason why the U.S. helped topple the (elected) government of Iran in 1953.
Time to do it again? Last time we did it, it led to Ayatollah Khomeini and the world's first Islamist regime. Do you have a penchant for Russian roulette?
Well I'll support a coup over an American entry into war with Iran any day, thank you!
I've seen enough dead U.S. Marines to last me a lifetime.
There was also this equally important consideration:
"British intelligence sources...came to the conclusion that Mossadeq had communist leanings and would move Iran into the Soviet orbit if allowed to stay in power."
It may have been Cold in over-all perspective, but it was actually a War; and it became very hot in many instances.
1. A potential adversary indicates that it intends to nationalize a key industry.
2. "Intelligence sources" indicate that the country in question represents some kind of threat (close ties with the Soviet Union, support of terrorism, "mass graves," involvement in the Latin American narcotics trade, etc.).
3. Direct or covert U.S. military intervention is deemed necessary to "protect our freedom," "promote democracy," "save the human race," "[INSERT ANY OTHER PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN HERE]," etc.
4. After a regime is toppled, major business deals are cut between the new regime and major corporate players in the industry that was originally targeted for nationalization.
5. The reasons provided to the public for going to war are quickly forgotten, and in many cases later turn out to be completely false and/or inconsequential.
A coup and any other methods to topple the jihad pushing, nuclear weapons building mullahs must be done, prior to Iran triggering the unthinkable.
But then again why should the Arabs be mad at us, we don't bother them, pick their leaders, decide their form of government, establish their borders, have CIA operatives in their country. Right?
Anyone with an understanding of these historical events knows why most people in foreign countries realize that a U.S. official who eloquently proclaims that we are "making the world safe for freedom and democracy" is completely full of sh!t.
Well. I'm happy to be enlightened. I guess that whole Soviet-Union-world-conquest thing wasn't exactly what it appeared to be. Tough luck for all those millions who died in the proxy wars of the 20th century. Pawns of commerce, I suppose.
At least the MSM had some history on their side, since almost nobody disputes the fact that oil was the primary reason why the U.S. helped topple the (elected) government of Iran in 1953.
Because we didn't want Iran to become a Soviet sattelite!!
You could have given every able-bodied male in South Vietnam an M-1 tank, a helicopter gunship, 100 AK-47s and a million rounds of ammunition.
And Saigon still would have fallen to the North Vietnamese.
Perhaps. If you believe General Giap, they were extremely vulnerable to conquest after Tet. We hesitated and played 'nice', allowed them to recover and learn to use their propaganda allies in the USA to assist their ultimate victory. We handed it to them on a silver platter. And we probably should never have taken over that French colonial disaster in the first place.
.... Is it such a stretch to think of the MULLAHS, like the OLD KREMLIN BOSSES. Certainly just a millitant and bloodthirsty, but also just as old and isolated, huddled in their little Turrets.
Why should the CIA be sitting around in IRAQ letting the IRANIANS just send explosives freely over the border. Send somethimg back to them. WHY NOT SEND TO IRAN THE ONE THING THE MULLAHS FEAR MOST....
SATELITE DISHES For roughly the cost of TWO WEEKS of OCCUPYING IRAQ - we could send in enough SATELITE DISHES, on the BLACK MARKET, Literally by the TRUCKLOAD. These babies are practically free and pick up great coverage of all Satelities. They're small too, easily disguisable. And they can be networked easily. Just conects one and the whole neighborhood has free cable. ALL CHANNELS --- I'd give the MULLAHS 4 years before mass chaos break out.
We didn't hand anything to them on a silver platter -- there was no way in hell the U.S. would have had the political will to stay there for that long.
Well, it looked a lot different to me in 1968 than it does in 2005. Westmoreland was asking for a huge increase in troop strength to prepare for a limited invasion of the North following Tet. LBJ was advised that meant reducing troops in Europe or calling up the reserves. He definitely didn't have the political will for that. And he was right in the middle of every large and small decision regarding the war.
Following the decision not to go for the victory, everything seemed to be downhill. There was no clear objective. Ye olde quagmire.
Yeah, I was gonna say 'it worked out so well last time...'
Limited invasion, no formal declaration of war, Gulf of Tonkin incident, etc. The U.S. didn't lose the Vietnam War for political reasons -- we lost the war because we had no freakin' idea what the hell we were even involved in. How could we have "gone for victory" when we hadn't even defined what the word "victory" meant (sound familiar?). The whole thing was a fraud from the start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.