Posted on 07/25/2015 6:42:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Bookmark, I’ve heard this argument indeed parroted.
Amazing History is always twisted and rewritten by the left. So when the truth coms out there is a credibility gap because the lies have been used for decades.
Our name for this process was "The American Revolution." Why would the author of this article have a problem with it?
Bookmark
During the Islamic revolution of 1979, the U.S. embassy was actually the second major Western "landmark" that was sacked and occupied during the uprising. A special honor as a scholar in modern Iranian history goes to the Freeper who knows which building was first.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
The CIA doesn’t agree. They say did it, in partnership with Britain, for British strategic reasons.
“Our name for this process was “The American Revolution.” Why would the author of this article have a problem with it?”
I think you’re comparing two different things. Iran signed a deal over the oil interests. We signed no deal with Britain. The British took what was OURS in other words.
Who does the "OURS" refer to?
That kid is going to have reality slapping him in the face for many years now. He better get used to it after being fed so many liberal lies at the university. First one he’s going to learn is ht Obama lied about student loan forgiveness...
Dear God this article is a complete farce.
Some reading material for the class
http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410
I also cannot take an article about 1953 seriously without any mention of Kermit Roosevelt
Evidence Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah
http://www.rescueattempt.com/id24.html
We were British in 1774.
“Who does the “OURS” refer to?”
Our money, our freedom, our rights - through the imposition of taxes without our say, the billeting of soldiers in homes against our will, and the imposition - or at least attempts at the imposition - of speech and social controls.
Are you saying you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence?
Here are the accusations against King George III:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Six decades to the day since a pro-Shah mob, led by Iranian agents recruited by the U.S. and the British, marched on Mossadegh’s residence, Byrne published extracts from internal C.I.A. documents that, for the first time, explicitly acknowledge how the agency masterminded the change of government in Tehran.
The C.I.A.’s involvement in the coup, which served as a model for subsequent clandestine operations in Guatemala, Cuba, and other countries, has been well known for decades, and even today it is a source of animosity towards the United States on the part of many Iranians. The agent who led the coup was Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt. Until recently, though, the agency hasn’t publicly acknowledged the extent of its role, which was code named TPAJAX. That has now changed. In an internal C.I.A. account of the coup, which was written in the nineteen-seventies and kept secret until Byrne obtained it, the anonymous author states bluntly:
The military coup that overthrew Mosadeq [a different English translation of the prime minister’s name from Farsi] 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.
So much for the the Eisenhower Administration’s vigorous denials that it was behind the coup. And so much for the alternative version of the events, assiduously promoted in some quarters, which claimed that the overthrowal of Mossadegh was a locally-inspired plot that the Americans and the British merely helped along. The internal C.I.A. historian continues:
It was not an aggressively simplistic solution, clandestinely arrived at, but was instead an official admission … that normal, rational methods of international communication and commerce had failed. TPJAX was entered into as a last resort.
The newly released account come from one of a series of documents that the C.I.A. eventually turned over to Byrne after he filed Freedom of Information requests. It is different from another history of the Iranian coup that was written in 1954 by one of its planners at the C.I.A., Donald N. Wilber, and which the New York Times reporter James Risen obtained in 2000. Wilber’s account was almost contemporaneous, and it contained many vivid details of the coup attempt, which almost failed. The new account, portions of which had been declassified previously, takes a broader and more detached approach. In addition to confirming that a U.S. President, Dwight Eisenhower, personally approved the toppling of a foreign government, it contains several other items of interest.
The United States saw the coup essentially as a Cold War maneuver. For the British, who were also eager to overthrow Mossadegh, the main beef with the Iranian Prime Minister was that, in May of 1951, he had nationalized the oil fields controlled by the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, the precursor to BP. From the perspective of Washington, though, as the newly released documents confirm, Mossadegh’s biggest sin was his flirtation with the Soviet Union, which, like Britain, had colonial ties to Iran. As the animosity between Tehran and London escalated, the British moved to prevent Iran from selling any oil internationally, thus depriving the government of much-needed revenues. The C.I.A. and other U.S. agencies became concerned that Mossadegh would turn to the Soviets for economic and even military help. From the Agency’s history:
“We were British in 1774.”
Not my family.
Gee, thanks for that advertisement. I saw no mention of the Tudeh party and Soviet influence. I guess Marxists are always welcome liberators and the West are always meddling coup-plotters.
Of course. My point is that grievances of this sort are behind almost any revolutionary movement where a colonial power is overthrown. That’s pretty much what happened in Iran in 1979, isn’t it?
Considering Mossadegh completely rejected any “Soviet security zone” in Northern Iran the Soviet threat was overblown, and conceived by Churchill to convince Eisenhower to take action, after Truman refused.
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.