• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who gets the blame for 9/11 IYO

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
hey spidey07

Clinton. This can't be disputed.

go pick up a book, it was the shake up of the cia BY A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS IN THE MID 90S THAT CAUSED THE CIA TO GO DOWNHILL

i suggest you read "see no evil" robert baer (sp), then go read "sleeping with the devil"
 
If the answer to question 1 is "vast right wing conspiracy", does that mean a yes to question 2 would indicate we also would blame that on "vast right wing conspiracy", rather than just Bush himself?
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
I'm not here to make friends so I'll lay it out right.

How can anyone blame Bush for another terrorist attack? How can anyone blame Bush for 9/11? It was not Bush's fault. If you want to blame someone blame Saudi Arabia and osama bin launden's terrorist organization.
If anything the war in Iraq has caused a lot of them to fight U.S forces in Iraq. Yes obviously there might be a few cells in the U.S. There are 7-8 million Muslims in the U.S and maybe 1-100 of them could be part of Al Qaeda. Is it Bush's fault that they came to this country? please ..

If anyone doesn't know I voted for Kerry and I do not like GWB, but I do not see how you can blame attacks on a president.

By the way those saying we should have went after OBL when we had the chance, well it wouldn't have changed anything. Attacking S.A won't really change anything. The regime in S.A is loyal to the U.S and they are doing everything they can to stop the extremist. What is going to change if the U.S attacks S.A? Nothing. Those people will continue to hate us more. What reason do we have to attack S.A when the regime supports the U.S? I don't care about their fanatical Islamic laws. That doesn't make someone hate the U.S.

The problems with all this hate is from Israel-Palestine and U.S support for Israel and Arab support for the U.S. You want the terror to end? Find a solution to Israel-Palestine. I don't care what it is just do it. Build a wall 500 feet high.

Dub is not the only one to blame. He is in charge and did nothing to prevent the attacks so he gets more blame than anyone besides OBL.

 
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
hey spidey07

Clinton. This can't be disputed.

go pick up a book, it was the shake up of the cia BY A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS IN THE MID 90S THAT CAUSED THE CIA TO GO DOWNHILL

i suggest you read "see no evil" robert baer (sp), then go read "sleeping with the devil"

I?ve read both. Robert Baer makes it implicitly clear that both the Democrats and Republicans had a part to play in the downfall of CIA intelligence gathering during the 80s and 90s. Further, the Dems and Reps had control of Congress at certain times during the two decades. Baer points out clearly the problem with intelligence gathering during this period was due in part to the perceived political fallout if an agent was caught doing the ?dirty work? of the CIA. Agents were to strictly follow bureaucratic guidelines to farm sources, conduct surveillance and carry out CIA missions. The dirty work just wasn?t happening because agents repeatedly had their hands tied by both parties.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
You cannot blame the president per se. But maybe if one looks at the reasons for the terrorist attacks. ie. US foreign policy, you kinda can. I dont think Bush's adventures in the ME are gaining the US many friends...so yeah we can blame him plenty 🙂

Once again, blame the religious zealots in the Middle East.

 
I'd blame religion or God. However, since it's not a poll choice that's neither here nor there.

Out of the poll choices I picked Saudi Arabia. It fostered the type of environment that creates an OBL and his ilk and has for years. They only just recently expunged anti-western/hate for non-Muslims rhetoric from their school textbooks - rhetoric that taught Saudi children to hate the US, infidels, jews, and the West - and people in SA actually held protests because it was being removed. They are not taught tolerance but instead an atmosphere of hate is promulgated, along with the paternalistic attitudes that are so prevalent in many predominately Islamic countries.

That type of environment was/is bound to produce some crazies like OBL. This type of environment and teaching is spreading around the world. Do we really want to wait until it's knocking on our door incessantly before we address this problem?
 
The ONLY people I think deserve the "blame" are those who actually carried it out and were on the planes. No one else.

But people want someone to string up, whether its Bush, Clinton, Osama or the Saudi Gov. People want someone to blame because they can't pounce on those already dead (the 19 who carried it out).
 
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: SirStev0
the last 60 yrs. of american policy...
How about the last 1400 years of Islamic policy. Time they stopped!

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people. All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands. Musaddique had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which largely controlled the oil in Iran.

That single event is arguably the beginnings of modern Islamic terrorism which gathered a life of its own, building up hatred against the US, and culminating with 9/11 and now the insurgency in Iraq.

It's a difficult situation we are in today and no easy solutions. Forcing democratic ideologies and governments on people who hate you is only going to make them hate you more.






 
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: SirStev0
the last 60 yrs. of american policy...
How about the last 1400 years of Islamic policy. Time they stopped!

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people. All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands. Musaddique had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which largely controlled the oil in Iran.
Uhg!

Please do a little historical research BEFORE writing such revisionist crap.

That single event is arguably the beginnings of modern Islamic terrorism which gathered a life of its own, building up hatred against the US, and culminating with 9/11 and now the insurgency in Iraq.
Erm, except for groups like Fadayan-e Islam, which were already around and had been for some time.

It's a difficult situation we are in today and no easy solutions. Forcing democratic ideologies and governments on people who hate you is only going to make them hate you more.
If someone already hates it's unlikely that more hate is going to matter much.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: SirStev0
the last 60 yrs. of american policy...
How about the last 1400 years of Islamic policy. Time they stopped!

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people. All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands. Musaddique had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which largely controlled the oil in Iran.
Uhg!

Please do a little historical research BEFORE writing such revisionist crap.

That single event is arguably the beginnings of modern Islamic terrorism which gathered a life of its own, building up hatred against the US, and culminating with 9/11 and now the insurgency in Iraq.
Erm, except for groups like Fadayan-e Islam, which were already around and had been for some time.

It's a difficult situation we are in today and no easy solutions. Forcing democratic ideologies and governments on people who hate you is only going to make them hate you more.
If someone already hates it's unlikely that more hate is going to matter much.

Is the National Security Archive reliable enough for you?

Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran
Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne

New Volume Reexamines a Seminal Event in Modern Middle Eastern History

A Joint U.S.-British Regime-Change Operation in 1953 that Holds Lessons for Today
New Documents Shed Further Light on Secret U.S. Policy

June 22, 2004

For further information Contact Malcolm Byrne 202/994-7043
mbyrne@gwu.edu


On the morning of August 19, 1953, a crowd of demonstrators operating at the direction of pro-Shah organizers with ties to the CIA made its way from the bazaars of southern Tehran to the center of the city. Joined by military and police forces equipped with tanks, they sacked offices and newspapers aligned with Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and his advisers, as well as the communist Tudeh Party and others opposed to the monarch. By early afternoon, clashes with Mosaddeq supporters were taking place, the fiercest occurring in front of the prime minister's home. Reportedly 200 people were killed in that battle before Mosaddeq escaped over his own roof, only to surrender the following day. At 5:25 p.m., retired General Fazlollah Zahedi, arriving at the radio station on a tank, declared to the nation that with the Shah's blessing he was now the legal prime minister and that his forces were largely in control of the city.

Although official U.S. reports and published accounts described Mosaddeq's overthrow and the shah's restoration to power as inspired and carried out by Iranians, this was far from the full story. Memoirs of key CIA and British intelligence operatives and historical reconstructions of events have long established that a joint U.S.-British covert operation took place in mid-August, which had a crucial impact. Yet, there has continued to be a controversy over who was responsible for the overthrow of the popularly elected Mosaddeq, thanks to accounts by, among others, former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Zahedi's son, who later became a fixture in the Shah's regime. Those versions of events virtually ignored the possibility that any outside actors played a part, claiming instead that the movement to reinstate the Shah was genuine and nationwide in scope.

Now, a new volume of essays by leading historians of Iranian politics, the coup, and U.S. and British policy presents the most balanced, detailed, and up-to-date assessment of this landmark event to date. Based on new documentation and extensive interviews of participants, Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran (Syracuse University Press, 2004) offers an abundance of new information, analysis and insights into the staging of the overthrow as well as the historical, political, and social context which made it possible.

Among the book's main conclusions is that Iranians and non-Iranians both played crucial parts in the coup's success. The CIA, with help from British intelligence, planned, funded and implemented the operation. When the plot threatened to fall apart entirely at an early point, U.S. agents on the ground took the initiative to jump-start the operation, adapted the plans to fit the new circumstances, and pressed their Iranian collaborators to keep going. Moreover, a British-led oil boycott, supported by the United States, plus a wide range of ongoing political pressures by both governments against Mosaddeq, culminating in a massive covert propaganda campaign in the months leading up to the coup helped create the environment necessary for success.

However, Iranians also contributed in many ways. Among the Iranians involved were the Shah, Zahedi and several non-official figures who worked closely with the American and British intelligence services. Their roles in the coup were clearly vital, but so also were the activities of various political groups - in particular members of the National Front who split with Mosaddeq by early 1953, and the Tudeh party - in critically undermining Mosaddeq's base of support. The volume provides substantial detail and analysis about the roles of each of these groups and individuals, and even includes scrutiny of Mosaddeq and the ways in which he contributed to his own demise.

The "28 Mordad" coup, as it is known by its Persian date, was a watershed for Iran, for the Middle East and for the standing of the United States in the region. The joint U.S.-British operation ended Iran's drive to assert sovereign control over its own resources and helped put an end to a vibrant chapter in the history of the country's nationalist and democratic movements. These consequences resonated with dramatic effect in later years. When the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians.

Follow the links in there or search.

I will post additional links to prove my point when I get home later today.




 
All of the above, and then some. There is no root person to blame, it was the culmination of many different factors over an undetermined time span. A butterfly effect, if you will.
Well, there may be a root person to blame, if you you believe in evolution. It was whoever decided it was a good idea to come down from the trees.
 
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Follow the links in there or search.

I will post additional links to prove my point when I get home later today.
Thanks, but I already know the story.

Let's look at your original claim:

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people.
First of all, Britian and the USSR put Shah Pahlavi in power because they feared his father, who was orignally elected as Shah by the Iranian Assembly in '25, was going to align with Germany in WWII. Pahlavi appointed Mossadeq to the position of Prime Minister after getting pressure from the Majlis who were, like Mossadeq, big proponents of nationalizing their oil. He was not elected to that position though he did have popular support by making grandiose claims to the people of Iran about how their lot in life would improve drastically when oil was nationalized. The radical fringe supported Mossadeq as well as the Iranian Communist Party.

All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands.
Iranian oil was primarily in British hands in a contractual agreement with the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company ), not the US. Truman was even initially sympathetic to the aspirations of the Iranians to nationalize their oil. Eisenhower changed that perception because Mossadeq was seen getting a bit too comfy with the commies and the USSR.

Musaddique had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which largely controlled the oil in Iran.
This is about the only statement you got right.
 
Baer points out clearly the problem with intelligence gathering during this period was due in part to the perceived political fallout if an agent was caught doing the ?dirty work? of the CIA.

yes but at the time republicans controlled congress, they took it in 94
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Thanks, but I already know the story.

Let's look at your original claim:

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people.
First of all, Britian and the USSR put Shah Pahlavi in power because they feared his father, who was orignally elected as Shah by the Iranian Assembly in '25, was going to align with Germany in WWII. Pahlavi appointed Mossadeq to the position of Prime Minister after getting pressure from the Majlis who were, like Mossadeq, big proponents of nationalizing their oil. He was not elected to that position though he did have popular support by making grandiose claims to the people of Iran about how their lot in life would improve drastically when oil was nationalized. The radical fringe supported Mossadeq as well as the Iranian Communist Party.

You make it sound as if Mossadeq was somehow not an elected official, when he's as much an elected official as Tony Blair, who was made Prime Minister by appointment of the Queen. Both were elected to Parliament, but also in both cases, Prime Minister is not a position that the people vote on. It is a position that Parliament and the head of state choose, not the people, and Mossadeq was chosen by the Iranian Parliament twice. Also, while Majlis is the correct term for the Iranian Parliament, it's likely unfamiliar with many readers and your use of the term above makes them sound like a unelected special interest group of some sort.

All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands.
Iranian oil was primarily in British hands in a contractual agreement with the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company ), not the US. Truman was even initially sympathetic to the aspirations of the Iranians to nationalize their oil. Eisenhower changed that perception because Mossadeq was seen getting a bit too comfy with the commies and the USSR.

While you're right about the oil before the CIA coup, after the coup, the consortium that controlled Iranian oil had less than half British holdings, with American holdings of about the same size.
 
I blame bin Laden...our policy may have made enemies in the Middle East, our past leaders and agencies may not have protected us fully, but no one except bin Laden and his supporters and terrorist buddies planned and executed the mission. This idea that 9/11 was a natural, unavoidable reaction to anything is stupid. There are always contributing factors, but I don't blame anyone except the criminals for their crimes. I don't blame rap music and violent games for school shootings either.
 
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
Baer points out clearly the problem with intelligence gathering during this period was due in part to the perceived political fallout if an agent was caught doing the ?dirty work? of the CIA.

yes but at the time republicans controlled congress, they took it in 94

Take a look through See No Evil a little closer. He starts the book off in 94, but he discusses in detail the failures of the agency throughout the 80s and 90s both. Turn to page 136, right there you will find him discussing in detail the problems of the CIA in 1989 when he was working on Pan Am flight 103. The CIA during this time was curtailed by big government from both sides of the aisle not just the Republicans as you argue. From 83 on, the year of the Beriut bombing, it?s plain as day the problems Baer faced in gathering good intelligence. Baer makes this point clear.

Whether it was Osama Bin Laden, Yasir Arafat, Iranian terrorism, Saddam Hussein, or any of the other evils that so threaten the world, the Clinton administration seemed determined to sweep them all under the carpet. Ronald Reagan and George Bush I. were not much better. P. 267

He knocks on them all.
 
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Thanks, but I already know the story.

Let's look at your original claim:

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people.
First of all, Britian and the USSR put Shah Pahlavi in power because they feared his father, who was orignally elected as Shah by the Iranian Assembly in '25, was going to align with Germany in WWII. Pahlavi appointed Mossadeq to the position of Prime Minister after getting pressure from the Majlis who were, like Mossadeq, big proponents of nationalizing their oil. He was not elected to that position though he did have popular support by making grandiose claims to the people of Iran about how their lot in life would improve drastically when oil was nationalized. The radical fringe supported Mossadeq as well as the Iranian Communist Party.

You make it sound as if Mossadeq was somehow not an elected official, when he's as much an elected official as Tony Blair, who was made Prime Minister by appointment of the Queen. Both were elected to Parliament, but also in both cases, Prime Minister is not a position that the people vote on. It is a position that Parliament and the head of state choose, not the people, and Mossadeq was chosen by the Iranian Parliament twice. Also, while Majlis is the correct term for the Iranian Parliament, it's likely unfamiliar with many readers and your use of the term above makes them sound like a unelected special interest group of some sort.
You make it sound as if the Shah was installed by the US when that is not the case either. Not to mention that the Shah put some social programs and reforms in place, as well as permitting more women's rights that had ever been known in Iran, and brought Iran through some of its most prosperous times since its inception. I'm not saying he's without fault. The Shah's move to autonomous rule was ugly. But he was not a particularly vindictive or brutal dictator, as far as dictators in the ME go.

Mossadeq, on the other hand, was a power mongering snake who tried to take control of Iran completely and did what was good for Mossadeq, not the people.

All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands.
Iranian oil was primarily in British hands in a contractual agreement with the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company ), not the US. Truman was even initially sympathetic to the aspirations of the Iranians to nationalize their oil. Eisenhower changed that perception because Mossadeq was seen getting a bit too comfy with the commies and the USSR.

While you're right about the oil before the CIA coup, after the coup, the consortium that controlled Iranian oil had less than half British holdings, with American holdings of about the same size.[/quote]
Welcome to politics 101.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Thanks, but I already know the story.

Let's look at your original claim:

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people.
First of all, Britian and the USSR put Shah Pahlavi in power because they feared his father, who was orignally elected as Shah by the Iranian Assembly in '25, was going to align with Germany in WWII. Pahlavi appointed Mossadeq to the position of Prime Minister after getting pressure from the Majlis who were, like Mossadeq, big proponents of nationalizing their oil. He was not elected to that position though he did have popular support by making grandiose claims to the people of Iran about how their lot in life would improve drastically when oil was nationalized. The radical fringe supported Mossadeq as well as the Iranian Communist Party.

You make it sound as if Mossadeq was somehow not an elected official, when he's as much an elected official as Tony Blair, who was made Prime Minister by appointment of the Queen. Both were elected to Parliament, but also in both cases, Prime Minister is not a position that the people vote on. It is a position that Parliament and the head of state choose, not the people, and Mossadeq was chosen by the Iranian Parliament twice. Also, while Majlis is the correct term for the Iranian Parliament, it's likely unfamiliar with many readers and your use of the term above makes them sound like a unelected special interest group of some sort.
You make it sound as if the Shah was installed by the US when that is not the case either.

What? I didn't write anything about the Shah.

Mossadeq, on the other hand, was a power mongering snake who tried to take control of Iran completely and did what was good for Mossadeq, not the people.

He was much better for the Iranian people than the Shah turned out to be, and most likely wouldn't have led to his government's overthrow at the hands of Khomeni.

All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands.
Iranian oil was primarily in British hands in a contractual agreement with the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company ), not the US. Truman was even initially sympathetic to the aspirations of the Iranians to nationalize their oil. Eisenhower changed that perception because Mossadeq was seen getting a bit too comfy with the commies and the USSR.

While you're right about the oil before the CIA coup, after the coup, the consortium that controlled Iranian oil had less than half British holdings, with American holdings of about the same size.[/quote]
Welcome to politics 101.
[/quote]
Your comment seems to imply that I'm just learning something here, when I'm the one correcting your mistakes and omissions of essential facts.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Follow the links in there or search.

I will post additional links to prove my point when I get home later today.
Thanks, but I already know the story.

Let's look at your original claim:

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people.
First of all, Britian and the USSR put Shah Pahlavi in power because they feared his father, who was orignally elected as Shah by the Iranian Assembly in '25, was going to align with Germany in WWII. Pahlavi appointed Mossadeq to the position of Prime Minister after getting pressure from the Majlis who were, like Mossadeq, big proponents of nationalizing their oil. He was not elected to that position though he did have popular support by making grandiose claims to the people of Iran about how their lot in life would improve drastically when oil was nationalized. The radical fringe supported Mossadeq as well as the Iranian Communist Party.

All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands.
Iranian oil was primarily in British hands in a contractual agreement with the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company ), not the US. Truman was even initially sympathetic to the aspirations of the Iranians to nationalize their oil. Eisenhower changed that perception because Mossadeq was seen getting a bit too comfy with the commies and the USSR.

Musaddique had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which largely controlled the oil in Iran.
This is about the only statement you got right.

TLC we're splitting hairs here.

1. Here's a few links for more reading. I'll quote the first link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddeq
http://www.globalpolicy.org/em...y/2000/0416ciairan.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/ht...ction/iran_history.asp
A long read
Long read continued

The prime minister was an elected member of parliament. In a parliamentary system the leader is chosen from among the elected members. So yes he was elected and only 'appointed' in the sense that the Shah as head of state rubber stamped the parliament vote electing him prime minister. More important he was eligible to be appointed Prime minister by virtue of his being an elected member of the Majlis (Iranian parliament).

The radical fringe not only supported him, they had assisinated his predecessor. In those days terrorism was a fringe movement which was nowhere as widespread and intense as it is today. My point was that the overthrow of a democratically elected government, with US help and planning, and imposition of the Shah was the seed that led to large scale islamic revolt and laid the groundwork for the spread of modern islamic terrorism. This is why the real blame for modern terrorism lies with US foreign policy.

The islamists also successfully spread their hatred of US throughout the Arab world by roping in the Palestine- Isreal situation.

I used the world 'arguably' as there are different schools of thought. To quote one of the articles which corresponds my point of view: "The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy."

2. Agreed that prior to the Shah, oil assets in Iran were largely under the control and influence of the British via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which is known as BP today. US wanted to get in on the act and managed to do so when the CIA backed Shah came back into power till he was overthrown.




Mohammed Mossadegh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Mohammed Mossadegh (May 19, 1882 - March 4, 1967) was prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. Mossadegh's name is sometimes spelled Mosaddeq or Mosaddegh (note the doubled "d"), the latter of which better reflects the original Persian pronunciation (mosæd'de?). He was removed from power by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and pro-monarchy forces in a complex plot, supported by British and US intelligence agencies.


Rise to Power

After being educated in France, Mohammed Mossadegh got his start in Iranian politics in 1914, when he was appointed Governor General of the Iranian province of Fars by Ahmad Shah Qajar and was titled Mosaddegh os-Saltaneh by the shah. He was later appointed finance minister, in the government of Ghavam os-Saltaneh in 1921, and then foreign minister, in the government of Hassan Pirnia Moshir od-Dowleh in June, 1923. Later in 1923, he was elected to the Iranian parliament but resigned shortly after, following the selection of Reza Pahlavi as shah.

By 1944 Reza Pahlavi had abdicated, and Mossadegh was once again elected to parliament. This time he ran as a member of the National Front Party, a nationalist organization that aimed to end the foreign presence that had established itself in Iran following the Second World War, especially regarding the exploitation of Iran's rich oil resources.

After negotiations for higher oil royalties failed, on March 15, 1951 the Iran parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry, and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Prime minister General beloved patriot-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. He was asssassinated on March 7, 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam. A while later, the Majlis voted for Mossadegh as new prime minister. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets.

Responding to the latter, the British government announced it would not allow Mossadegh's government to export any oil produced in the formerly British-controlled factories. A blockade of British ships was sent to the Persian Gulf to prevent any attempts by Iran to ship any oil out of the country. An economic stalemate thus ensued, with Mossadegh's government refusing to allow any British involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain refusing to allow any oil to leave Iran.

Since Britain had long been Iran's primary oil-consumer, the stalemate was particularly hard on Iran. While the country had once boasted over a 100 million dollars a year in exports to Britain, after nationalization, the same oil industry began increasing Iran's debt by nearly 10 million dollars a month.

Despite the economic hardships of his nationalization plan, Mossadegh remained popular, and in 1952 was approved by parliament for a second term. Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would request the Shah grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh asked the Shah to grant him full control of the military, and Ministry of War. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation.

Ahmed Qavam was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage. Protestors of all stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah quickly dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously requested.

Taking advantage of his atmosphere of popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's radical Muslims, as well as the Iranian Communist Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained.

Mossadegh quickly implemented more socialist reforms. Iran's centuries old feudal agriculture sector was abolished, and replaced with a system of collective farming and government land ownership.

Plot against Mossadegh

The governments of Britain and the United States grew increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's reforms. Publicly, they denounced his policies as harmful to the country; privately, both governments sought to implement lucrative oil contracts, but Mossadegh refused. Mossadegh's socialist reforms and increasingly close partnership with the Iranian Communist Party also prompted fears that Iran might develop closer ties with the neighbouring Soviet Union.

In October of 1952, Mossadegh declared that Britain was "an enemy," and cut all diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom. In November and December 1952, British intelligence officials suggested to American intelligence that the prime minister should be ousted. The new US administration under Dwight Eisenhower and the British government under Winston Churchill agreed to work together toward Mossadegh's removal.

On April 4, 1953, US Central Intelligence Agency director Allen W. Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh." Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to launch a propaganda compaign against Mossadegh. Finally, according to the New York Times

In early June, American and British intelligence officials met again, this time in Beirut, and put the finishing touches on the strategy. Soon afterward, according to his later published accounts, the chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. a grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, arrived in Tehran to direct it.

The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community.

Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. The vote was clearly rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. This was in turn cited by US- and British-funded opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power. Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's "emergency powers" were extended.

To prevent the plot from succeeding Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and fired the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossdegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy.

Commentators assumed it was only a matter of time before Mossadegh declared Iran a republic and made himself president. This would have made him the full head of state and given him supreme authority over the nation, something Mossadegh had promised he would never do.

Once again, massive protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. Aided by the U.S. CIA and the British MI6, the pro-monarchy forces quickly gained the upper hand, stormed government offices and ransacked the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953.

General Fazlollah Zahedi, who had been the CIA's original choice to replace Mossadegh, proclaimed himself as the new prime minister. The Shah himself, after a brief exile in Italy, was rushed back to Iran and returned to the throne. His attempted overthrow and subsequent restoration to power had all occurred within a week.

Mossadegh was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison. Following his release he remained under house arrest until his death in 1967. The new government under the Shah in August 1954 reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to "restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities."

Legacy

The extent of the US role in Mossadegh's overthrow was not formally acknowledged for many years, although the Eisenhower administration was quite vocal in its opposition to the policies of the ousted Iranian Prime Minister. In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadegh, and describes him as impractical and naive, though stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup.

Eventually the CIA's role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. Die-hard CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mossadegh was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial.

When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, the overthrow of Mossadegh was used as a rallying point in anti-US protests.
To this day, Mossadegh's image in Iran is mixed. His secularism and western manners have made official government praise mild at best in the now fundamentalist theocratic state. Yet many others still view him as a victim of US aggression.

In March 2000, then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on CIA documents.

Mossadegh had a flamboyant personality and was well-known for theatrics, including weeping, fainting, and napping in public. His numerous eccentricities, such as wearing his bathrobe in parliament made him a well-known figure. His controversial actions captured the attention of the world, and he was named as Time Magazine's 1951 Man of the Year.

In early 2004, the Egyptian government changed a street name in Cairo from Pahlavi to Mossadegh, to facilitate closer relations with Iran.




Edit:
Looks like I got pre-empted by others - kept my reply window open too long!!
 
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: SirStev0
the last 60 yrs. of american policy...
How about the last 1400 years of Islamic policy. Time they stopped!

No, one has to go back to the time when the Shah of Iran was installed by the US, overthrowing the elected government of Prime Minister Musaddique there, and kept in power against the will of the Iranian people. All to ensure that control of oil remained in US hands. Musaddique had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which largely controlled the oil in Iran.
Uhg!

Please do a little historical research BEFORE writing such revisionist crap.

That single event is arguably the beginnings of modern Islamic terrorism which gathered a life of its own, building up hatred against the US, and culminating with 9/11 and now the insurgency in Iraq.
Erm, except for groups like Fadayan-e Islam, which were already around and had been for some time.

It's a difficult situation we are in today and no easy solutions. Forcing democratic ideologies and governments on people who hate you is only going to make them hate you more.
If someone already hates it's unlikely that more hate is going to matter much.

Is the National Security Archive reliable enough for you?

Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran
Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne

New Volume Reexamines a Seminal Event in Modern Middle Eastern History

A Joint U.S.-British Regime-Change Operation in 1953 that Holds Lessons for Today
New Documents Shed Further Light on Secret U.S. Policy

June 22, 2004

For further information Contact Malcolm Byrne 202/994-7043
mbyrne@gwu.edu


On the morning of August 19, 1953, a crowd of demonstrators operating at the direction of pro-Shah organizers with ties to the CIA made its way from the bazaars of southern Tehran to the center of the city. Joined by military and police forces equipped with tanks, they sacked offices and newspapers aligned with Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and his advisers, as well as the communist Tudeh Party and others opposed to the monarch. By early afternoon, clashes with Mosaddeq supporters were taking place, the fiercest occurring in front of the prime minister's home. Reportedly 200 people were killed in that battle before Mosaddeq escaped over his own roof, only to surrender the following day. At 5:25 p.m., retired General Fazlollah Zahedi, arriving at the radio station on a tank, declared to the nation that with the Shah's blessing he was now the legal prime minister and that his forces were largely in control of the city.

Although official U.S. reports and published accounts described Mosaddeq's overthrow and the shah's restoration to power as inspired and carried out by Iranians, this was far from the full story. Memoirs of key CIA and British intelligence operatives and historical reconstructions of events have long established that a joint U.S.-British covert operation took place in mid-August, which had a crucial impact. Yet, there has continued to be a controversy over who was responsible for the overthrow of the popularly elected Mosaddeq, thanks to accounts by, among others, former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Zahedi's son, who later became a fixture in the Shah's regime. Those versions of events virtually ignored the possibility that any outside actors played a part, claiming instead that the movement to reinstate the Shah was genuine and nationwide in scope.

Now, a new volume of essays by leading historians of Iranian politics, the coup, and U.S. and British policy presents the most balanced, detailed, and up-to-date assessment of this landmark event to date. Based on new documentation and extensive interviews of participants, Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran (Syracuse University Press, 2004) offers an abundance of new information, analysis and insights into the staging of the overthrow as well as the historical, political, and social context which made it possible.

Among the book's main conclusions is that Iranians and non-Iranians both played crucial parts in the coup's success. The CIA, with help from British intelligence, planned, funded and implemented the operation. When the plot threatened to fall apart entirely at an early point, U.S. agents on the ground took the initiative to jump-start the operation, adapted the plans to fit the new circumstances, and pressed their Iranian collaborators to keep going. Moreover, a British-led oil boycott, supported by the United States, plus a wide range of ongoing political pressures by both governments against Mosaddeq, culminating in a massive covert propaganda campaign in the months leading up to the coup helped create the environment necessary for success.

However, Iranians also contributed in many ways. Among the Iranians involved were the Shah, Zahedi and several non-official figures who worked closely with the American and British intelligence services. Their roles in the coup were clearly vital, but so also were the activities of various political groups - in particular members of the National Front who split with Mosaddeq by early 1953, and the Tudeh party - in critically undermining Mosaddeq's base of support. The volume provides substantial detail and analysis about the roles of each of these groups and individuals, and even includes scrutiny of Mosaddeq and the ways in which he contributed to his own demise.

The "28 Mordad" coup, as it is known by its Persian date, was a watershed for Iran, for the Middle East and for the standing of the United States in the region. The joint U.S.-British operation ended Iran's drive to assert sovereign control over its own resources and helped put an end to a vibrant chapter in the history of the country's nationalist and democratic movements. These consequences resonated with dramatic effect in later years. When the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians.

Follow the links in there or search.

I will post additional links to prove my point when I get home later today.

Accurate, but very short sighted.

 
Back
Top