The CIA/MI5 coup is fascinating not only because it overthrow a democratically elected government of a Middle Eastern country in 1953 (!) but also because of its consequences. There is not a single democratic government in the ME sans Israel. No, tiny Tunisia does not count, it is in the Maghreb (N. Africa).
What would the middle east look like if the Mosaddegh government had continued? No revolution, No Ayatollah, no Iran-Iraq war, no Hezbollah? Instead we got the Shah who forced his people to modernize, secret police pulling veils off women was common and generally unleashed a reign that was anathema to most of the conservative population outside Tehran. Most of the anger you see is towards the US is from that reign rather than the coup.
The Iranians who are Persians, and not Arabs, have a civilizational history going back 1000s of years. Expat Persians have achieved great success in the US and UK. Going further back, the Zoroastrians, who fled the Islamic conquest and arrived in India more than a millennia ago are the richest, most educated and economically successful minority group by an order of magnitude, or two.
The Shah's reign lasted 25 years. A generation that grew up under the Shah's tyranny led the revolution in 1979. The Islamic revolution is now 40 years old. There have been almost two generations
that grew up under the Islamic govt's misrule and grandiose projects of power projection. Hopefully they can take charge and lead Iran back to civilizational greatness. Iran, the middle east and the world needs it.
And I would really like to visit the gardens of Shiraz or the markets of Isfahan which have been around for 1000s of years ;)
Edit: As pointed out in the comments, instead of Arab world, I should have used Arab speaking. There are Arab speakers who are Arab and there are Arab speakers who are not Arab.
>There is not a single democratic govt in the ME sans Israel
The millions of Palestinians unable to vote for the government that controls their movement, trade, and lives in general would probably disagree with your characterization of Israel as a democracy.
The Observer received a D-notice which prevented its publication.
The makers of Coup 53 made use of the unpublished Observer material.
Briefly, the UK Government wanted Mosaddegh overthrown because he wanted to nationalize a British oil company (Anglo-Iranian). It tried to get the CIA involved but Truman opposed American involvement. This changed when Eisenhower was elected president.
Yup a lot of Age of Empire is used in the documentary. Finding that Observer material in Microfilm set them down the merry path. My father was excitedly telling me about it when they discovered it. He really couldn't believe it.
I love this. Our decades of oil wars still don't seem to be common knowledge. All of the wars have of course been sold to the public as something else and it's a pretty important thing to understand about modern western power.
> Our decades of oil wars still don't seem to be common knowledge.
Nor are common knowledge the names of the oil company executives and shareholders who benefited from these wars, while dumping the expense and blame on their host countries.
> For years, I thought the CIA was the prime mover of the coup, but I was wrong.
I think the CIA was indeed the prime mover of the coup, at least according to the CIA's official history. Derbyshire, the person who was in charge of SIS's Iran branch, came up with the idea of a coup, but the Brits had not the capacity to pull it off and so they asked the CIA for help. The whole operation was very well documented by the declassified report entitled "CIA Clandestine Service History, Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, November 1952-August 1953", which is downloadable from
Marjane Satrapi's awesome autobiographical comic "Persepolis" [1] also addresses this as the setup to the chain of events that would lead to Iran's current theocracy.
I recommend this comic as well as the movie based on it.
> How that happens is the heart of the film, which paints a fascinatingly detailed picture of how, in practical terms, you go about toppling a popular foreign leader. It all starts with spreading around money and maybe arranging a couple of assassinations.
"The Jakarta Method" by Vincent Bevins delves into how the CIA adapted and shifted course to address some of the weaknesses of its in-plain-sight coup approach in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s. The ideal is always to preserve as much as possible the impression that the change in regimes is driven by local, endogenous political forces. The recent coup in Bolivia is a good demonstration of how this can be pulled off while almost entirely avoiding accusations of U.S. involvement.
The story that the CIA did this is mostly myth created by CIA people to enhance the reputation of the CIA in the eyes of US White House and Congress. CIA had Kermit Roosevelt Jr. (Teddy's grandson) in Iran working on it, but he accomplished little, and the CIA sent him orders to stop a couple of days before the coup. He pretended not to get the message and kept trying, but probably without much effect. Mohammad Mosaddegh lost power when the ayatollahs
raised their opposition to his rule. Roosevelt then returned to the US and collected all the credit.
This PR coup led to Eisenhower giving Dulles of the CIA a couple of fighter planes to use in Guatemala to remove Jacobo Arbenz from power, which was the CIA's pinnacle of success, strengthening the CIA's reputation even more and leading to the agency's mediocre record thereafter.
Thanks for posting this. I'm working on the documentary. We're having a live Q&A in 5 hours with the director Taghi Amirani, the editor and co-writer my father Walter Murch, and actor Ralph Fiennes who portrays Darbyshire. The Q&A is moderated by Jon Snow of Channel 4 news. This is exclusive access if you buy your ticket to our online premiere now! It's on our website.
We're having our general release on Friday. It's available in the USA, UK, Ireland and Canada. We're going country by country because we don't have a distributor.
I don't necessarily trust NPR to do that great of a job telling this story. I do recommend listening to the Iran section (all the sections, really) of Safe for Democracy: http://safefordemocracy.com/podcast/6/ . (Note: that's part 1 of 9).
Appreciate the additional sources. I share your skepticism about NPR's take on this sort of thing but have found that sometimes dodgy-but-mainstream sources can still be quite useful for kicking off productive discussions where some of the more salient facts can be explored.
The most fascinating part of Americanism to me is that America regularly compromises and helps compromise any country that doesn't share the same interests, and America's citizens (mostly) think it's fine. The society lives in fear of its government, its representatives live in fear of its military, and the military is controlled by higher-ups who probably shouldn't have been given power. Often people accuse the leaders of these compromised nations of being dictators as if America doesn't have a track record of instilling even more evil leaders (for example, Pinochet[1]).
Why can't America just leave other countries alone and tend to its own sorry affairs? America tries to make other countries "more free" and then treats Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Mexicans, other people of color, women, transgenders and other gender-nonconformists, homosexuals and anyone else that isn't heterosexual, Communists, Socialists, and anyone who isn't their form of "normal" as second-rate citizens in their own country. America (rightfully) accuses other countries of tampering in their election and then tampers in others' elections.[0] Their actions often contradict the values they claim to purvey.
I hear often that if another country was doing as poorly as America is right now, America would have "liberated" it already.
Fascinating how demographics change. Back then the UK population was bigger than Iran/Iraq/Syria/Israel/Palestine/SaudiArabia combined and much wealthier and powerful. Now those countries combine to hundreds of millions of people.
Now imagine for a second another country overthrowing the US elected government and installing their own dictator.
How exactly would Americans feel for that country later? (even just from that incident alone, let's ignore half a century of later meddling).
When Americans consider other countries' reactions towards them, they seldom consider the impact of their own actions, as if the toppling some sovereign country's government (the worse thing you can do) is no big deal, and others should just sit and take it...
Once again, behind a bad geopolitical situation is a Brit. History is unduly kind to the U.K., ignoring all of the atrocities of their colonialism for the sole reason that they suffered and overcame in WW2. Israel Palestine, India Pakistan, and Iran are all direct results of their racism and chicanery.
As a non US person I don't see anything different between the current administration and the last. Just this one isn't polished behind good speaches and fooling the world that their foreign policy is any different. No one was held accountable, secret prisons continue and drone usegae was normalized. The wars continue and new ones are started.
Many Americans are very apolitical, and either don't know or don't care about what the US government does if it doesn't affect them or their friends and families.
When they do care about politics, it's mostly about domestic politics, and Americans tend to have a massive ignorance about what's going on in the rest of the world or the history of any other country.
Civic education and history are not a high priority in the US. American schools tend to be more interested in pumping out people with STEM degrees and business people than about teaching them anything to do with the humanities.
On top of that Americans are constantly lied to and manipulated by their media and politicians, and politicians often act in ways that the American people don't approve of or are not informed of.
So I wouldn't blame the American people for Trump's actions. More and half of those Americans who voted (who aren't nearly all Americans old enough to vote), most voted against electing Trump to be President, and many of them despise him.
That said, Hillary Clinton was a hawk, so even had she become President it's not clear how favorable US government policy would have been towards Iran.
But I wouldn't blame the American people for that either, as America's policy towards Iran was never a major issue in the election (if it was an issue at all), and Americans don't tend to even elect people on policies or issues (which they rarely pay attention to unless it affects them) but on the candidate's image and personality.
Anyway, most Americans have no clue what the US foreign policy towards Iran is, couldn't find Iran on the map, and don't have even have the faintest idea about its history or the history of Iranian-American relations. And for those who know something about it, what they do know (or think they know) probably comes from an occasional 2 minute segment on TV news.
People (all over the world) generally just want to live their lives and be left alone. They don't deserve to be branded enemies for the actions of their governments.
I’m American and all I’ve ever seen from Iran is people chanting for my death and the death of the people I love. I was born in the 90s and had no bearing on foreign policy.
If sanctions prevents Iran from accomplishing those goals then I personally will consider that a good thing.
[+] [-] haltingproblem|5 years ago|reply
What would the middle east look like if the Mosaddegh government had continued? No revolution, No Ayatollah, no Iran-Iraq war, no Hezbollah? Instead we got the Shah who forced his people to modernize, secret police pulling veils off women was common and generally unleashed a reign that was anathema to most of the conservative population outside Tehran. Most of the anger you see is towards the US is from that reign rather than the coup.
The Iranians who are Persians, and not Arabs, have a civilizational history going back 1000s of years. Expat Persians have achieved great success in the US and UK. Going further back, the Zoroastrians, who fled the Islamic conquest and arrived in India more than a millennia ago are the richest, most educated and economically successful minority group by an order of magnitude, or two.
The Shah's reign lasted 25 years. A generation that grew up under the Shah's tyranny led the revolution in 1979. The Islamic revolution is now 40 years old. There have been almost two generations that grew up under the Islamic govt's misrule and grandiose projects of power projection. Hopefully they can take charge and lead Iran back to civilizational greatness. Iran, the middle east and the world needs it.
And I would really like to visit the gardens of Shiraz or the markets of Isfahan which have been around for 1000s of years ;)
Edit: As pointed out in the comments, instead of Arab world, I should have used Arab speaking. There are Arab speakers who are Arab and there are Arab speakers who are not Arab.
[+] [-] quercusgrisea|5 years ago|reply
The millions of Palestinians unable to vote for the government that controls their movement, trade, and lives in general would probably disagree with your characterization of Israel as a democracy.
[+] [-] sudosysgen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingoegret|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DonaldFisk|5 years ago|reply
Just before it was shown, the role of Norman Darbyshire, the MI6 officer involved in the coup, was leaked to the Observer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/mi6-the-coup-i...
The Observer received a D-notice which prevented its publication.
The makers of Coup 53 made use of the unpublished Observer material.
Briefly, the UK Government wanted Mosaddegh overthrown because he wanted to nationalize a British oil company (Anglo-Iranian). It tried to get the CIA involved but Truman opposed American involvement. This changed when Eisenhower was elected president.
[+] [-] blmurch|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] post_below|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbecker|5 years ago|reply
Nor are common knowledge the names of the oil company executives and shareholders who benefited from these wars, while dumping the expense and blame on their host countries.
[+] [-] hindsightbias|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhallenworld|5 years ago|reply
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Oil-Defeated-The-N...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/oil-denial-p...
[+] [-] The_suffocated|5 years ago|reply
I think the CIA was indeed the prime mover of the coup, at least according to the CIA's official history. Derbyshire, the person who was in charge of SIS's Iran branch, came up with the idea of a coup, but the Brits had not the capacity to pull it off and so they asked the CIA for help. The whole operation was very well documented by the declassified report entitled "CIA Clandestine Service History, Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, November 1952-August 1953", which is downloadable from
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
[+] [-] ajtulloch|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neutrinoq|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_af|5 years ago|reply
I recommend this comic as well as the movie based on it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(comics)
[+] [-] dimator|5 years ago|reply
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/operation-ajax-mike-de-seve...
which is based on the book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah%27s_Men
[+] [-] pirocks|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nagarjun|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewBissell|5 years ago|reply
"The Jakarta Method" by Vincent Bevins delves into how the CIA adapted and shifted course to address some of the weaknesses of its in-plain-sight coup approach in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s. The ideal is always to preserve as much as possible the impression that the change in regimes is driven by local, endogenous political forces. The recent coup in Bolivia is a good demonstration of how this can be pulled off while almost entirely avoiding accusations of U.S. involvement.
[+] [-] _el|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmoriarty|5 years ago|reply
It covers not just this incident, but many others throughout history when the US has overthrown foreign governments.
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Cha...
[+] [-] lucas_membrane|5 years ago|reply
This PR coup led to Eisenhower giving Dulles of the CIA a couple of fighter planes to use in Guatemala to remove Jacobo Arbenz from power, which was the CIA's pinnacle of success, strengthening the CIA's reputation even more and leading to the agency's mediocre record thereafter.
[+] [-] lehi|5 years ago|reply
The free apps are still present in the App Store, but are now incompatible with recent iOS versions.
[+] [-] jessaustin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blmurch|5 years ago|reply
We're having our general release on Friday. It's available in the USA, UK, Ireland and Canada. We're going country by country because we don't have a distributor.
[+] [-] shirakawasuna|5 years ago|reply
RSS feed here: http://safefordemocracy.com/feed/podcast
[+] [-] AndrewBissell|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lefrenchy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _lffv|5 years ago|reply
Why can't America just leave other countries alone and tend to its own sorry affairs? America tries to make other countries "more free" and then treats Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Mexicans, other people of color, women, transgenders and other gender-nonconformists, homosexuals and anyone else that isn't heterosexual, Communists, Socialists, and anyone who isn't their form of "normal" as second-rate citizens in their own country. America (rightfully) accuses other countries of tampering in their election and then tampers in others' elections.[0] Their actions often contradict the values they claim to purvey.
I hear often that if another country was doing as poorly as America is right now, America would have "liberated" it already.
[0]: I found a source here: https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-in-elections-of-... for my claims, however it's questionable due to accusations of spreading propaganda. Here's a relevant article from a more trustworthy source: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-us-has...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#U.S._backing_...
[+] [-] refurb|5 years ago|reply
Should the US just ignore the issues with Hong Kong? Honest question.
The US was quite isolationist in the early 1900's.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x87678r|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|5 years ago|reply
How exactly would Americans feel for that country later? (even just from that incident alone, let's ignore half a century of later meddling).
When Americans consider other countries' reactions towards them, they seldom consider the impact of their own actions, as if the toppling some sovereign country's government (the worse thing you can do) is no big deal, and others should just sit and take it...
[+] [-] christophilus|5 years ago|reply
Source? I'm an American. I consider it, as do most people I know.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PJDK|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WrongThinkerNo5|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwawaytrump2|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] WrongThinkerNo5|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] as300|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsjjsjshsh|5 years ago|reply
50 years later when Iranian did see US as enemy, don’t act surprised. This is what Trump sows.
[+] [-] sschueller|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmoriarty|5 years ago|reply
When they do care about politics, it's mostly about domestic politics, and Americans tend to have a massive ignorance about what's going on in the rest of the world or the history of any other country.
Civic education and history are not a high priority in the US. American schools tend to be more interested in pumping out people with STEM degrees and business people than about teaching them anything to do with the humanities.
On top of that Americans are constantly lied to and manipulated by their media and politicians, and politicians often act in ways that the American people don't approve of or are not informed of.
So I wouldn't blame the American people for Trump's actions. More and half of those Americans who voted (who aren't nearly all Americans old enough to vote), most voted against electing Trump to be President, and many of them despise him.
That said, Hillary Clinton was a hawk, so even had she become President it's not clear how favorable US government policy would have been towards Iran.
But I wouldn't blame the American people for that either, as America's policy towards Iran was never a major issue in the election (if it was an issue at all), and Americans don't tend to even elect people on policies or issues (which they rarely pay attention to unless it affects them) but on the candidate's image and personality.
Anyway, most Americans have no clue what the US foreign policy towards Iran is, couldn't find Iran on the map, and don't have even have the faintest idea about its history or the history of Iranian-American relations. And for those who know something about it, what they do know (or think they know) probably comes from an occasional 2 minute segment on TV news.
People (all over the world) generally just want to live their lives and be left alone. They don't deserve to be branded enemies for the actions of their governments.
[+] [-] justicezyx|5 years ago|reply
They all come and go. Some learned their lessons, and some are yet to experience the bitter revenge from those they harm and molested.
[+] [-] plandis|5 years ago|reply
I’m American and all I’ve ever seen from Iran is people chanting for my death and the death of the people I love. I was born in the 90s and had no bearing on foreign policy.
If sanctions prevents Iran from accomplishing those goals then I personally will consider that a good thing.