US Navy almost fires on Iranian ships after provocation - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1425966
Piano:
And I gave you one, it just didn't happen to be an online source. I can't help it if you don't want to check Amazon for a simple ISBN number or some such.

If you asked me for a link I would give you one where you wouldn't have to go chasing around amazon to retrieve the information, otherwise you might think I'm 'lazy' :roll:



International maritime law deems shipping and transit lanes as international waters. Aside from the fact that there are a variety of different lanes within the Strait with and to either side of Iran's or Oman's marked territorial waters.

Oh great another one of your 'facts' :roll:
What a crock of shit - there are not a 'variety' of shipping lanes there are 2 - one inward and one outbound.
At least you've stopped claiming US shipping never goes into Iranian waters (which BTW your so called 'link' never backed up.)
You need to come up with a direct link to back this latest bout of nonsense up

I have more "official bodies" than you in that case.

Like Google Earth? :lol:
If you are going to use that measure the distance between Larak and those islands just to the north of Musandem peninsula - that is where the strait is at its narrowest.
I think you'll find that this navigatable distance is just 21 miles as my links back up. :D

Another Strawman, surely you can do better? Right? Right?

No the strawman argument is the pathetically weak one that numerous news agencies carried the US side of the story - therefore it must be true.
Numerous news agencies have ran with lots of stories that have turned out to be untrue, the gulf of tonkin incident being just one of them.
Evidence of where it has not?


From the OP that YOU posted:
The U.S. Navy also received a radio transmission that officials believe came from the Iranian boats. The transmission said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the U.S. military officials told CNN.

When the U.S. ships heard that radio transmission, they took up their gun positions and officers were "in the process" of giving the order to fire when the Iranians abruptly turned away, the U.S. officials said.

Then its revealed audio and video footage was spliced together.
Then that the radio transmissions may not have come from the Iranian boats.
Oh dear.
I'll save you the embarrassment of not posting your comments in the OP

...oh, and as i've repeatedly said, those ships were no where near Iranian waters when the incident occured.

Post the ships positions on a map then and we'll see.
The alternative you are suggesting is that the Iranian ships were in international waters and not in their own.
Lets see.
User avatar
By sazerac
#1425982
There is also the Energy Information Administration who provide 'Official Energy statistics from the US Government'who say

At its narrowest point the Strait is 21 miles wide, and consists of two-mile wide channels for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a two-mile wide buffer zone.


Hmmm...Here the Energy Information Administration says 34 miles.

The Straight of Hormuz consists of 2-mile wide channels for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a 2-mile wide buffer zone and at its narrowest point is only 34 miles wide.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Persia ... outes.html
By Piano Red
#1426884
If you asked me for a link I would give you one where you wouldn't have to go chasing around amazon to retrieve the information, otherwise you might think I'm 'lazy'


Now we're arguing semantics.

Oh great another one of your 'facts'


That's right.

What a crock of shit - there are not a 'variety' of shipping lanes there are 2 - one inward and one outbound.


That's exactly what I was referring to.

At least you've stopped claiming US shipping never goes into Iranian waters (which BTW your so called 'link' never backed up.)


What do you mean stopped? Everything i've posted just re-asserts the point that I made. The shipping lanes border both Iran's and Oman's territorial waters. They don't go through them.

Like Google Earth?


No, sources like the UN, EIA, IEA, and dozens of others.

No the strawman argument is the pathetically weak one that numerous news agencies carried the US side of the story - therefore it must be true.


And I assume that was the same for the Gulf of Tonkin incident that you fallaciously alluded to?

Numerous news agencies have ran with lots of stories that have turned out to be untrue, the gulf of tonkin incident being just one of them.


Initially? Of course. As more information became availible then it became possible for the facts to be clarified. The same has occured with this incident, and they have only served to confirm that the Iranians acted stupidly.

Then its revealed audio and video footage was spliced together.Then that the radio transmissions may not have come from the Iranian boats.
Oh dear.
I'll save you the embarrassment of not posting your comments in the OP


You don't know how the news works do you?

It was an initial report, barely a day after the incident had occured. As more light was shed on it, the media was able to learn more about the details behind it.

Post the ships positions on a map then and we'll see.
The alternative you are suggesting is that the Iranian ships were in international waters and not in their own.
Lets see.


Uh...they were.

Besides that, burden has never been on me to do that. The mere fact that the US ships reported that they were in international waters at the time of the incident only serves to dispute your rampant speculation that they weren't.

If you want to prove that the US ships were in Iranian waters then you'll need to back it up. Good luck.
By Balzak
#1426977
Piano Red wrote:That's what I was referring to.

Ok.

Piano Red wrote:Doesn't change the fact that such an action was illegal

I don’t challenge it was illegal, but that doesn’t change the fact that his dissolvement of parliament was a consequence of your illegal attempts to bring him down. It doesn’t change the fact that his dissolution of the Majlis was to be followed by free elections for the next Majlis. And it doesn’t change the fact that he was a frim believer in free elections who didn’t even promote pro-National Front candidates.

It’s easy to see his mistakes in retrospect, but conditions in Iran sharply limited his lawful and constitutional options; limits that don’t exist in democratic states you and I live in.

Piano Red wrote:or that he used authoritarian measures and electioneering

Apart from the dissolvement of the Majlis, which authoritarian measures and electioneering are you referring to? The fact that he resigned after the shah refused to give the PM the right to appoint a Minister of Defense, something which is quite normal in a constitutional democracy? The fact that the shah appointed him again after only a few days and granted him the authority to do this?

Piano Red wrote:to grant him emergency powers

The Majlis authorised his demand for extra powers, which were a temporary response to an untenable situation where an unaccountable monarch was the chief player, and which were a meaningful step toward a constitutional government (like extending civilian control over the army).

Piano Red wrote:As for US plot, I feel I need to correct you again.

It was a joint UK/US plot

You misunderstood me. I wrote ‘US plans’ because Mossadeq didn’t believe the British were behind this coup as well, as they were expelled from Iran a year earlier after a failed coup against him. So you don’t need to correct me.

Piano Red wrote:one that was primarily driven by British interests. The US barely had any care for the Middle East at that point in time, hell it was only after the British used a nice touch of "Red Scare" on the Soviets trying to gain a geo-political foothold in Iran (which they actually were) that Eisenhower actually decided to lend support.

As if the US interests weren’t served with the uninterrupted flow of oil from Iran.
As if the US interests weren’t served with using Iran as a buffer-state against Sovjet-expansionism, preventing the Russians to get access to Iran’s oil fields.
As if the US interests weren’t served when it had the opportunity to get access to Iran’s oil and take-over from the British.
As if the US interests weren’t served when they succeeded in liquidating a nationalisation that might have flared up similar sentiments in other Third World nations in which you did have a care.

The Truman administration was very worried about the deteriorating situation in Iran. The only difference is that Truman regarded Mossadeq as part of the solution, not the problem.

The British were also lucky that their exaggerated threats of a possible communist threat happened at a time when the US was extremely touchy about this subject, like you implied. Even though the possibility of a communist take-over was extremely unlikely, but feel free to elaborate if you think it wasn’t so.

And you ignore the fact that the coup - the one which succceeded - was largely planned and carried out by the CIA, although the network which the British had already set up in Iran, turned out to be pretty helpful.

Piano Red wrote:Mossadegh's response, and those of his supporters, were all just as dirty.


Yes, allowing your opponents to plotting against you and slandering you as good as freely, was very dirty indeed! Did Mossadeq bribe people to support him or his supporters? No. Did he order his opponents to be killed? No. Did he pay people to demonstrate in favour of him or against his opponents? No. Did he pay newspapers to hail him or to denounce his opponents? No. Did he pay street gangs to cause mayhem in the streets? No. Did his opponents do all of this? Yes. So your comparison is utterly foolish and ridiculous.

Mossadeq believed in a parliamentary democracy while his opponents only believed in the politics of elimination. He practised extreme liberal government. And without his policiy of tolerance, his domestic and foreign opponents would have found it nearly impossible to engage in their virtually unopposed and unhindered subversive activities.


Piano Red wrote:Do I even need to go into some of the practices utilized by the Tudeh Party?

Oh come on, Mossadeq - who never reversed Tudeh’s quasi-illegal status - exercised no authority over the Tudeh. In fact, until the failed coup of july 1952, the Tudeh fiercely opposed Mossadeq. After the failed coup, the Tudeh took a more ambivalent stance, with the radical wing still opposing Mossadeq, and a pragmatic wing - aware of the fact that Mossadeq indeed had a very big, popular base - tacitly endorsing his policies. But even the support of the pragmatic wing was largely superficial: they didn’t mobilize their military organisation or their large crowds of supporters to try to stop the coup.

But talking about the Tudeh, the CIA and their Iranian agents also paid mobs to orchestrate anti-shah demonstrations by which they turned the streets into huge battlegrounds. Mobs which pretended to be part of the Tudeh. Granted, real Tudeh supporters joined the riots, unaware of the fact that the instigators were CIA paid gangs. But as soon as the Tudeh leadership found out what really happened, they ordered their supporters to stay home.

Mossadeq himself had no particular love for the Tudeh because he viewed Russian/Sovjet colonialism almost as bad as British colonialism. In fact, the Truman administration regarded Mossadeq’s Third World Nationalism as the best way to counter communism.

Finally, a CIA agent who monitored the Tuedeh at that time admitted “that the Tudeh was really not very powerful, and that higher-level US officials routinely exaggerated its strength and Mossadeq’s reliance on it.”

Piano Red wrote:Replace Mossadegh with the Shah and you'll be on the right track.

Haha. Mossadeq was the democrat, the shah a Louis XIV-like despot. But then again, a despot who protects your interests is what you prefer, so I won’t bother to go into this.

Piano Red wrote:Sure, his supporters in Parliament, the appointments to the Iranian Ministry of Defense and Foreign Ministry, plenty of members in the Tudeh party, elements in his nationalist movement (not to be confused with the national front), and some of the Islamic clerics that supported him.

I asked to name one corrupt member of the National Front that wasn’t a bribed defector.

Piano Red wrote:Yes, his illegal dissolution of Parliament being one point of evidence on that.

And probably your only point. I already explained why he askek for emergency powers.

Piano Red wrote:And I guess you never learned about the death threats his supporters sent, with his approval, to his political opponents? Not to mention the electioneering tactics he used in order to remain in power?

Ok, then give me a credible source that states that members of the National Front (or its supporters), with Mossadeq’s approval, made death threats to his opponents.

It’s a fact, however, that his opponents made phone-calls in Mossadeq’s name or the Tudeh (I forgot which one) to religious clerics, threatening to kill them. They even bombed a clerics home in the name of the Tudeh.

Piano Red wrote:Because he was a secularist

His secularism has little to do with it. The ayatollah embraced secular movements like the ANC, PLO, IRA, Fidel’s Cuba etc., approved of secularists in Iran’s provisional government (including members of Mossadeq's government) ...

Piano Red wrote:and also because they probably despised him

Some of them yes, among them Khomeini. It would be quite embarrassing to honour someone whom the “founding-father” of the IR strongly objected to.

Piano Red wrote:even more than the British did

The feeling was more than mutual.

Piano Red wrote:Operation Ajax simply beat them to the chase in terms of plans they had to remove him from power. Something which, going by their MO, probably would've resulted in his assassination.

Nonsens, the religious right (Feda’ian) at that time was a small, shadowy group of lower-class zealous religious activists who could never have toppled Mossadeq’s government without substantial help from others. At best they could have assassinated him, which wouldn’t came down to the end of the National Front or the government.

Besides, the grand-ayatollah of that time, Borujerdi, opposed attempts to topple Mossadeq. Another powerful ayatollah, Kashani, initially did the same but he seemed to be more suscebtible to CIA-bribery and defected the National Front.

Maybe his opponents would have killed him anyway, but I guess we will never know this, won’t we?

Piano Red wrote:Considering the absurd of amount of revisionist history that portrays him as a saint of God I doubt i'd be successful.

I guess Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, All The Shah’s Men, and The Mossadegh Era are all revisionist books then.

The authors certainly didn’t portray him as a God or something:

“Mossadegh was almost as resistant to compromise as were the British (...) The single mindedness with which he pursued his campaign against AIOC made it impssible for him to compromise when he could and should have.”

“Another great failure in Mossadegh’s judgment was hin inability or refusal to understand how the world looked to Western leaders. Mossadegh believed that his conflict with AIOL had nothing to do with the global confrontation between East and West.”

“Mossadegh was also naive in his assessment of the communists who controled Tudeh and were working assiduously to penetrate Iran’s government, army and civil society.”

“Never during Mossadegh’s twenty-six months in power did he attempt to forge the National Front into a cohesive political movement. It remained a loose coalition without central leadership or an organised political base.”

“He was unwilling and unable to entertain any compromise that, in his view, infringed upon Iranian sovereign rights.”

Did you ever wonder why you hardly find information about the coup that suits your way of thinking? Here’s your answer:

“Central Intelligence Agency officials plotting the 1953 coup in Iran hoped to plant articles in American newspapers saying Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi's return resulted from a homegrown revolt against a Communist-leaning government, internal agency documents show.
Those hopes were largely disappointed. The C.I.A.'s history of the coup says that its operatives had only limited success in manipulating American reporters and that none of the Americans covering the coup worked for the agency.”


It worked for you though.

Piano Red wrote:The man was as much (not) a villain just as he was not a hero either, regardless of the hindsighted rhetoric that most people (and you) allude to with regard to Mossadegh.

Yes, attempting to give your country democarcy, self-sufficiency and sovereignity against the will of one of the largest empires in the world - which at the time still practised 19th century style colonialism - was nothing but an ordinary act ... You are villifying him simply because he believed that nations can and must struggle for the right to govern themselves in freedom. But like I said before, this would not be in your country’s interests, so I forgive you your vapidity about him.

But I’m sure that when in march 1979, one of the largest gatherings seen in Iran’s history flooded into Ahmad Abad to honour Mossadeq, this crowd was hindsighted too.

Or when in 1962 200 000 people gathered in Tehran for a National Front (despite the National Front’s illegal status) rally dedicated to Mossadeq, the participants must have been hindsighted as well. The shah never allowed a National Front rally afterwards.

Piano Red wrote:Fine, blame the Shah and the Revolution then, not much of a difference as far as i'm concerned.

Most people acknowledge there’s a direct link between the coup, 25 years of US-backed repression and the seizure of the US embassy, but apparently this is too hard for you to get.

Piano Red wrote:Iran has been locked in a virtual tug of war between competing interests ever since it's contemporary inception.

Funny you say this because political parties were banned when Reza Khan was in charge.

Piano Red wrote:Uh, some of those opposition groups didn't use legal means to oppose the Shah long before Mossadegh ever came to power, or was removed.

If you’re referring to Mohammed Reza Shah, then tell me which opposition groups, apart from the Tudeh, the religious right, and secessionist groups, opposed his rule using non-legal means?

Piano Red wrote:Beggars can't be choosers, the risk of Iran viewing the US as such was viewed as an acceptable loss at the time.

Only in the minds of greedy, inflexible cold war ideologues.

Piano Red wrote:We didn't, the US and UK both worked with the support and consent of the Shah


Coup d’etat:
“Forcible takeover of the government of a country by elements from within that country, generally carried out by violent or illegal means. It differs from a revolution in typically being carried out by a small group (for example, of army officers or opposition politicians) to install its leader as head of government, rather than being a mass uprising by the people.”

“A coup d’état (also coup) (pronounced /kuːdeɪˈtɑː/ AHD: [ko͞o"dā tä]) is the sudden, illegal overthrowing of a government by a part of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.”

And there were already CIA agents operating in Iran clandestinely before the shah’s approval or even his knowledge.

Piano Red wrote:as well as other elements in the Iranian political sphere that were opposed to Mossadegh

Elements which, with their powerful backers, resorted to illegal and unlawful means to undermine his government.

Piano Red wrote:So? Regardless of such reasoning, it never excused or gave them the authority to execute a defacto act of war against the US by invading the embassy.

“Business as usual within the great game of international relations.”

Piano Red wrote:And as I said, it was something well within the US' rights. Considering the huge degree with which the Provisional government remained impotent through most of the affair, or were later sidelined, the US was right not to open a dialogue with them.

You already opened a dialogue with them before the seizure of the US-embassy. It was your decision to discontinue the talks - which I fully respect and understand - which undermined the provisional government’s authority and turned it into a lame duck.

Piano Red wrote:Come now, "principles" in international relations are all relative. Sometimes they can mean something, other times...less so. I fail to see how that issue has much to do with the point I raised.

For you they obviously are extremely relative. The same for Reagan who also contravened US law, and I’m not just talking about Iran-Contra.

Piano Red wrote:Correct.

Hypocrite.

Piano Red wrote:In order to avoid the greater of two evils? You're damn right.

Blindly supporting the shah didn’t prevent a bigger evil taking Iran over.

Piano Red wrote:Better to tolerate certain regimes in the Arab world at the expense of their limited oppression

Not to mention at the expense of democratic movements. Like I said, if there’s one thing that the coup taught despots in the world is that powerful governments are willing to tolerate them as long as they are friendly to the West and its interests.
By Ash
#1428940
Furthermore, Iran is not so poor.

As a developing country Iran is by definition poor.

Iran maintains a Revolutionary Guard trained army in Lebanon which throws shit-fits in that country whenever the democratic government there does anything it doesn't like. Who's the regional hegemony now?

The idea that Iran is directing Lebanese politics is superficial and totally oblivious to the history of Lebanon. There was a little event called the Civil War which began in Lebanon in 1975.
Code: Select allBut the Iranian ships approached us, not vice versa. You don't slap someone, get hit back and whine about their aggressive hit.

Part of the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf lie in the territorial waters of Iran. One needs only to look at a map to determine the aggressor: Iran's territorial waters lie in the Persian Gulf and the United States is more than 10,000 kilometers away from the Gulf. The penetration of these waters by the United States war machine constitutes a serious threat to international peace and interference in the affairs of the Gulf countries in violation of the United Nations Charter. The United States through its menacing military exercises in the Gulf has repeatedly threatened to invade Iran which is another violation of international law.
Do you have something more recent than a one-off naval accident 20 years ago?

Iran's airspace has been persistently violated by the United States. This has increased particularly due to the brutal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news ... cgi/2/3464

This isn't aggression, rather it is the defense of our Arab allies from Iranian aggression. Sailing in an international waterway at the behest of the countries there will only be considered aggression to the most hotheaded and paranoid of countries


The use of international waters cannot be interpreted as using the open sea to pillage resources and maintain a menacing military presence. Such actions can be interpreted as acts of war, particularly with the regular violations of Iranian airspace by the United States. The United States is clearly not welcome in the region, as the USS Cole and the Khobar Towers demonstrate.
Last edited by Ash on 19 Jan 2008 20:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Gletkin
#1429091
Piano Red wrote:The same democratic government that had dissolved Parliament and was increasingly becoming authoritarian and corrupt?

Like Fujimori or Yeltsin?
Stop pretending that you care about "democracy". It's about maintaining US dominance. You admitted as much in that article you posted as an OP of another thread.

Piano Red wrote:The US was well in it's rights to refuse to negotiate with people who had broken with every convention of international law and who had incurred upon sovereign American territory.

Key word being "rights".
If we choose to, we can also not give a fuck about it. That same year a mob in Pakistan torched our embassy there and nearly roasted the Americans inside alive with our buddy the new dictator Gen. Zia looking the other way. We're incessantly reminded of the Iranian hostage-takers, but who remembers the Pakistani arsonists/attempted-murderers?

Piano Red wrote:Business as usual within the great game of international relations.

There you go!
Stick with honesty...it'll put you in a stronger position.

Piano Red wrote:As for US plot, I feel I need to correct you again.

It was a joint UK/US plot, one that was primarily driven by British interests. The US barely had any care for the Middle East at that point in time, hell it was only after the British used a nice touch of "Red Scare" on the Soviets trying to gain a geo-political foothold in Iran (which they actually were) that Eisenhower actually decided to lend support.

It was still chiefly a US plot and it wasn't just "red-bating" that motivated us. It was also an oppurtunity for us to increase our share of ownership of Iranian oil. The Brits may have asked us for our help but it was our operation and it came with strings attached.

Piano Red wrote:Replace Mossadegh with the Shah and you'll be on the right track.

Replace the Shah with the generals who were our allies and you'll be on the right track.

The Shah was an irresponsible clueless playboy weakling whose only worth was as a figurehead. We only needed him because the people still had a high degree of sentimental attachment to the monarchy. A re-established imperial dynasty had more public legitimacy then a junta of officers no one really knows (even if they remain the power behind the throne).

They love me...the people really do love me!
Sheesh! :roll:

Piano Red wrote:So? Regardless of such reasoning, it never excused or gave them the authority to execute a defacto act of war against the US by invading the embassy.

Again, only if we choose to care about it. Our so-called "allies" have done worse.
By Ash
#1429537
Regardless of such reasoning, it never excused or gave them the authority to execute a defacto act of war against the US by invading the embassy.

The spies in the embassy were treated humanely by the Iranian Government. Compare this to the treatment by the United States Navy of the people aboard Iran Air Flight 655 which was shot down over Iranian territorial waters.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1430119
Piano Red
That's exactly what I was referring to.


Bullshit.
Lets summarise this bit.
Piano Red wrote
International maritime law deems shipping and transit lanes as international waters. Aside from the fact that there are a variety of different lanes within the Strait with and to either side of Iran's or Oman's marked territorial waters.


To which I replied:
What a crock of shit - there are not a 'variety' of shipping lanes there are 2 - one inward and one outbound.


The English language is flexible and adaptive but there is no way the part I have put in bold above equates to 'two'

Also if there are lanes 'with and either side of Iran's or Oman's marked territorial waters' that means you DO enter Irans territorial waters , thus nullifying your original and unasserted line that
Most Strait traffic (and all US ships) go through Oman's waters anyway.


This map
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... z_2004.jpg
Is the only one either of us has posted clearly shows the inbound shipping lanes as being within Iran's territorial waters.

Piano Red wrote:
...oh, and as i've repeatedly said, those ships were no where near Iranian waters when the incident occured.

To which I replied:
Post the ships positions on a map then and we'll see.
The alternative you are suggesting is that the Iranian ships were in international waters and not in their own.
Lets see.

As you were unable to produce a map of the ships position you then countered with
Uh...they were.


Awesome :lol:

You then followed up with:
Besides that, burden has never been on me to do that. The mere fact that the US ships reported that they were in international waters at the time of the incident only serves to dispute your rampant speculation that they weren't.


The burden is on you, you are the one who wrote:
Which of course leaves out the factthat they weren't in any territorial waters at the time of the incident , but I guess you didn't pick up on that.

So, prove that 'fact'

If you want to prove that the US ships were in Iranian waters then you'll need to back it up. Good luck.

I don't need to prove that as I've never asserted it.
Simple logic tells me the Iranians were within their territorial waters because as far as I know those little iddy biddy rubber dinghies are not designed for the high seas. :D
By Piano Red
#1430353
Balzak
I don’t challenge it was illegal, but that doesn’t change the fact that his dissolvement of parliament was a consequence of your illegal attempts to bring him down.


Causation does not equal correlation. Regardless of the "legality" of covert espionage practices that are utilized by nations the world over, his response to them only served to worked against his own interests. Hell, it could be argued tht his dissolution of Parliament played right into the US/UK's hands.

It doesn’t change the fact that his dissolution of the Majlis was to be followed by free elections for the next Majlis.


That would have been more in line with his agenda no doubt.

And it doesn’t change the fact that he was a frim believer in free elections who didn’t even promote pro-National Front candidates.


Really? That's news to me, especially given the number of political factions with vested interests that made up the majority of his support base.

It’s easy to see his mistakes in retrospect, but conditions in Iran sharply limited his lawful and constitutional options; limits that don’t exist in democratic states you and I live in.


I can agree with that, but i'm certainly not going to give Mossadegh the benefit of the doubt for the actions he took, regardless of historical hindsight. Nor would I agree that he should be portrayed, for posterity's sake, as a figure worthy of praise or respect.

Apart from the dissolvement of the Majlis, which authoritarian measures and electioneering are you referring to?


The practices his supporters used during his re-election where the secret ballot option was abolished, as well as the Tudeh Party's political bullying of voters and elements within the government.

The Majlis authorised his demand for extra powers


Yes, after his supporters within the Parliament, as well as his cohorts outside, threatened the others with "violence" if they didn't vote the right way.

As if the US interests weren’t served with the uninterrupted flow of oil from Iran.


No, they weren't. Look at the figures if you like, the US hardly received any portion of oil from Iran during the time, if any at all. Iran was the UK's geo-strategic investment.

As if the US interests weren’t served with using Iran as a buffer-state against Sovjet-expansionism, preventing the Russians to get access to Iran’s oil fields.


The US wasn't even convinced of Soviet expansionism taking place in that corner of the world though, or at least Eisenhower wasn't.

Again, it was only after the British sensationalized the issue in order to gain US support to depose Mossadegh, that the US actually took an active interest that tied into the larger Cold War that was going on at the time.

As if the US interests weren’t served when it had the opportunity to get access to Iran’s oil and take-over from the British.


That occured after the fact, not before, and was mainly used as an incentive to get the US onboard to depose Mossadegh.

As if the US interests weren’t served when they succeeded in liquidating a nationalisation that might have flared up similar sentiments in other Third World nations in which you did have a care.


Other 3rd World nations within the US' sphere weren't undergoing the same form of domestic tug-o-war that Iran was though, and many had leaders and/or government's that were already firmly in line with the US geo-political posture.

The Truman administration was very worried about the deteriorating situation in Iran. The only difference is that Truman regarded Mossadeq as part of the solution, not the problem.


The Truman Administration was on it's way out by that time though, their views on the situation were of decreasing weight.

The British were also lucky that their exaggerated threats of a possible communist threat happened at a time when the US was extremely touchy about this subject, like you implied. Even though the possibility of a communist take-over was extremely unlikely, but feel free to elaborate if you think it wasn’t so.


An immediate Communist take over in any country in the MidEast couldn't have occured by then, but it can't be denied that the USSR did want to have more influence over the area.

The KGB already had stations set up across the region by that time, but increased geo-political involvement was on an slower timetable than the events that led to Mossadegh's removal. After that the Soviets had were left to compensate for increased resistance from the US.

Let's not forget the planned assassination attempt they were ready to conduct as well.

And you ignore the fact that the coup - the one which succceeded - was largely planned and carried out by the CIA, although the network which the British had already set up in Iran, turned out to be pretty helpful.


Which is exactly what I was talking about. The British were no longer capable of carrying out the operation themselves, even though they still had the groundwork laid out, so they recruited the US to do it for them.

Haha. Mossadeq was the democrat, the shah a Louis XIV-like despot. But then again, a despot who protects your interests is what you prefer, so I won’t bother to go into this.


Now you need to come off it, Shah was never that brutal, the only reason he is depicted as such stems from the abject hatred that Iran's conservative islamic factions viewed him and his actions. Up until Mossadegh's dissolution of Parliament he was firmly against removing him from office, or even trying to exercise direct control over governmental affairs.

I asked to name one corrupt member of the National Front that wasn’t a bribed defector.


What about figures within two of the wings that formed the National Front? Namely the more conservative element led by a cleric whose name I can't remember atm, or those in the Pan-Iranist Party?

Ok, then give me a credible source that states that members of the National Front (or its supporters), with Mossadeq’s approval, made death threats to his opponents.


Here you go, it's been awhile since i've used it but i'll try to find the exact part.

I'll concede that it might not have been with his approval however.

Nonsens, the religious right (Feda’ian) at that time was a small, shadowy group of lower-class zealous religious activists who could never have toppled Mossadeq’s government without substantial help from others. At best they could have assassinated him, which wouldn’t came down to the end of the National Front or the government.


That's exactly what i'm talking about though. Not of a fullscale toppling of Mossadegh along with the government, just them trying to kill him.

Besides, the grand-ayatollah of that time, Borujerdi, opposed attempts to topple Mossadeq. Another powerful ayatollah, Kashani, initially did the same but he seemed to be more suscebtible to CIA-bribery and defected the National Front.


Doesn't mean that certain groups were deterred from still trying to do the deed, as they had done before.

I guess Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, All The Shah’s Men, and The Mossadegh Era are all revisionist books then.


I was referring more to the exile parties in Iran today that portray the man as greater than God as a means of garnering their former political power.

You are villifying him simply because he believed that nations can and must struggle for the right to govern themselves in freedom. But like I said before, this would not be in your country’s interests, so I forgive you your vapidity about him.


I'm not villifying him at all, simply contesting the notion that every action Mossadegh ever took was always for Iran's best interest. Or that even in taking illegal actions he was nevetheless a benevolent leader.

Funny you say this because political parties were banned when Reza Khan was in charge.


Who said those interests had to be in the form of political parties?

If you’re referring to Mohammed Reza Shah, then tell me which opposition groups, apart from the Tudeh, the religious right, and secessionist groups, opposed his rule using non-legal means?


Link

Unless of course they fall into your religious right category as well.

Only in the minds of greedy, inflexible cold war ideologues.


Riiight.

Coup d’etat:
“Forcible takeover of the government of a country by elements from within that country, generally carried out by violent or illegal means. It differs from a revolution in typically being carried out by a small group (for example, of army officers or opposition politicians) to install its leader as head of government, rather than being a mass uprising by the people.”

“A coup d’état (also coup) (pronounced /kuːdeɪˈtɑː/ AHD: [ko͞o"dā tä]) is the sudden, illegal overthrowing of a government by a part of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.”

And there were already CIA agents operating in Iran clandestinely before the shah’s approval or even his knowledge.


I know what a coup d'etat is thank you. It's not going to change the fact of what I said.

“Business as usual within the great game of international relations.”


So I take it you wouldn't hold any qualms if the US had declared war on Iran as a result?

You already opened a dialogue with them before the seizure of the US-embassy. It was your decision to discontinue the talks - which I fully respect and understand - which undermined the provisional government’s authority and turned it into a lame duck.


Aright then.

Hypocrite.


Elaborate.

Blindly supporting the shah didn’t prevent a bigger evil taking Iran over.


Yes, a blunder the US has had to live with. The threat from fundamentalist elements taking over was never anticipated for.

Not to mention at the expense of democratic movements. Like I said, if there’s one thing that the coup taught despots in the world is that powerful governments are willing to tolerate them as long as they are friendly to the West and its interests.


Correct.

Gletkin
Like Fujimori or Yeltsin?
Stop pretending that you care about "democracy". It's about maintaining US dominance. You admitted as much in that article you posted as an OP of another thread.


The US does care about democracy, depending on the Administration in charge, but it's not stupidly naive enough to beleive that democracy can always work in certain geo-political circumstances. Besides, what does that have to do with Mossadegh's actions?

Key word being "rights".
If we choose to, we can also not give a fuck about it. That same year a mob in Pakistan torched our embassy there and nearly roasted the Americans inside alive with our buddy the new dictator Gen. Zia looking the other way. We're incessantly reminded of the Iranian hostage-takers, but who remembers the Pakistani arsonists/attempted-murderers?


We didn't choose to, the rest of that big what-if statement is meaningless.

It was still chiefly a US plot and it wasn't just "red-bating" that motivated us.


Uh...no, and...yes it was. Prove it otherwise if you so choose.

It was also an oppurtunity for us to increase our share of ownership of Iranian oil. The Brits may have asked us for our help but it was our operation and it came with strings attached.


How does any of that change what i've already said? Increasing our share in Iranian oil was an incentive used to get us onboard, with Dulles sticking on some other requisites before the op got signed off on.

Replace the Shah with the generals who were our allies and you'll be on the right track.


The same royalist generals who were fervently loyal to the Shah, and who he later played against to his benefit for the remainder of his time in power? I guess you're right.

Again, only if we choose to care about it.


And again....we did. I fail to see why you even go on bringing up such a notion.

Ash
The spies in the embassy were treated humanely by the Iranian Government. Compare this to the treatment by the United States Navy of the people aboard Iran Air Flight 655 which was shot down over Iranian territorial waters.


No comparison. One was an accident. The other...not so much.

arthur_two_sheds_jackson
The English language is flexible and adaptive but there is no way the part I have put in bold above equates to 'two'


Your comprehension of the English language is very limited then. Allow me to clarify what I was talking about, since you obviously couldn't use common sense to deduce what I was referring to.

By 'variety' of shipping lanes I was talking about the various shpping corridors that have been established within the Straits for years now. Within those corridors there are designated areas that are demarcated for inbound and outbound traffic. Get it? Or does the bar need to be lowered even further for you?

Also if there are lanes 'with and either side of Iran's or Oman's marked territorial waters' that means you DO enter Irans territorial waters


Not when you can bypass Iran's waters completely and go through Oman's. Try again.

thus nullifying your original and unasserted line that


Um...that actually just validates it. I probably could've been more clear, but I was talking of the fact that when ships enter the corridors Iran's (or Oman's) waters would be to either side of them.

This map
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... z_2004.jpg
Is the only one either of us has posted clearly shows the inbound shipping lanes as being within Iran's territorial waters.


It may be crude, but the map only serves to confirm what i've been saying all along. As you can see rather clearly (as in marked by those purple lines) there are a variety of different shipping corridors that pass in between both Iran and Oman's waters. Within those corridors are areas in which traffic moves in or out (as you can see with the arrows).

As you were unable to produce a map of the ships position you then countered with


For the third time (which you've now ignored three times, in case anyone was counting), the burden of proof is not on me to present evidence of where the USN ships were at the time of the incident.

Unless something new has occured in the last 6 hours, Iranian govt. has yet to dispute that US ships ever entered the waters. Aside from the fact that in the US video of the incident itself, it's quite easy to hear that crewman repeat that the ships are in the INTERNATIONAL WATERS of the Strait transit corridors.

So...where is your proof that the USN ships were not where they said they were?

So, prove that 'fact'


I don't need to. The US and Iranian governments, as well as the world media, have already done that for me. You're the one who originally contended that the US ships were in Iranian waters, my factual claims were in response to them.

I'm still waiting for you to backup your assertion.

I don't need to prove that as I've never asserted it.


Of course you did, the moment you quoted wikipedia under false assumption that the USN ships had passed through Iranian waters (or had approached them) in order to traverse the Strait.

Simple logic tells me the Iranians were within their territorial waters because as far as I know those little iddy biddy rubber dinghies are not designed for the high seas.


Simple logic should also tell you that a Strait:

strait /streɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[streyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun 1. Often, straits. (used with a singular verb) a narrow passage of water connecting two large bodies of water.
2. Often, straits. a position of difficulty, distress, or need: Ill and penniless, he was in sad straits indeed.
3. Archaic. a narrow passage or area.
4. an isthmus.
–adjective Archaic. 5. narrow: Strait is the gate.
6. affording little space; confined in area.


--Is not synonymous with the open ocean.

...and they were speed boats, not rubber dinghies.
By Ash
#1430369
No comparison. One was an accident. The other...not so much.

The murderous downing of Iran Air Flight 655 was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Entertaining the possibility that there was even a mistaken identification of the plane, which is not the case, the downing still constitutes gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime. It was not merely an 'accident'. That the United States had penetrated Iranian territorial waters and airspace itself at the time of this downing itself constituted an act of aggression. By contrast, the spies that had infested the United States Embassy were treated with the utmost humanity.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1430526
Lets leave aside you can never equate a variety to mean two, because the comedy gets better with this answer :lol:
Piano Red
By 'variety' of shipping lanes I was talking about the various shpping corridors that have been established within the Straits for years now. Within those corridors there are designated areas that are demarcated for inbound and outbound traffic. Get it? Or does the bar need to be lowered even further for you?

So traffic can pass both ways within individual shipping corridors?
:lol:
Those massive gas tankers can pass one way and see another ship within the same corridor heading towards them??????

I think you'll find the corridors are a minimum of two miles wide and restricted to outgoing or incoming traffic for a reason.

BTW that map with the shipping lanes on it (you know the one I supplied when you haven't, despite repeated requests) turns up on all sorts of university websites.
Here's the same one from MIT
http://web.mit.edu/cis/images/fpi/iran/fig5.jpg
Look at the left hand side of that map piano, do you see how the shipping lane passes to the NORTH of the iranian island Jazerih ye forur?
How is that possible Piano?
Here's another map showing the shipping lanes in the area
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... muz_80.jpg
Again with the shipping lanes passing to the north of that island.

You obviously believe the US warships were in international waters 'because the captain said so' but for the iranians to be in the same waters they would have to be outside of their territorial waters - agree?
Yet those diddy boats aren't built for that.

So there is no need for to give me the definition of a strait, and ESPECIALLY NO NEED TO PARTIALLY QUOTE MY SENTENCES

I believe I have explained to you previously how dishonest this makes you look.

:|
By Piano Red
#1432199
arthur_two_sheds_jackson
Lets leave aside you can never equate a variety to mean two, because the comedy gets better with this answer


We're playing with semantics now. If you want me to concede that a variety doesn't mean two for the sake of argument and so you'll feel better then I will. It's not going to change the crux of my argument, or that you're still misinterpreting it.

So traffic can pass both ways within individual shipping corridors?


Uh...yes, why is that so surprising? Again, that map of yours only proves me right on that.

Those massive gas tankers can pass one way and see another ship within the same corridor heading towards them??????


That's right, are you just now coming to that revelation?

I think you'll find the corridors are a minimum of two miles wide and restricted to outgoing or incoming traffic for a reason.


More like six miles wide, seeing how the corridors include the two mile wide shiping lanes in addition to two mile wide buffer zones to either side. More than enough for any average navigator and/or helmsman to work through.

Look at the left hand side of that map piano, do you see how the shipping lane passes to the NORTH of the iranian island Jazerih ye forur?
How is that possible Piano?


Do you see the other one that passes to the south through Omanian waters?

Again with the shipping lanes passing to the north of that island.


And to the south, you're only proving me right here.

You obviously believe the US warships were in international waters 'because the captain said so' but for the iranians to be in the same waters they would have to be outside of their territorial waters - agree?
Yet those diddy boats aren't built for that.


Correct, and they were. The Iranian government has never made an issue of where the USN ships were (or there's for that matter), nor have they disputed that the USN ships weren't in international waters.

Aside from that, they were speedboats, not dinghies. Speedboats are more than capable of going out into the open ocean, to say the least for a narrow strait. If you've ever been in one then you should know that.

Until you present evidence that the USN ships were not in international waters then your argument will continue to be flawed.

So there is no need for to give me the definition of a strait, and ESPECIALLY NO NEED TO PARTIALLY QUOTE MY SENTENCES


Yes there is, especially since you've shown a rediculous understanding of what a Strait is, in addition to absurd assumptions about them, the shipping corridors within Hormuz, the position of the USN ships, and the operating capabilities of the Iranian speedboats that simply aren't true. As for your sentences, partially quoting them doesn't break the rules AFAIK, so i'll do with them as I please.

I believe I have explained to you previously how dishonest this makes you look.


I don't see how, despite all your failed attempts to prove your claim correct.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1432230
Piano Red
Do you see the other one that passes to the south through Omanian waters?


And to the south, you're only proving me right here.


I think I'm proving you wrong to be honest.
I think I'm proving all incoming shipping into the persian gulf passes thru Iranian waters.
Saying look at the other one is silly because that is the outgoing sea lane.

You could always post a map to disprove me on this, that would be a novelty. :D
By Piano Red
#1432250
I think I'm proving you wrong to be honest.


I beg to differ.

I think I'm proving all incoming shipping into the persian gulf passes thru Iranian waters.


I think you're contradicting yourself.

Saying look at the other one is silly because that is the outgoing sea lane.


I fail to see why, especially given that USN ships haven't entered Iranian waters for almost 20 years now. As i've said, they use Oman's.

You could always post a map to disprove me on this, that would be a novelty


My book has several, but I don't have a scanner on my computer. Your's is good enough.

You on the otherhand, could always provide credible evidence backing up your claim that the USN ships weren't in international waters. Or that the Iranian speedboats weren't built for operating in the Strait. Or any number of other points of debate which you've seemingly dropped for the sake of argument.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1432406
Piano Red
I fail to see why, especially given that USN ships haven't entered Iranian waters for almost 20 years now. As i've said, they use Oman's.


You keep repeatedly asserting that you only use Omans waters yet fail to explain the incoming shipping lane on the left of that map to the north of the iranian island with a big purple arrow pointing to the left.
By Piano Red
#1432525
You keep repeatedly asserting that you only use Omans waters yet fail to explain the incoming shipping lane on the left of that map to the north of the iranian island with a big purple arrow pointing to the left.


Did it ever occur to you that there are alternative inbound shipping lanes that go through Oman's waters instead? Thus giving some vessels the option of not needing to interdict Iranian waters?
By Ash
#1432539
The fundamental flaw of your argument is the failure to understand that international precedent does not allow freedom of the seas to be used for aggressive military maneuvers. When the UN Security Council condemned the 1986 assault on Libya by the United States, many member states spoke out against the menacing presence of the United States in the Mediterranean, whether in international waters or the territorial waters of Libya. An unwarranted military presence by the United States a few miles away from a country's coast poses a serious threat to peace and constitutes interference in the sovereign decision making of the coastal powers in violation of the United Nations Charter ("All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."). The United States has violated the UN Charter with its implications of a military assault on Iran through its dangerous military exercises in the Persian Gulf.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1432668
Piano Red
Did it ever occur to you that there are alternative inbound shipping lanes that go through Oman's waters instead? Thus giving some vessels the option of not needing to interdict Iranian waters?


Prove it.[/b]
By Piano Red
#1432778
Prove it.


You already did that for me 4-5 posts ago.

As you can see in that map you keep falling back to, there's an arrow depicting an inbound shipping lane within that other transit corridor on Oman's side of the Strait. Immediately north of the Musandam Peninsula.

Aside from that, I take it that since you can present no evidence of the USN ships not being in international waters that you've conceded that argument?
By Balzak
#1442654
Piano Red

Causation does not equal correlation.

Well then, what was he supposed to do? Allow his opponents to remove him using non-legal means so he would have ended up in jail anyway?

And again, the government’s response to secret, undrhanded, or openly illegal campaigns against it was extremely lenient. Mossadeq practised extreme liberal democracy, unlike his powerful opponents who didn’t even observe the law.

Not to mention that even democratic countries in the West also suspended/neglected the constitution in times of turmoil.

Regardless of the "legality" of covert espionage practices that are utilized by nations the world over

We’re not talking about espionage practices, but about an illegal coup, an infringement on Iran’s sovereignity.

his response to them only served to worked against his own interests.

Agreed. But like I said before, it would be too easy to see his mistakes in retrospect.

Really? That's news to me, especially given the number of political factions with vested interests that made up the majority of his support base.

Yes really:

“There were some fundamental long-term problems stemming from the very nature of Iranian politics that would have made the creation of a modern democratic government difficult at the time. Mosaddeq and his colleagues believed in the system of parliamentary democracy, whereas their opposition, both of the left and the right, were in the tradition of ‘the politics of elimination’.”

“Mosaddeq and the National Front - whatever their shortcomings - believed in plural as well constitutional society and did not wish to eliminate anyone else. Hence they were unlikely to have survived in the long run unless they too became eliminationist, which was against their very nature and raison d’être. But if the West had helped rather than worked against their efforts to build up a democratic system, then they would have been in a much stronger position to survive and continue their program for political development.”

“His almost literal non-interventionist approach to electoral freedom was highly counterproductive (...) In his idiosyncratic understanding of non-interference in the electoral process, he seemed deeply troubled by the idea of promoting pro-National Front candidates, nor was he confident that such a policy was fully legitimate or compatible with democratic principles of fair and free elections.”

“Mosaddeq not only refused to support any specific candidate or to allow his name to be associated with any electoral list, but, curiously, he even maintained that the National Front’s presentation of a list of names and attempts to promote them could be construed as electoral manipulation by the government.”

“The leaders of the National Front failed to create an organisation that could effectively mobilize support for their movement. Their lack of organisation , together with Mosaddeq’s refusal to manipulate the electoral process, prevented them from obtaining a solid majority in the parmiamentary elections.”

“Never during his twenty-six months in power did Mosaddeq attempt to forge the NF into a cohesive political movement. It remained a loose coalition without central leadership or an organised political base.”

What an authoritarian man Mossadeq was.

I can agree with that, but i'm certainly not going to give Mossadegh the benefit of the doubt for the actions he took

Of course not, beacause the actions he took didn’t serve your interests. “Democracy is all right back home, but out there you have to be the master”, correct?

Nor would I agree that he should be portrayed, for posterity's sake, as a figure worthy of praise or respect.

Of course you don’t, because he took tentative steps toward democracy and his country’s independence, something which you have clearly shown your utter contempt for.

You judge him solely on the ground of 2 measures he took in despair during the final weeks of his legislature, ignoring his ground-breaking achievements to improve the conditions of his people, in spite of non-stop covert actions against his government and the British imposed economic blockade: he freed peasants from forced labour on their landlord’s estates, ordered factory owners to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, established a system of unemployment compensation, supported women’s rights, defended religious freedom, allowed courts and universities to function freely ... Not to mention he played a crucial role during the Constitutional Revolution.

The practices his supporters used during his re-election where the secret ballot option was abolished,

Correction, these practises didn’t occur during his re-election, but during the plebiscite to dissolve the Majlis. And without approving his dissolution of the Majlis, nor denying the illegality of it, I already explained why he needed to catch this last straw to save his government from being toppled by means of numerous illegal attempts.

However, the parliamnetary elections of early 1954 for example were thoroughly rigged, but of course these elections served your interests very well so I don’t expect you to complain about this as well.

as well as the Tudeh Party's political bullying of voters and elements within the government.

Like I said before, the Tudeh wasn’t a part of Mossadeq’s government, nor did Mossadeq reversed the Tudeh’s quasi illegal status. So Mossadeq can’t be held responsible for the Tudeh’s actions.

Yes, after his supporters within the Parliament, as well as his cohorts outside, threatened the others with "violence" if they didn't vote the right way.

Source? As far as I know, the delegated powers bill passed through both houses of parliament unopposed.

No, they weren't. Look at the figures if you like, the US hardly received any portion of oil from Iran during the time, if any at all. Iran was the UK's geo-strategic investment.

Not true. Contrary to your claims, the US was extremely worried that the actions taken by Mossadeq would “jeopardize Western access to oil”. So important was the question of who controlled the region’s oil that already in 1948 Truman drew up contingency plans to deny anemy (Sovjet) access to it. With Greece, Turkey and Iran forming the first line of defense against Sovjet expansionism.

At that time Iran supplied 90% of Europe’s petroleum, but I guess the interruption of Iranian oil wouldn’t have had repercussions for the US economy in the long-run, right?

The US wasn't even convinced of Soviet expansionism taking place in that corner of the world though, or at least Eisenhower wasn't.

At the end of WWII, the Sovjets even refused to pull back their armed forces from Iran despite the treaty they previously signed. The Sovjets supported and promoted a left-wing secessonist state in the Iranian province of Azerbaijan shortly after WWII, not to mention their vocal support for the Tudeh.

And years before the coup took place the US, Britain already set-up a network called TPBEDAMN to counter Sovjet influence in Iran.

Again, it was only after the British sensationalized the issue in order to gain US support to depose Mossadegh, that the US actually took an active interest that tied into the larger Cold War that was going on at the time.

As if the Eisenhouwer administration, even before its inauguration, didn’t already sensationalise the anti-communist threat. They (the Dulles brothers, Roosevelt) didn’t need to be convinced because they already were.

That occured after the fact, not before, and was mainly used as an incentive to get the US onboard to depose Mossadegh.

I know this occured after the coup, but like I said, it was an unique opportunity to get acccess to and control Iran’s oil, something which did serve your interests. With nationalist influence out of the way the coup paved the way for oil exploration and exploitation in Iran by US companies.

As Eisenhouwer put it nicely in his diary: “Lord knows what we’d do without Iran’s oil.”

Other 3rd World nations within the US' sphere weren't undergoing the same form of domestic tug-o-war that Iran was though, and many had leaders and/or government's that were already firmly in line with the US geo-political posture.

Not true, the political and social situation and conditions in Venezuela for example were quite similar to Iran’s. Fear of the precedent a succesful oil nationalisation could set was one of the main factors in the CIA’s determination to topple Mossadeq.

Let's not forget the planned assassination attempt they were ready to conduct as well.

A Sovjet planned assassination on Mossadeq? Source?

Now you need to come off it, Shah was never that brutal, the only reason he is depicted as such stems from the abject hatred that Iran's conservative islamic factions viewed him and his actions.

The shah never that brutal? Thirty years ago Amnesty condemned Iran for having the single worst human rights abuses on the planet.

In the first months after the coup the shah and Zahedi eliminated all major sources of opposition, carried out a wave of arrests, executed or imprisoned several top National Front leaders, rigged parliamentary elections ... I don’t even want to discuss the extremely brutal torture methods his CIA created vehicle called Savak used to ‘interrogate’ opponents.

In the final years of his rule his closest political and military advisors - out of fear to be dismissed or even jailed - presented the shah only ‘raw’ material about the political and social situation in Iran, leaving him with a completely distorted view of conditions in his country.

So yes, his rule very much resembled that of an absolute monarch, Ancien Regime style.

Up until Mossadegh's dissolution of Parliament he was firmly against removing him from office, or even trying to exercise direct control over governmental affairs.

The shah hesitated to formally support the coup out of fear that a failure would make an end to the Pahlavi-dynasty. But he definitely wanted to remove Mossadeq from power long before the dissolution of the Majlis, but, fearing his popularity, Mossadeq simpy was no match for him.

And he did try to exercise direct control over governmental affairs, something which Mossadeq strongly objected to.

What about figures within two of the wings that formed the National Front? Namely the more conservative element led by a cleric whose name I can't remember atm, or those in the Pan-Iranist Party?

As for the cleric, I think you’re referring to ayatollah Kashani, who defected the National Front after being bribed by the CIA. The anti-communist Pan-Iranist party was funded by the CIA, leading to a pro- and an anti-Mossadeq wing. So, then give me the name of a corrupt, pro-Mossadeq, Pan-Iranist member.

Here you go, it's been awhile since i've used it but i'll try to find the exact part.
I'll concede that it might not have been with his approval however.


Ok, I’ll wait until you have found the exact part.

That's exactly what i'm talking about though. Not of a fullscale toppling of Mossadegh along with the government, just them trying to kill him.

Not quite. Earlier you implied that if Operation Ajax didn’t remove Mossadeq’s government from power, the religious right would have done it anayway. But the religious right was only capable to remove Mossadeq himself, but, unlike Operation Ajax, they didn’t have the means to topple the government of ‘Mossadeqists’.

I was referring more to the exile parties in Iran today that portray the man as greater than God as a means of garnering their former political power.

I’m not very familiar with these parties, but I doubt they portray him as someone bigger than God. For them, Mossadeq represents freedom and democracy, something which Iran hardly experienced in its post-islamic history, except for a very brief period (1951-1953).

I'm not villifying him at all, simply contesting the notion that every action Mossadegh ever took was always for Iran's best interest. Or that even in taking illegal actions he was nevetheless a benevolent leader.

Ok, I can agree with this, but I never claimed that every action he took served the interests of his people.

Who said those interests had to be in the form of political parties?

Then you can say the same about virtually every other nation on earth.

Link
Unless of course they fall into your religious right category as well.

Of course they do. So again, which opposition groups, apart from the ones I already mentioned, did oppose the shah using non-legal means?

Riiight.

Indeed.

I know what a coup d'etat is thank you. It's not going to change the fact of what I said.

Yes it does. The coup was illegal and an infringement on Iran’s sovereignity.

So I take it you wouldn't hold any qualms if the US had declared war on Iran as a result?

And I take it you wouldn't hold any qualms if Iran had killed the hostages as a result of the US declaring war on Iran?

I wasn’t serious when I wrote this, but your hypocrisy irritated me.

Elaborate.

I already did.

It’s quite ironic that in the eve of the Iranian Revolution, in order to avoid the implosion of the shah’s regime, you pushed him to implement democratic measures, and when you should have supported Mossadeq’s strive towards democracy, you did the opposite. [/quote]
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Election 2020

Just a tip on how to get elected irrelevant of dem[…]

Don't get me wrong in any way, if people indulged […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

I'm taking into account FPTP and how I think fanat[…]

If You Want To Change The World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY6dWKpq1Sw Bed-m[…]