[Impulse]

What are both sides to this topic?
I'm looking for good sources to read.

Brittan - Cries communism and America helps overthrow Iran's "Democracy".

Iran - Says its oil was the motive for the ousting and the establishment of a pro western dictator.

[QatzelOk]

The "both sides" to this topic are:

SIDE 1) America is ideologically capitalist, and can be counted on to overthrow democratically-elected governments if these governments threaten its hegemony or business interests.

SIDE 2) America was protecting another poor people from the ravages of communism by usurping the people of that country's democratic choice. You see, people in other countries don't know how to vote properly, and the World's Policeman likes to make World Citizen's arrests on unfathomably independent-minded politicos in foreign countries.

[soron]

There are no 2 sides. A democratically elected government in Iran wouldn't have served the US's or the Brits' purpose. Plus they threatened to put the oil under governmental control.

The Brits didn't want that as Iran was a British colony (or so the Brits thought) but Iran suspected the British intention and removed the Brits. So they called upon the CIA to lend a helping hand.
The US was only too willing, because oil AND a staunch ally bordering to the Soviet Union who could be armed to the teeth in order to deter communism was far preferrable to letting Iranian peasants have any say in it.

[HoniSoit]

I'm looking for good sources to read.

As for as I know, an excellent book on this topic is:

All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror

http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-Ame ... 0471265179

[Impulse]

I already know about that book. Thanks anyway tho. I was suggesting more immediate internet sources i could perhaps use in the future for other forum discussions.

[Falx]

The Prize : The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power had a nice section on why exactly the prime minister was toppled. If you want the short satirized version of events:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9327954402

The only thing he understates is that at the time of the overthrow the Iranian economy was in tatters, thanks mostly to the British, inflation was out of control etc, the election had been two years previous and the population was resentful over the state of affairs. Given the ineptness of Kermit Roosevelt it would have been impossible to topple the government without popular support. That said what came next was the worst abuse of human rights since the Nazi regime, given how friendly to the Nazi the Iranian coup leaders were it is no surprise. The only reason why the counter coup took so long was that that SAVAK was so efficient at killing everyone who raised an eye brow at the wrong time.

[bayano]

The issue is that, most of the right wing simply doesn't discuss, respond, examine history like this. I have another thread in the conservatism section that mentions this amid a list of elected leaders that the US deposed. There is barely a right wing response.

[pikachu]

America overthews Irans democracy in 1953

So is it ok to overthrow a dictatorship but not a democracy? Why not vice-versa? Every leader is the representative of his country.

[Dave]

This is quite simple. Mossadegh nationalized the assets of British Petroleum, a leading corporation and overseas investor from America's most important ally. Naturally we couldn't stand by and allow this, and overthrowing Mossadegh was necessary. Perhaps we could've instead worked with Mossadegh and had control of sectors of the Iranian economy transferred to us, but that would've alienated our most important ally. Eisenhower made the correct decision. I will say that, just as happened in Afghanistan later, the failure to address the concerns of the Iranian people led to blowback. Admittedly the Shah did improve the living standards of the Iranian people, but his brutality and alienation of religious conservatives were, to say the least, counterproductive.

The issue is that, most of the right wing simply doesn't discuss, respond, examine history like this. I have another thread in the conservatism section that mentions this amid a list of elected leaders that the US deposed. There is barely a right wing response.

I have responded and stated that I explicitly support the overthrow of democratic governments that run counter to our interests. For some reason you don't want to acknowledge me.

[soron]

I have responded and stated that I explicitly support the overthrow of democratic governments that run counter to our interests.

And you're surprised that 19 Arabs decided to bomb your asses ? When do you start being surprised that you get so few bombs placed under your asses ?

[Dave]

Sorry, did I say I was surprised by that?

[Kiroff]

If there's anything we should be surptised about is the government being so damn corrupt that it attacked the wrong country twice and made a load of stupid laws that have nothing to do with terrorism as the result of Al-Quaeda's attack.

But that deserves a separate thread...

[Falx]

Admittedly the Shah did improve the living standards of the Iranian people, but his brutality and alienation of religious conservatives were, to say the least, counterproductive.

The Shah did virtually nothing for living standards, it was the stop of sanctions by Britain et al that stopped destroying the Irainan economy and allowed it to function normally once again.

[Smilin' Dave]

Dave

Mossadegh nationalized the assets of British Petroleum, a leading corporation and overseas investor from America's most important ally. Naturally we couldn't stand by and allow this, and overthrowing Mossadegh was necessary.

I could be wrong, but I thought Mossadegh nationalised those assets after the British failed to negotiate a better deal When the Shah was put into power a moderately better deal was promptly put on the table. Therefore the necessity of the action is questionable. Indeed, if steps had been taken earlier (say if the US had stepped in as a more honest broker during the early negotiations) a better deal for all might have been achieved.

The idea that the US couldn't act against British interests is also not supported by history. The US after all helped to pull the plug of the British during their attempt to reoccupy the Suez Canal in 1956. I also don't remember the US helping the British during it's decolonisation process. Both are examples of British assets being lost, with little US support. Yet the British didn't break the alliance or crumple.

I explicitly support the overthrow of democratic governments that run counter to our interests.

As the Iranian example in this thread demonstrates, US interests are not always rational, and failure to compromise can lead to more serious problems further down the track.

Pikachu

So is it ok to overthrow a dictatorship but not a democracy? Why not vice-versa? Every leader is the representative of his country.

A dictator might represent a country as a state entity, but they might not represent the nation or even the peoples within the borders of the nation. As such a dictatorship's legitimacy as a representative for a country is dubious. It could also be perceived that dictators are more likely to engage in illegitimate behaviour and hence fair game, but that depends on your view on politics and international relations generally.

[Dave]

The Shah did virtually nothing for living standards, it was the stop of sanctions by Britain et al that stopped destroying the Irainan economy and allowed it to function normally once again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_revolution

I could be wrong, but I thought Mossadegh nationalised those assets after the British failed to negotiate a better deal When the Shah was put into power a moderately better deal was promptly put on the table. Therefore the necessity of the action is questionable. Indeed, if steps had been taken earlier (say if the US had stepped in as a more honest broker during the early negotiations) a better deal for all might have been achieved.

You are quite probably correct. I will say that having an allied autocrat is better than an allied democrat, but also possibly not worth the costs.

The idea that the US couldn't act against British interests is also not supported by history. The US after all helped to pull the plug of the British during their attempt to reoccupy the Suez Canal in 1956. I also don't remember the US helping the British during it's decolonisation process. Both are examples of British assets being lost, with little US support. Yet the British didn't break the alliance or crumple.

This is a good point. The US effectively forced the decolonization process on Britain, opening half the world to our corporations. I also think that we should've supported Britain and France during Suez rather than pulling the plug on them.

With Iran I doubt we could've simply taken the assets without causing too much strain in Britain, but doing nothing was an option, as is your proposal of the US acting as an honest broker.

As the Iranian example in this thread demonstrates, US interests are not always rational, and failure to compromise can lead to more serious problems further down the track.

I think the real problem was withdrawing CIA monitoring from Iran and then pushing the Shah to make democratic reforms.

[Falx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_revolution

Yes, ten years later, we don't know what Mossadegh would have done in that time given he was disposed two years after he came to power. Two years in which he did a lot more than the puppet Shah had done for Iran since the west disposed his father for him.

[QatzelOk]

I also think that we should've supported Britain and France during Suez rather than pulling the plug on them.

Why bother? Israel supported the continued ownership of Egypt's canal by the Rothschilds, so America wasn't needed.

When replacing the democratic government of Iran by their king, the CIA is rumored to have said on Israel-produced Radio_Free_Iran: "Be thankful, good people of Iran, for we have brought back your noble king. If you are not completely satisfied with your new monarchy, just blow up one of our office towers within fifty years, and your democracy will be cheerfully returned."

[Smilin' Dave]

This is a good point. The US effectively forced the decolonization process on Britain, opening half the world to our corporations.

And all manner of kooky anti-American roups and generic trouble makers, don't forget that.

I also think that we should've supported Britain and France during Suez rather than pulling the plug on them.

Why? It kept Egypt relatively neutral and made the US look good in the newly decolonised countries. If the US had done nothing the Soviets would have, so US action put a stop to that too. In fact it may have given the Soviets the impression that the US was willing to work with them, at a time Khrushchev was seeking some form of rapproachment. Egyptian ownership of the Canal wasn't that big an issue in the long run, and it spent more time closed later on thanks to a US supported war.

With Iran I doubt we could've simply taken the assets without causing too much strain in Britain

So much for your earlier argument:

Mossadegh nationalized the assets of British Petroleum, a leading corporation and overseas investor from America's most important ally.

So at first you think the motivation was to save a British asset, now you seem to claim that the objective was for the US to seize a British asset? You do however make an inadvertantly good point. If memory served the revised oil agreement with the Shah paved the way for a bigger US stake in Iranian oil. This further discredits the premise of your first argument.

but doing nothing was an option, as is your proposal of the US acting as an honest broker.

Given your interest in economics and finance, I'm sure you are aware that a broker never gets anywhere by doing nothing.

I think the real problem was withdrawing CIA monitoring from Iran and then pushing the Shah to make democratic reforms.

Was CIA monitoring really necessary given the strength of SAVAK? The democratic reforms were also a tactical move due to rising opposition, rather than the cause for the success of the opposition. Opposition against the Shah had been building up for some time and had been getting more radical with each iterance. So for example lets say it started with Shariati, then Khomeini when he was still a domestic critic and then Khomeini as a critic abroad.

Having failed to either break the opposition by force or discredit them (the White Revolution didn't reach broadly enough, so grass roots discontent continued), it was only a matter of time before the opposition forces defeated the Shah.