Balzak
Actually, it was Mossadeq who dissolved the Majlis.
That's what I was referring to.
But Mossadeq only decided to dissolve parliament after he had learnt about the US plans to topple him by bribing Majlis members to vote him out.
Doesn't change the fact that such an action was illegal, or that he used authoritarian measures and electioneering to grant him emergency powers.
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 is believed that already 1/3 of the Majlis were on the British payroll; they only needed a few more defectors. And there was more. The CIA-led coup also included:
- murdering government officials
- paying ‘demonstrators’ to turn the streets into battlegrounds, ransacking in the name of Mossadeq
- newspapers on the CIA payroll writing slanderous articles about him, manipulating public opinion
- paying thugs to launch staged atttacks on religious leaders and make it appear they were ordered by Mossadeq ...
Mossadegh's response, and those of his supporters, were all just as dirty. Do I even need to go into some of the practices utilized by the Tudeh Party?
And under these circumstances you expect Mossadeq to do nothing and stand idle?
Replace Mossadegh with the Shah and you'll be on the right track.
And corrupt? Apart from those who were already paid by the British for years, the only corrupt ones were his former allies who defected him after being bribed by the CIA/SIS, like Kashani and Bakai. Name one member of the National Front, who remained loyal until the end, who was corrupt.
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.
And increasingly authoritarian?
Yes, his illegal dissolution of Parliament being one point of evidence on that. 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?
Why do you think the ayatollahs in Iran ignore him and his legacy?
Because he was a secularist, and also because they probably despised him even more than the British did. 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.
Because, just like the shah before them, they realize that allowing their subjects to honour Mossadeq would inevitably lead to calls for a government based on his principles.
That too.
But nice attempt to try to portray Mossadeq as the villain nonetheless.
Considering the absurd of amount of revisionist history that portrays him as a saint of God I doubt i'd be successful.
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.
Blaming only the mullahs would be to easy.
Fine, blame the Shah and the Revolution then, not much of a difference as far as i'm concerned. Iran has been locked in a virtual tug of war between competing interests ever since it's contemporary inception.
Iran’s factionalism hasn’t been the same since the shah immediately after the coup crushed all legitimate political parties, driving many of their supporters into the arms of opposition groups who were less inclined to use legal means in their resistance against the shah.
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.
The CIA chief in Tehran at that time believed that this coup would be an enormous mistake and warned that Iranians would forever view the US as a supporter of colonialism. And Truman himself predicted that mishandling the Iran crisis would create a disaster to the free world. How prophetic they were.
Beggars can't be choosers, the risk of Iran viewing the US as such was viewed as an acceptable loss at the time.
Fair enough, but the seizure of the US embassy wouldn’t have happened if you ‘didn’t break with every convention of international law and incurred upon sovereign Iranian territory’ 26 years before the hostage crisis.
We didn't, the US and UK both worked with the support and consent of the Shah, as well as other elements in the Iranian political sphere that were opposed to Mossadegh.
The hostage takers remembered that when the shah fled in 1953 the CIA organised a coup from within the US embassy. Iranians feared that, with the admission of the shah to the US in 1979, history was about to repeat itself.
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.
And as I implied in my previous post, your refusal to negotiate with the moderate elements of Iran's provisional government, who denounced the hostage-takers, bolstered the extremists.
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 also didn’t mind dealing secretly with the same extremists a few years later. I wonder what the ayatollahs did with that Bible signed by Reagan. I have to admire your principles.
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.
So when Iranians (or others) infringe on your rights/interests, its terrorism, but when you apply the same tactics against them you call it “business as usual within the great game of international relationsâ€.
Correct.
Granted, you’re probably right here. How could I forget that if there’s one thing that the coup taught despots in the world is that powerful governments are willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as the despotic regimes are friendly to the West and its interests.
In order to avoid the
greater of two evils? You're damn right.
Better to tolerate certain regimes in the Arab world at the expense of their limited oppression, and in favor of the semblance of stability they bring to that corner of the world, than to see events unfold that would lead to the disrupting of a potential geo-strategic flashpoint as important as the Middle East to US (and Global) interests.
Dude WTF.
Foreign policy of the US in the middle east.....
Everything fails and is even coutner producive
Osama still riding his camel and instead of finding WMD's it created armies of terrorists.
*sigh*
Again, what does that have to do with the more specific topic of the presence of US ships in Strait of Hormuz? Or the particular incident we're talking about in this thread?
If you want to talk about all that, then go make another one.
The straight would remain perfectly open without the US. Half of it is claimed by Oman. Nobody got a problem with them.
Just as it did before US intervention during the Tanker War?
The fact is that it wouldn't matter if no one has a problem with Oman. Do they have minesweepers? Or any other means of keeping the Strait open for commercial traffic if a war were to break out?
If you can understand that then i'm sure you can understand the reasons for why they allow US and other Coalition warships to operate in their waters.
The last time they took some soldiers as prisoners.
Only because they caught them offguard, and at a time when their home ship wasn't in a position to lend backup.
Hardly comparable to the incident between them and the US ships.
KirillovThe question is whether the US thinks it is worthwhile mobilising its entire population (i.e. conscription) in order to fight a war over a relatively unimportant state in the Middle East.
None of which would ever happen.
Short of a world war against a major power like China and Russia the US would never have to draft conscripts to fight a paper tiger like Iran.
arthur_two_sheds_jacksonPiano, leaving aside the fact you can't prove what you claim (and ignoring your repeated statement claiming so)
What do you mean can't prove my claim? If you want a link to the book's website because you were too lazy to look it up yourself then
here you go.
Actually the Strait is 21 miles across at its narrowest point, thus making your calculations nonsensical.
Ask the UN they know:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_ ... ective.htm
If you're going to take a bad link off of wikipedia than the least you can do is be honest about it.
FYI it doesn't give any specific geographic information about the Strait of Hormuz. My book does, but if you want a more concrete web source then
fine.
Google is your friend.
21 miles is less than 2x12 miles so therefore the strait is composed of Iran and Omans territorial waters.
Easy isn't it?
No.
Mainly because the Strait of Hormuz isn't 21 miles long at it's narrowest point. Feel free to use Google Earth if you want, I already have.
No matter how many times you repeat this claim it is not a fact till you have proven it.
So you don't believe the US sailor in the video when he clearly states that the US ship was in international waters?
You don't believe the facts i've stated about how the shipping and transit lanes in the Strait of Hormuz are organized?
You don't believe the numerous news agencies around the world that have confirmed the location of the US ships at the time of the incident?
You don't believe the Iranians themselves when they have yet to raise a single point of issue with regards to the US ships supposedly being close to their territorial waters?
You don't believe...oh forget it. Trying to state the truth to you is not easy it would seem.
And I'm more willing to believe the Iranians than the US after WMDs etc.
Considering that they've changed their depiction of what happened during the encounter (aside from initially not acknowledging the incident ever took place) six times already, i'd say you're hopelessly naive.
Try to lay off the Strawmen next time.
You on the other hand will swallow absolutely anything you hear coming from the US gov't - despite the fact they are proven liars.
Considering that statements made by the US govt. are readily availible to be cross-referenced, why not?
Iran? Not so much.
Only there never was an 'incident like this' as you say.
Uh there have actually been several incidents like this...
This one is just unique due to the abnormal behavior exercised by the IRGC boats. Unless of course those boats shown in the video were all just a figment of my imagination. Right?
Buy a map!
That piece of straight they all were in, is darn narrow.
You simply can not help being close to their territorial waters if you're there.
Already have one, do you?
So, i'll repeat myself, those ships were no where near Iran's territorial waters.
Stay on topic. You might as well mention what the pentagon does.
- By JohnRawls
- By Godstud
- By Fasces