Coup: 1953, The CIA And The Roots Of Modern Us-Iranian Relations

Furthermore, the Shah purchased billions of dollars worth of weapons of security from the US. In 1979 the realm was overthrown by extreme Islam’s that were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. The intention of the Iranian students was to display their displeasure against the Shah. Their demand was the return of the Shah for a trial followed by his death. In addition, they asked that the US stay out of their country’s affairs. Carter’s approach required the safeguarding of American hostages but also guaranteed an alliance with Iran. Carter’s tactics on the situation had devastating effects on his run for re-election (Hamilton, 1982).

Looking back to 1953, the nation was at a much different place. However, the decisions that were made in 1953 greatly impacted the nation’s involvement in terrorism today. Stephen Kinzer, author of All The Shah’s Men, addresses how the United States’ role in the 1953 CIA coup in Iran leads up to modern terrorism that can be seen in society currently. Additionally, Kinzer is a very credible source considering he has worked in more than fifty countries and is an award-winning foreign journalist. Furthermore, Kinzer has been the New York Times bureau chief in multiple different countries; some being Berlin, Managua, Nicaragua, and Istanbul. With that being said, Kinzer has a vast amount of knowledge regarding the nation’s role in foreign affairs. According to Kinzer, the 1953 CIA coup in Iran politically destabilized the nation, led to the rise of modern terrorism, and immensely affected the CIA’s reputation. This paper examines Kinzer’s arguments with the assessment that the nation involving itself in foreign affairs undeniably leads to unintended consequences.

All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer details the 1953 American-orchestrated coup in Iran. Iran was under British economic control, but as it modernized, Iranians began fighting for their own control. Their fledgling democracy was working to modernize, until the UK and the US decided to interfere to protect Britain’s colonial holdings from Soviet influence. Because the US was not interested in protecting a British business, British politicians emphasized the threat the USSR held to Iran, leading to Americans inserting themselves into a nation’s politics in which they had no place. They successfully orchestrated a coup, however, the negative, long-term, anti-Western results overwhelm any positive effect. All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer paints a picture of the results of action without adequate attention to future results.

The 1970s was a rough time for Americans. The economy was struggling and gas prices were doublings, sometimes gas stations even ran out of gas. While all this was going on, the media caught the attention of the American people on the story of the sixty six hostages that were captured in Tehran. Soon that became the center of attention. Both in Iran and America, people focused on what would happen and especially how President Jimmy Carter would respond. In his book, Taken Hostage, David Farber closely examines the events that led up to the hostage crisis. He informs us of America’s first encounter with radical Islam and what had caused the conflict between them. For four hundred and forty-four days, President Carter tried to put effort into resolving the issues but he failed on releasing the hostages. Since the American people paid close attention to this issue, they were highly disappointed with President Carter and his processes. From our class lectures and throughout the tensions illustrated in Farber’s book, we learn of how the role of Cold War policy had fueled the crisis between the United States and “Radical Islam”, the Cold War policy shaping the response of the U.S. to the crisis, and also understanding the present War on Terror.

With the shah still sick, it was hard to manage what was back in Iran. The speed of change in Iran was too hard to get command. “The shah was in trouble, reaping the harvest of years of brutal and unpopular policies, including the use of secret police that controlled dissent with arbitrary arrests and torture.” It was obvious that the shah had lost all control of his people of Iran, but the president had hoped for an alliance of opponents to be formed. A man

The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning

In his book All the Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer tells the story behind the coup that took place in Iran in 1953 and how US-Iranian relations were impacted as a result. To give a full picture of the events that transpired before the coup, Kinzer goes above and beyond and recounts the history of Persia going back to the founding of the Achaemenid Empire in 550 BC, giving the reader an excellent overview of the long history of the region. He then goes on to recount the root causes and events that led up to the coup and then covers the coup itself. Kinzer then devotes the last 40 pages going over the events that happened after the coup and the consequences that both nations have suffered for it. Kinzer’s point of view on this subject was obvious

A regime change in Iran could see the lifting of American trade sanctions against Iran; U.S. sanctions have had an impact on Iran’s oil economy. Mohammed Akacem, a petroleum expert at Metropolitan State College of Denver said, “U.S. oil companies would love to go to Iran, so sanctions have retarded a little bit of Iran’s ability to improve its oil sector (qtd. in Beehner).” Securing another efficient source of oil would help to ease the American economy as alternative energy sources are developed, and workers are trained to perform the

World leaders in Great Brittan didn’t want Mossadegh to have any sort of power because he had long desired to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh and British diplomats argued over the rights of Iranian oil for years. Mossadegh argued that the oil was a natural resource, the most abundant in Iran, therefore it was rightfully property of the people of Iran. He also saw the deal as an opportunity to create wealth and prosperity in his country. The British argued that Iran had contractually agreed to allow them to run the company decades prior and the contract had yet to cease. Additionally, Britain had been getting the oil dirt cheap and was selling it at 30 times the price they paid. According to Mossadegh, the British were exploiting Iran for their oil and land. The British claimed they were only trying to help Iran, yet they refused to help Iranians learn to run the factory and ensured that no British citizen would help them.

“Remove all of the baggage- all of the ideology, the history …and look in purely geostrategic terms… it’s hard to figure out why the United States and Iran would necessarily be in conflict. In fact during the Shah’s era, before 1979- recognizing that there were all kinds of other problems- the Unites States and Iran worked together splendidly at the strategic level” ( qtd. in Addis). Initially, the United States and Iran maintained amicable relations but resentment rose in Iran over time toward the Americans. The Iran-contra with the United States lasted for more than a century, conflict beginning in the late 1800s until 1980. The Iran Hostage crisis on November 4th, 1979, served as the

This paper will begin by providing background information on the Iranian Hostage Crises, then shifts to the different viewpoints taken by the divisions of the executive branch. This will provide the different policy options and supporting actors. The final part of the paper will focus on the foreign policy outcome.

Over the last 70 years Iran has experienced many periods of severe political turmoil. The two most notorious periods of turmoil are the revolutions of 1953 and 1977. Both of these revolutions were heavily influenced by corporate interests, albeit in different ways. The 1953 revolution was a coup d’état arranged by the CIA in order to prevent the president from nationalizing the oil fields. This was done to protect corporate oil interests. The 1977 revolution was a reaction to the oppressive policies of the government that was put in place by the prior revolution. The government favored liberal economic policies that deregulated corporate activities, and these polices led to widespread abuse of the civilian population at the hands of the Iranian Government and foreign corporations. The events and results of these revolutions had significant effects on Iranian outlook towards western states and ideas. After the second revolution a starkly religious government had taken power, and this new regime had a strong anti-western sentiment. This sentiment developed as a reaction to the rule of the Shah, because the Shah was seen as a symbol of oppressive western power by the new regime.

In 1953 the United Kingdom with help from the United States ousted the first democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosadegh. Mosadegh was a revolutionary who sought to nationalize iranian oil, eliminating the monopoly that the United Kingdom had on iranian oil. Through Operation TPAJAX, which led to a series of U.S. backed coup état’s in various countries, Iran was robbed of their democracy and a tyrannical U.S. backed Dictator was installed in its place. This interference of Iranian affairs has led to decades of American hatred and later the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Before the 1953 coupe état, revolutionary, Mosadegh nationalized Iranian oil with an almost unanimous vote,later being threatened by American and British

The nationalization of the sprawling Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and its holdings voted into place by the Iranian parliament revoked the ownership British colonialism had on one of the world’s largest oil supplies. This consequentially caused distress for not only Britain but the United States as well. This single act kick started the beginning of the American Coup, a staged plan to overthrow and seize the power of the Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in an effort to regain control of the oil industry in the Middle East. In 1953, two years after the initial nationalization of AIOC, the C.I.A. began the coup but faltered and failed due to Mossadegh receiving advanced warnings; in the end Mossadegh was overthrown. The coup led by America bred a new

One cannot apprehend the consequences the Second World War had, that lead to the Cold War without having a look at the happenings and events during the war itself. The rivalry of influence between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War is indubitable. In the aftermath of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union were already militarily and diplomatically engaged in Iran. Iran became the major theatre of ideological conflict between the great powers, these effects would deeply influence and shape Iran’s politics and history. In this essay, I intend to explore the effects the Cold War had on Iran’s politics, starting with the stance of Iran during World War 2 and ending with the Iranian Revolution that brought