Relationship Between The West And Iran

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

Thesis: Iran, because of these events, is in worse condition because of the cultural revolution, poisoned from within, and is the victim of the actions of the western powers.

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.

Iran has always, it seems, been the breeding ground for some kind of political upheaval or another. In recent times, back in 1979, there was a major revolution which was, in some ways, similar to the revolution we are seeing today. The people were angry and they were tired of being controlled by the government that was in power. They had concrete ideals and were incredibly passionate about their revolution. The revolution Iran is experiencing today does not appear to be quite as passionate and does not appear to maintain a belief in any real solid political system. They just know they want something different. In the following paper we present an illustration of the current revolution that is taking

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 Islamic Revolution of 1979: The Downfall of American- Iranian Relations” analyzes American- Iranian diplomacy from 1953- 1979. It is an explanation of the causes and developments of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power and

In September of 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, in the beginning of the eight year Iran-Iraq war. Iran was paranoid that Iraq’s leaders had “ambitions….in terms of expansion and regional hegemony”. 2 The invasion justified their fears. At first, we “did not have good relations with Iraq, which was had been close to the Soviet Union”.3 Although “not an ally of Iraq”, the United States believed that “Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to be defeated by a radical Islamist, anti-American regime”.4 There was speculation that the U.S. had given the Iraqis “the green light to launch war” against Iran.5 This would have been plausible because if Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq, could seize oil-rich territory, the U.S. would then have “access to Iranian crude”.6 The United States also wanted to terminate the radical Khomeini government and with the prospect of Hussein capturing Iran’s main source of revenue, this was probable. Because of this, “over the next decade Washington would play an ambiguous role in the Iran-Iraq War.”7 Not only was Iraq receiving U.S. support, but Iran was too, despite the fact our relations with them were

All The Shah’s Men is a historical account written by Stephen Kizner that reconstructs the American backed Iranian coup of 1953. I chose to read this book because I am interested in America’s role in Middle Eastern history and current affairs. One of the many reasons to place this book on a high-school American history-reading list is that it provides key insight into a quintessential example of US involvement in the politics of other independent countries. This book is important to American history because it narrates a turning point in US foreign policy and the Middle East. Unfortunately, the compelling description of the events in Iran are used to draw tenuous conclusions about the root cause acts of Jihadist violence directed against

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

The focus of this investigation is on the United States’ influence on the National Revolution of Iran of 1978-1979. Topics investigated include the sociocultural and political differences between the two countries which

The 1970s is described as the Era of Limits, a decade when Americans were criticized for being self-absorbed. However, in 1979, American anxiety and the public concern towards the impact of the rise of radical Islam tends to contradict the claim of the widespread selfishness amongst the American people. The Iranian hostage crisis, which lasted for four hundred and forty days, from 1979 to 1981, was a defining moment in the history of United States and Iran’s relations. David Farber, in his book, Taken Hostage: The Iran Hostage Crisis and America 's First Encounter with Radical Islam, narrates a detailed account of this relations in five insightful chapters. He concentrates on the emergence of radical Islamic fundamentalism led by Ayatollah

As Michael Axworthy states on the back cover of his book, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, Iran is a “land of contradictions”. As this is true these contradictions is what makes Iran, Iran. Iran today is looked as the pinnacle of the Islamic faith in the form of a Government structure. Since 1979, Iran has been known as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran will continue being an Islamic Republic for centuries to come. Iran has a rich history of intellectuals and scholars. Iran is known for its vibrant culture that dates back longer than the Western Ideals were even conceived. However Axworthy asks a question about Iran and its impact on the world’s history and the current events that we see in Iran today, Axworthy asks “Is Iran an aggressive power, or a victim?” This statement is a true paradox, can Iran be the next Nazi Germany, the next Soviet Union or the next Great Islamic Caliphate or is Iran just fighting to keep its culture alive from a vast array of attacks from foreign entities and internal struggles.

Throughout the 19th and 20th century Iran saw not only the changing of three regimes, but also the coming, and going of classical imperialists in Britain and Russia, but also late comers to the game in the United States. In each instance however, Iran was on a road to appeasement. In some instances such as with the Qajar’s, Iran’s Imperial family was trying to get more money for the betterment of itself. In the event of the Pahlavi’s, Iran was trying to modernize based off of a western model of success. In both instances the carving out of resources was involved in which Iran stood to lose the most by giving up very lucrative state industries to

The effect of this take-over on Iran’s relationship to the USA and the west can still be felt in relations between these countries today. The Iranian hostage crisis led to a suspension of diplomatic relations between Iran and the USA as well as other Western democracies. While the Soviet Union accepted the legitimacy of the revolution, it initially supported attempts to reinstall the Shah as leader. American leaders were determined to keep the Shah in power because of the cold war tensions, which caused them to fear that Soviet Communism would spread to Iran, should the Shah fall. (Cohen, 1). But while

The [Bush] administration found it consistently difficult to get the measure of Tehran. Bush depicted it as a “nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is repressing and isolating its people,” but the reality was far more complex. (482)