The 1953 U.S. Intervention in Iran Essay

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).

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

It was clear to the Eisenhower Administration that Mossadegh needed a change of vocation. In November of 1953, Mossadegh was arrested and placed on trial for treason (Ledeen and Lewis, 1981). He was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment, later to live out his years in a country home outside Tehran under virtual house arrest until his death in 1967 (Ledeen and Lewis, 1981). This seemingly benign power swap set the stage for an increasingly hostile deterioration in relations between the people of Iran and the United States. The direct intervention in 1953 cast the United States in the role so common in Iranian history of the cynical external power prepared to manipulate Iranian political circumstances for its own benefit (Sick, 1985).

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

Iran a place located east of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and west of Afghanistan (“Where is Iran”). Iran is having a revolution with its people because Mohammad Khatami, fifth president of Ian lost to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the presidential elections held in June 2009, former Prime Minister Mir Hussein Mousavi accused the new president Mohammad Khatami of rigging the vote. Soon after the announcement that President Mahmoud Ahmadiejad rigged the election, Green Revolution started where thousands of young people of Iran storm though the streets to protest against President Mahmoud Ahmadiejad. But the revolution did not last very long all thanks to its military, Green Revolution was over and more than 500 young Iranians has been capture for

This book, All the Shah’s Men, is written like an exciting spy-novel explaining the Central Intelligence Agency’s coup in 1953, for an American attack on Iran. The book begins by explaining how Reza Shah signed an agreement to sell Iranian oil release rights to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In 1950, Iran violated the agreement by scheming to take the oil assets that were created by Great Britain. Thus, causing the British to barricade the Persian Gulf, stopping the trade in Iran and seriously damaging their economy. Worried that Iran was collaborating with the Soviet Union concerning the oil issue against Great Britain, Mosssadegh was overthrown by President Eisenhower and Churchill.

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

Operation TPAJAX was prompted by the British who were concerned that Iran may fall into Communist hands. Iran was led by prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Iran at this time was suppling 90 percent of its oil to Europe through a British and Iranian owned company called the Anglo-Iranian Oil company. Mossandegh found out that Britain was developing a plot to get rid of him and closed the British embassy, expelling British citizens from Iran. Britain came to the US for help. In early 1953, President Eisenhower was briefed by the CIA that the Soviets could take control of Iran and something should be done. Kermit Roosevelt was tasked with developing a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. The efforts almost worked but failed and Shah that was to take Mossadegh’s place fled the country. Roosevelt tried again a few days later by organizing demonstrations against Mossadegh, which were joined by the Communists. At the same time Roosevelt set up demonstrations in support of the Shah. Roosevelt was able to help overcome Mossadegh, resulting in his arrest. The Shah returned to Iran and took control.

Iran cut all ties with the United States and lost its dominance in the area; it’s army was disorganized and weak. The Iranian Revolution created disorder in many Iranian military units and Iranian confrontation with the U.S. ensured it would be cut off from its primary weapons supplier. During the year after the fall of the Shah, many areas of Iran were approaching civil war; this frenzy in Iran made the country seem much more vulnerable than it really was, and led Saddam Hussein to feel he had his first genuine opportunity to make Iraq the dominant power in the area and the Arab world (Cordesman & Wagner, 1990).

Country that can elected a leader and is able to share power not easy to control, influence, and exploitation, because that society can make decision for themselves and will not except any negative influence from the outside. A powerful leader like Dr. Mossadegh was the obstacle for exploration of Iran from the exploitation from both outsider power and corrupted part of Iranian elite. Young Shah, who always claimed that wants best for Iran and Iranian, simply couldn’t understand what is the importance of Dr. Mossadegh, not only as a powerful leader, but also as the conclusion of Iranians movement for democracy. The act of overthrowing Dr. Mossadegh started soon, the coop under name “Operation Ajax” organized by CIA succeeded, and Iranian were throwing back to

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

“Eisenhower hoped that the recent Anglo-U.S. offer to fund construction of the Aswan Dam might win Nasser’s cooperation and that Israel’s insecurity stemming from the Soviet-Egyptian arms deal would force the Jewish state to negotiate” (Hahn 190)

In the late 20th century, the government of the United States was going through a difficult time. Having just came out of World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States were in a state of political and military tension known as the Cold War. Little attention did the government of the United States give to the other issues at hand. While, in the Middle East there was a storm forming, the citizens of Iran were undergoing an evolution into a democratic government; breaking apart from it monarchical rule. During this extremely crucial phase for Iran, the U.S. and United Kingdom stepped in to overthrow this democratic development to strengthen their own agendas. In response to this corruption that caused oppression amongst the Iranian people, they rose up against the U.S. and held our citizen’s hostage. This was known as the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979. In this essay we will discuss how the evolving decisions and events that built up to the Iranian Hostage Crisis were due to a shortsightedness and lack of the understanding of people.

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

however, Ismail put the valuable canal for sale and the British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli purchased it. Years after Ismail’s leadership, the idea of not gaining much of the Suez profit bothered the Egyptians and many hoped for some change in the ownership. Laurie Milner wrote about the objectives of Egypt’s colonel stating, “By 1954, Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser had three goals: to make Egypt Independent by ending British occupation; to build up Egyptian forces for a successful attack on Israel; to improve Egypt’s economy by constructing a high dam at Aswan to irrigate the Nile Valley”(Milner). One of the thinsg that the British were involved in at the time of the creation of Nasser’s goals was the Suez Canal. After the British left the country, Nasser planned to nationalize the canal. By 1955, the USSR began sending supplies to Egypt. “As the last British troops left Egypt, Nasser was completing the purchase of Soviet made aircraft, tanks and arms…,” stated Milner. Meanwhile, Britain, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan signed the Baghdad Pact to strengthen security in the Middle East against Soviet influence, but Egypt, who planned to retrieve supplies from the USSR, did not sign the seven year treaty. As soon as the British left Egypt, the Soviet Union began working its way into the Arab region through Egypt. During October 1956, after the nationalization of the Suez Canal, Guy Mollet, Eden, and David Ben-Gurion