WND: Iran declares war on U.S.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Bush was doing the right thing and will continue to attempt to do the right thing.

The leftists have skewed the debate and have altered our tactics. In a perfect world, POTUS would be left to prosecute the war. However, the left is so shrill, the presidential campaign is so anti-war oriented, the left-compliant media is in full bloom, and to top all that off, the 9/11 commission is digging in his shorts.

We had a national debate on this war two years ago. We prosecuted the takedown of the regime. We have tried to restore order. We are now entering the political part of the war. Bush has to tread carefully lest he lose majority support at this critical juncture.

Do we go guns blazing? Fall back and "negotiate?" Fall back and let the Iraqis duke it out?

My take is that we must press HARD and crush this menace. If not, it will protract the entire process. Thw world (and more specifically, the Islamists) are watching (and waiting).

I hope some of these answers will be coming tomorrow.

Is this a morning or prime time speech?

 

[grampster]

"Blessed are the peacemakers......" There is no peace till you have no more enemies. There is no one power on earth that is superior to the US. However, several 2nd, 3rd and 4th rate powers, mobbing up and playing to the Left in America would be sufficient to bring us down. Screw around with the economic power of America and the whiners will lie down and put their feet in the air. I think the biggest test of American will is on the horizon. I just wonder if the "sheeple" are up for it??!!.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Why is it that the World Net Daily seems to be the only new organization that keeps finding all sorts of weird things that the major news agencies can't find or don't report.

There is no evidence that Iran has declared war on the US. WND says it is so, but has no actual proof.

Sort of reminds me of K in "Men in Black" searching the supermarket tabloids for evidence of recent alien activiies.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

There is no formal declaration. WND was merely citing sources claiming that the Shia militia in Iraq is working at the direction of (possible) and with the material support of (probable) of the Iranian theocracy.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Regardless of whether these news reports are actually true, they are extremely plausible. The very existance of the Iranian theocracy depends on democracy failing in Iraq. Certainly the Iranian leadership would love to undermine the US endeavors in Iraq. The real question is whether they can pull it off, or whether the US can finish the job. (hint: Pray that Kerry doesn't win the election)

I also find it curious that Bush sees a need to give a prime-time television address. Sounds like these recent setbacks in Iraq are more serious than we are led to believe. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say...

 

[idd]

Iran is a sworn enemy of America? How long has this been going on?

We need to start taking a more active role in helping out those Iranians that are done with theocracy and are ready to reclaim democratic governance.

Did you know that Iran had a democratically elected government until the U.S. and British governments engineered a coup to install the tyrannical Shah of Iran in 1953?

I wonder if there is any connection between the evil that our government committed in 1953 and subsequent enmity towards us among so many Iranians.

Just a thought......

 

[BigG]

Thank you Jimmy Carter you worthless piece of humanity.

I think that is too kind. I would say ... worthless POS.

 

[fallingblock]

Well, idd, it is a thought.....

"Did you know that Iran had a democratically elected government until the U.S. and British governments engineered a coup to install the tyrannical Shah of Iran in 1953?"
************************************************************

One that espoused socialism and actively courted the Soviet Union?

From your linked article in the "CSM":
************************************************************
"......Organized by the CIA and the British SIS to secure Iran's oil resources from a possible Soviet takeover and secure Iran's oil resources, the coup marked America's first intervention in the Middle East. Its aftershocks are still being felt."
************************************************************


Mossadegh was a socialist nutjob who was courting the Soviets.
Ike followed the British lead in acting to head off the Soviets grabbing the oil resources of Iran.


************************************************************
"......Mr. Mossadegh remains a hero to many Iranians who believe he fought against colonial exploitation and dictatorial rule during his 26 months in office. Perhaps because he represents a future denied and what might have been, his memory has approached myth.
************************************************************


"A hero to many Iranians"? How many? a dozen? a hundred?
As with that Chilean socialist nutjob Allende, perhaps a bit more time should have been allowed for Mossadegh to hand Iran over to the Soviets?


************************************************************
"Mossadegh incurred the wrath of Britain by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and then argued his case successfully at the UN Security Council."
************************************************************


Stealing the property of those who had developed Iran's oil industry, and then having the theft approved by the assembly of tyrants (and rivals of Britain) at the U.N.?
This was commendable behavior?
In what way?


************************************************************
"After considering military action, Britain opted for a coup d'état. President Harry Truman rejected the idea, but when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, he ordered the CIA to embark on one of its first covert operations against a foreign government."
************************************************************


The "Red Menace" was looking pretty real in the 1950's, and Ike did the prudent thing by acting to protect U.S. interests and heeding British concerns.
With the hindsight available to us today, perhaps the whole operation could have been done better. It was a new world of massive conflicting ideologies playing for keeps on a global stage. A steep learning curve for sure.

The Shah fumbled the job, and the West let him continue. Lesson learned.



************************************************************
"If there had not been a military coup, there would not have been 25 years of the Shah's brutal regime, there would not have been a revolution in 1979 and a government of clerics," says Mr. Yazdi, who served briefly as foreign minister in the first cabinet after the fall of the Shah. "What we have now is a result of the coup."
************************************************************


Ah, the scintillating hindsight of a local 'could-have-been", looking for someone to blame after the horrors wrought upon Iran by the clerics.

Well, Yazdi, instead of the "Shah's brutal regime", how would you have liked being a Soviet puppet state, with all your wealth diverted into the Soviet Union, ruled by the equally brutal KGB?

Speculation is fun, and free....and worth every cent!



************************************************************
"a young Iranian man who asked not to be identified said "If there is going to be [democratic] change, it should not be done by a foreign government but by Iranians, and it should happen gradually,"
************************************************************


Now this is the trick.....Let's hope we can pull it off exactly so.



************************************************************
"I wonder if there is any connection between the evil that our government committed in 1953 and subsequent enmity towards us among so many Iranians."
************************************************************


Evil? What evil? The U.S. was acting in the interests of the free world at the time, against very possible domination of the middle eastern energy supplies by the Soviet Union .

The enmity towards the U.S. stems more from a successful campaign of the Mullahs to portray the issue as one of faith and revenge."
The islamofanatics, despots as they are, will use any expedient issue to further their dominance.....

If you will speak with Iranian refugees throughout the world, I believe you will find that not many of them regard Mossadegh as any sort of "national hero".

They often revile the Shah, and display outright contempt for the ayatollas.



***********************************************************
"Just a thought......"
************************************************************


Indeed.

 

[Michigander]

With all our military might, intelligence, and technology, we could not stop these 40,000 Iraqis from entering into Iraq?

Also, I believe the Iranian government had a pretty handsome settlement with the British oil companies. It wasn't enough.

And the puppet we put in power in Iran was a good and decent ruler, right? Oh wait a minute; that would be a first for the US! Ha!

 

[R.H. Lee]

I'll give you something else to noodle over while you study your morning cornflakes. Discussions are taking place amongst OPEC, Russia, and the European Union to shift oil purchase currency from the US dollar to the European Euro. Such a move would most certainly change the dollar from the world's reserve currency to the Euro. Impact on the US would be beyond measure.

George Soros and his posse has so much as promised an October Surprise. Soros has destabilized the British Pound and destabilized governments. I would not put it past him to facilitate and participate in such a change.

There is some speculation that Saddam was contemplating a change from petrodollars to the Euro for his country's oil trade, and that may have contributed to GWB's decision to invade.

Is Soros a U.S. citizen?

 

[fallingblock]

You've lost me, michigander.....

"With all our military might, intelligence, and technology, we could not stop these 40,000 Iraqis from entering into Iraq?"
************************************************************

If they're Iraqis, how would one stop them from entering their own country?


************************************************************
"Also, I believe the Iranian government had a pretty handsome settlement with the British oil companies. It wasn't enough."
************************************************************


More likely it was the "take it or leave it" approach, along with the liklihood of eventual Soviet control of the resources that prompted the action.

************************************************************
"And the puppet we put in power in Iran was a good and decent ruler, right? !"
************************************************************


Yep, the Shah was good for the geopolitical goals of the West at the time.
As I alluded to above, he was not so good for the Iranians, and the West allowing him to abuse his position for so long amounts to criminal negligence.

I'm hoping we've learned along the way, as such actions are truly necessary from time to time to protect U.S. interests around the world.


***********************************************************
"Oh wait a minute; that would be a first for the US! Ha!"
***********************************************************

Gee, michigander....if you really hate the U.S. so much, detest its attempts to protect its interests globally, you could always move away...

wash your hands of the whole disgusting mess that seems to outrage you.

Perhaps you would find, as I have, that most, if not all, of the remaining relatively 'free' nations of the world depend to some degree on the U.S. flexing its muscles to resist evil from time to time.

The U.S. may be an imperfect superpower, but it's the best we've got, and it does vastly more good around the world than harm.

"The last and greatest hope of mankind", as Jeff Cooper says.

 

[Michigander]

Gee, michigander....if you really hate the U.S. so much, detest its attempts to protect its interests globally, you could always move away...

wash your hands of the whole disgusting mess that seems to outrage you.

I never said I hated the US. As a matter of fact, I love this country to a fault.

My love for the US and it's Constitution does not preclude me from objectively analyzing our Governments interjections throughout the world for the sake of "our" interests.

My love for my country does not blind me and prevent me from coming to the conclusion that our Constitution does not grant such powers to our Government and that our Government, which I fear, is out of control in many domestic policies and practices as well as it is out of control in most foreign policies and practices.

Most here in the forum, on the one hand, would agree that our Government has taken way too much power when it comes to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments, among other issues. But when it comes to foreign affairs, some of these same poeple would have me believe that we must be right and moral and just and that any opinion to the contrary is an act of treason.

Well, excuse me while I make my way to the "free speech zone" over there behind that building down the block in that field behind the corn!

As for stopping Iraqis from entering Iraq: with our great military intelligence, some how we thought all these Iraqis were US friendly? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Too Funny!

And as for the settlement deal, yes it was take it or leave it. Somehow, a democratically elected government does not have the right to take over it's oil reserves? Who controls the oil reserves here in the US? Oil companies? Or the Government? Anything that comes in the way of the almighty dollar, almighty Capitalism, must be crushed by any means necessary! Any country that does not want to play by our rules, well, we will force you into Capitalism! Right. Moral. Just.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Yeah, right!

 

[fallingblock]

That's a good thing, michigander....

"I never said I hated the US. As a matter of fact, I love this country to a fault."
************************************************************

It's the heated passion of your sarcasm and "blame the U.S. for protecting its interests" rhetoric which suggests your animosity toward the U.S..


************************************************************
"My love for the US and it's Constitution does not preclude me from objectively analyzing our Governments interjections throughout the world for the sake of "our" interests."
************************************************************


But michigander, to do so 'objectively', you would have to understand that every nation's government acts in their own interest first. That is their chief reason for being. As a superpower, The U.S. wields a lot of influence to alter situations in other nations to achieve its objectives. That is one of its functions as a government.


************************************************************
"My love for my country does not blind me and prevent me from coming to the conclusion that our Constitution does not grant such powers to our Government......"
************************************************************


There are, of course many folks who would dispute your conclusion.....


************************************************************
and that our Government, which I fear, is out of control in many domestic policies and practices...."
************************************************************


I'd have to agree with you on that point....


************************************************************
".... as well as it is out of control in most foreign policies and practices."
************************************************************


But not on that one.....



************************************************************
" But when it comes to foreign affairs, some of these same poeple would have me believe that we must be right and moral and just and that any opinion to the contrary is an act of treason."
************************************************************


I certainly never used the word 'treason'.


************************************************************
"Well, excuse me while I make my way to the "free speech zone" over there behind that building down the block in that field behind the corn!"
************************************************************


While you're there, thank a 'spook' that you didn't lose it to the evil empire.


************************************************************
"As for stopping Iraqis from entering Iraq: with our great military intelligence, some how we thought all these Iraqis were US friendly? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Too Funny!"
************************************************************


Now see, michigander, there's that national self-contempt again. That is what suggests that you do not actually have respect for the U.S., but a sort of outraged indignation.


************************************************************
"And as for the settlement deal, yes it was take it or leave it. Somehow, a democratically elected government does not have the right to take over it's oil reserves?"
************************************************************

No, not when "take over" means the confiscation of lawfully-owned private or corporate assets. That's how the Russians got to where they were under Stalin.


************************************************************
"Who controls the oil reserves here in the US? Oil companies? Or the Government? Anything that comes in the way of the almighty dollar, almighty Capitalism, must be crushed by any means necessary!"
************************************************************


There's that barely concealed contempt for the U.S. and its economic system again, michigander.

************************************************************
Any country that does not want to play by our rules, well, we will force you into Capitalism! Right. Moral. Just."
************************************************************

Not "force you into Capitalism"...rather "condition you not to damage the national interests of the U.S.."


************************************************************
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Yeah, right!
************************************************************

Egads! It must be a horrible experience for you to handle U.S. currency...

Some do view religion, like national self-interest, as "old fashioned".

 

[Gary H]

One of the local radio stations has just concluded an interview with Rich Galen, who is a spokesperson in Baghdad. Rich has been a pretty straight shooter over the last few years. He just returned from R&R in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He was visiting the U.S. Ambassador in Saudi.. an old friend.. and he reports that everyone believes that Iran is behind the present fighting in Iraq.

Unrelated: Here is his website:

http://mullings.com/

 

[idd]

fallingblock:

The elected government of Iran] espoused socialism

Mossadegh was elected prime minister in 1951. In a democracy, parties are free to espouse socialism, capitalism, etc. (Personally, I think that private property, free markets and the rule of law are the best mechanisms for generating prosperity.) It’s not up to Washington power-brokers to arbitrate the internal political struggles of other countries.

and actively courted the Soviet Union

What do you mean? Did they date? Kiss? Were flowers involved? What precisely are you talking about?

"Mossadegh incurred the wrath of Britain by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and then argued his case successfully at the UN Security Council."

The nationalization bill was passed unanimously by the Iranian Parliament. Ironically enough, the UK government had just nationalized several of it own basic industries, and was in fact the majority stockholder in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Would that justify our waging a secret war against the democratic government of the UK, replacing it with a dictatorship? Over the decades there was a reinstatement of nationalization, though, as long as it was under the shah, the U.S. did not worry and U.S. companies profited from oil distribution.

fallingblock:

Ike followed the British lead in acting to head off the Soviets grabbing the oil resources of Iran.

Can you provide one shred of evidence that Mossadegh was going to give Iranian oil resources to the Soviet Union? (Hint: in fact, all oil-exporting countries, even communist ones, were eager to sell oil to the West, their most important market.)

Mossadegh was not a communist. Dean Acheson, Truman’s fiercely anti-communist Secretary of State, saw Mossadegh as “essentially a rich, reactionary, feudal-minded Persian.†Hardly your typical Communist Party fellow-traveler. In fact, on 15 July 1951 Mossadegh’s government brutally suppressed a demonstration sponsored by the Iranian Communist Party (Tudeh), killing 100 and wounding 500. Mossadegh had campaigned successfully against lingering Soviet occupation of northern Iran after WWII, and in 1947 had led parliament in rejecting a government proposal to set up a joint Irano-Soviet oil company to exploit the oil of northern Iran. And what do you make of the statement by Ike’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, as anti-communist as they come, before a Senate committee in 1953 that there was “no substantial evidence†to indicate that Iran was cooperating with the Soviet Union? (New York Times, 10 July 1953)

On 19 August 1953 the CIA and British intelligence toppled the democratically-elected government of Iran, replacing it with a dictatorship of the Shah. The CIA quickly created the hated SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police, and instructed them in the fine art of torture, according to Jesse J. Leaf, a chief CIA analyst on Iran. In 1976 Amnesty International summed up the situation by noting that “Iran had the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts, and a history of torture that is beyond belief. No country has a worse record on human rights than Iran.â€

Had the 1953 coup not occurred Iran might well have by now developed its parliamentary monarchy to become a full-fledged functioning democracy.

fallingblock:

perhaps a bit more time should have been allowed for Mossadegh to hand Iran over to the Soviets?

Mendacious, baseless, self-serving rationalizations offered by an apologist for an evil, illegal, and ultimately counterproductive US foreign policy.

See Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (John Wiley & Sons: 2003)
William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (Common Courage Press: 1995)
Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup (Operation Ajax)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh

 

[fallingblock]

Golly idd, that got you wound up a bit....

"Mossadegh was elected prime minister in 1951. In a democracy,
parties are free to espouse socialism, capitalism, etc."
**********************************************************

Only so long as they are not "Nationalizing" other folks property,
especially when the victims don't want to sell.

Do you have evidence that the 1951 election was 'free and fair'?


*********************************************************** (Personally, I think that private property, free markets and the rule of
law are the best mechanisms for generating prosperity.)"
***********************************************************

Well, you've got me there! How can I argue with that?


**********************************************************
"It’s not up to Washington power-brokers to arbitrate the internal
political struggles of other countries."
*********************************************************


They weren't. The U.S. and Britain were concerned that Iran would fall under the domination of the Soviet Union, as had all of the "republics" along the southern border of the Soviet Union. It was an effort to deny resources to the Reds. The U.S. was attempting to "contain" in every
way possible, what was perceived at the time as a growing Soviet threat.



********************************************************
"The nationalization bill was passed unanimously by the Iranian Parliament."
********************************************************


Of course it was. They were confiscating the capitol development of the
oil fields developed by the Brits.


*********************************************************
"Ironically enough, the UK government had just nationalized several
of it own basic industries"
********************************************************

None of which were substantially foreign-owned, and none of which
were then vulnerable to passing into the hands of the Soviets.


*********************************************************
"and was in fact the majority stockholder in the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company.
*******************************************************


Which is no doubt one reason the Brits decided to remove Mossadegh.



******************************************************
"Would that justify our waging a secret war against the democratic government of the UK, replacing it with a dictatorship?"
******************************************************


No, as I have noted above, none of what the Brits nationalized was
going to be within the grasp of the Soviets, and they were not geographically within the grasp of Stalin....well, not without a major
war.
Britain remained on the 'correct' side during the Cold War.


*********************************************************
"Over the decades there was a reinstatement of nationalization,
though, as long as it was under the shah, the U.S. did not worry
and U.S. companies profited from oil distribution."
*********************************************************


"AS long as it was under the Shah" being the key phrase here.
What do you suppose would have happened to the Shah if he'd
offered the Soviets Iran's oil?
It was nice the U.S. & British firms got the profit, but the concern underlying the coup was that the oil NOT fall into Soviet control.
Containment, not capitalism, was the objective at the strategic level.



********************************************************
"Can you provide one shred of evidence that Mossadegh was going to
give Iranian oil resources to the Soviet Union?"
********************************************************


No doubt there was enough evidence at the time indicating that Mossadegh's policies were likely to lead to eventual Soviet control of Iranian oil that the coup was authorized. I may be a cynic on foreign
policy, but I'm not anti-interventionist enough to believe that the staging
of a coup was some sort of U.S. State Department hobby in the mid-20th Century.


*********************************************************
"(Hint: in fact, all oil-exporting countries, even communist ones, were
eager to sell oil to the West, their most important market.)"
*********************************************************

(Another hint: Oil was a strategic resource, necessary for prolonged warfare. The West DID NOT want the Soviets picking off producers of it.
Any sales of oil by the Reds was used strictly to generate 'hard' currency, which was then used against the West.


*********************************************************
"Mossadegh was not a communist. Dean Acheson, Truman’s fiercely anti-communist Secretary of State, saw Mossadegh as “essentially a rich, reactionary, feudal-minded Persian.†Hardly your typical Communist Party fellow-traveler."
*********************************************************


A rich, reactionary, feudal-minded Persian" with a socialist bent, leader
of a potentially unstable government, whose policies might facilitate the desire of the Soviets to acquire Iran's oilfields.


**********************************************************
"In fact, on 15 July 1951 Mossadegh’s government brutally suppressed a demonstration sponsored by the Iranian Communist Party (Tudeh), killing 100 and wounding 500. Mossadegh had campaigned successfully against lingering Soviet occupation of northern Iran after WWII, and in 1947 had led parliament in rejecting a government proposal to set up a joint Irano-Soviet oil company to exploit the oil of northern Iran."
*********************************************************


A tyrant suppressing the opposition by brutal tactics.

The first rule of Middle Eastern politics.

Kill the opposition, even if you don't hate them.

Both the lingering Soviet occupation of northern Iran and the joint venture proposals demonstrate the Soviet Union's lust for Iranian oil.


***********************************************************
"And what do you make of the statement by Ike’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, as anti-communist as they come, before a Senate committee in 1953 that there was “no substantial evidence†to indicate that Iran was cooperating with the Soviet Union? (New York Times, 10 July 1953)"
***********************************************************


I'm reminded of the committee hearings of recent days.

The chief problem with Mossadegh's rule was that it was viewed as extremely vulnerable to subversion by the Soviets. Cooperation with the Soviets was more-or-less "In-the-cards" for Mossadegh.



********************************************************
"On 19 August 1953 the CIA and MI5 toppled the democratically-elected government of Iran, replacing it with a dictatorship of the Shah."
********************************************************


Nations gotta do what they gotta do......


********************************************************
"The CIA quickly created the hated SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police, and instructed them in the fine art of torture, according to Jesse J. Leaf, a chief CIA analyst on Iran. In 1976 Amnesty International summed up the situation by noting that “Iran had the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts, and a history of torture that is beyond belief. No country has a worse record on human rights than Iran.â€
**********************************************************

Aside from Amnesty International's tendency to exaggerate any situation for their own political leverage, what did this chain of events achieve?

A quarter century of Western control of a pivotal oil-producing nation.
Denial of the resource to the Soviet Union, and a certain 'modernization'
of Iran, at least for the elites and upper middle class.
It worked well enough, from a strategic standpoint, I'd say.


**********************************************************
"Had the 1953 coup not occurred Iran might well have by now developed its parliamentary monarchy to become a full-fledged functioning democracy."
**********************************************************

Or, the Soviet Union might have bought-off Mossadegh, created a
puppet state and used the oil to combat the West.
That's what the concern at the time seems to have been.
Historical revision is fun, but retroactive guilt is kind of silly,
don't you think?



**********************************************************
"Mendacious, baseless, self-serving rationalizations offered by an
apologist for an evil, illegal, and ultimately counterproductive US foreign policy."
**********************************************************

Gee, idd, the veins are standing out on your neck.

I'd say that your assessment is the revisionist , retro guilty, rationalization of an isolationist, head-in-the sand pseudo-libertarian's histrionic outrage at legitimate efforts by the U.S. to defend its interests worldwide.

The policy achieved what it set out to do for a quarter century.

That was a long time during the cold war.

better take the name-calling to P.M., before a mod gets us

 

[killermarmot]

What are we gunna do after the elections? If bush gets reelected he isn't going to be sitting on his hands anymore. We're going after whoever is next and you know someone is next all this support for rebels in Iraq isn't coming from nowhere. Will we go into Iran? Will we try and bring the UN with us? Can we even do it alone? I fear that the anti's argument that only the militia can bare arms won't be an issue if these threats aren't met somewhere sometime soon. I don't want my country to turn into Israel or palastine. I think it's hrad to imagine being afraid to take a bus for fear of it being bombed but when you look at it realisticly it's only a few years off if we make the wrong choices.

 

[idd]

fallingblock wrote:

It was an effort to deny resources to the Reds...the Soviet Union...the hands of the Soviets...the grasp of the Soviets...eventual Soviet control of Iranian oil...Soviet Union might have...[etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum]

You cite not a single fact, but essentially merely repeat the charge that the Russian Great Satan was going to take over Iran. Moscow offered similarly absurd cliche-ridden justifications of the Soviet Union’s interventions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The power of imperial ideology....

There is no shred of evidence either then or now to support any allegation that you made. A plethora of US and Russian government documents have been declassified, and they simply do not support the thesis that the US and UK were merely reacting to a Soviet Union power grab in Iran in 1953.

What do you suppose would have happened to the Shah if he'd offered the Soviets Iran's oil?

So what? I suppose that the Shah would have charged them cash. You do know that the US was also trading with the Eastern Bloc, right?

What if the US had not intervened? No ones knows what would have happened, but perhaps history would not have recorded the mounting anger of the Iranian people towards the Shah and the US. Perhaps dissent would have been channeled into electoral politics, causing minor course corrections, instead of into an explosive Islamic revolution. Perhaps today we would be dealing with a friendly, pro-western, democratic Iran instead of a hostile theocratic oligarchy determined to stir the pot in Iraq. We will never know.

 

[fallingblock]

I made it back again, idd.....

"You cite not a single fact, but essentially merely repeat the charge that the Russian Great Satan was going to take over Iran. Moscow offered similarly absurd cliche-ridden justifications of the Soviet Union’s interventions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The power of imperial ideology...."
************************************************************


Exactly my point, idd.

The historical FACT of the coup of Mossadegh demonstrates that there was enough evidence supporting the action taken at the time for the U.S. and British to act.

The Soviet Union WAS a "Great Satan" at the time, certainly in Western eyes.

For us today, to bemoan the FACT as somehow 'evil' or 'misguided', is, to me, a rather pathetic form of historical revisionist hand-wringing.

At the time of these events, the global stage was dominated by one rather brutal and ruthless dictatorship, and one rather uncertain, if not paranoid, representative democracy. What happened did so because of the perceived interests of these two 'superpowers' clashing, and certainly not out of any concern for the Iranian people or their political ambitions.

To expect otherwise would be a bit foolish, or at least naive, and to lament the fact, or castigate the representative democracy for protecting its interests fifty years later is, ihmo, driven by something other than a mere interest in history.


************************************************************
"There is no shred of evidence either then or now to support any allegation that you made. A plethora of US and Russian government documents have been declassified, and they simply do not support the thesis that the US and UK were merely reacting to a Soviet Union power grab in Iran in 1953."
************************************************************

See The FACT of the event, above.

The fear of communism in the West (The U.S. and Britain, for our purposes here) was real and pervasive. It colored all decisions made on foreigh policy, including the likely fronts for "containment" of the Soviets.



************************************************************
"So what? I suppose that the Shah would have charged them cash. You do know that the US was also trading with the Eastern Bloc, right?"
************************************************************


The Shah would have been removed. Not because he was a brutal dictator, but because he was no longer acting in the interests of his 'sponsors'. See Noriega, Saddam, Marcos, etc., etc..


************************************************************
"What if the US had not intervened? No ones knows what would have happened,"
************************************************************

Indeed. A revisionists' parlor game, nothing more.


************************************************************
"but perhaps history would not have recorded the mounting anger of the Iranian people towards the Shah and the US. Perhaps dissent would have been channeled into electoral politics, causing minor course corrections, instead of into an explosive Islamic revolution."
************************************************************

Nope, I think the Islamfanatics were going to happen, given the threat posed by modern society to their core values, and the paranoia of the clerics at a potentially serious erosion of fundamentalist values. We see the same thing with the religious right in the U.S., and they haven't got any foreigners to blame.

Iran's "revolution" was yet another example of a reactionary political shift right across the Islamic world. Did the rule of the Shah exacerbate it? Certainly so. Would the Iranians have hated the apostate U.S. anyway? Yep.

************************************************************
"Perhaps today we would be dealing with a friendly, pro-western, democratic Iran..."
************************************************************

Perhaps so, but I suspect not.


************************************************************
" instead of a hostile theocratic oligarchy determined to stir the pot in Iraq."
************************************************************


These fundamentalist elements of the Iranian Islamic hierarchy are clinging to power by whatever means available to them in a rapidly secularizing world.
Their situation is what's contributing to Iran's "stirring the pot" in Iraq. These fundamentalist Islamics see the handwriting on the wall, right next door. They gotta do what they gotta do, just as with the U.S. and Britain half a century ago.



***********************************************************
"We will never know."
***********************************************************

That's true, idd...

Mossadegh's coup was a long time ago and unfolded within a wider global political scenario that seems almost unimaginable to folks today.

Perhaps some good for Iran will come of the current efforts?

 

[idd]

The historical FACT of the coup of Mossadegh demonstrates that there was enough evidence supporting the action taken at the time for the U.S. and British to act.

There was no evidence then nor is then any evidence now that Mossadegh had any plans to "turn over" Iran to the Soviets, or that the Soviets were attempting to take over Iran. Whenever the US government targets a group (whether it's destabilizing a foreign government or surrounding a "compound" of "religious fanatics" who are "hoarding" and "stockpiling weapons"), they always put out massive propaganda aimed at convincing world opinion and especially US opinion of the legitimacy and awesomely noble intentions of US policy. They try to make us believe that the selected Enemy is the devil incarnate. If the Great Satan himself, then perhaps a Little Satan, a pawn of the Great Red Satan.

The facts.
In May 1946, the Russians finally withdrew from northern Iran. A new bloc of deputies in the legislature of Iran, known as the National Front (under the leadership of Mossadegh), killed the Soviet oil concessions with a 102 to 2 vote. Under National Front leadership, the legislature further forbade foreign oil concessions. They planned to have Iran exploit its own oil and benefit directly therefrom.

Only so long as they are not "Nationalizing" other folks property,

It's called eminent domain, and every government in the world does it from time to time including our own. In this case, the British had made Iran into its protectorate after WWI. After WWII, the Iranians were organized and determined to disallow domination of their energy sector by the British imperialists who had occupied their country. Big surprise, isn't it, that a little country would want to drive out the foreign imperialists and take control over its own destiny and resources. What's next, block? You going to denounce the Boston Tea Party as the work of a gang of vandals? "How dare they destroy British property! Damn commies..."

Anyway, the British challenged the legality of nationalization and the terms of the compensation offered them, and the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in favor of Iran.

After the withdrawal of the Soviets from northern Iran, Soviet influence waned and vanished. In 1947, Iran accepted American military advisors. In 1949 the Tudeh (Communist Party) was banned.

To carry out their coup, the CIA recruited General Fazlollah Zahedi, a man who had become so notorious during WWII for his pro-Nazi sympathies (he was Hitler's man in Tehran) that the Allies had him arrested and held for the duration of the war.

After the coup the Shah stifled the press, used the SAVAK to murder and torture his enemies, rigged national elections in 1954 and 1956, opened up the energy sector for US multinationals, etc.

In 1972 President Nixon took the unprecedented step of allowing Iran to purchase any conventional weapons, in any quantities they deemed necessary, existent in the American arsenal.

Take a look at fallingblock's claim that Mossadegh "actively courted the Soviet Union." Sounds pretty bad, right? No one wanted to see the Red Army sitting in such a strategic position astride crucial energy resources of the Persian Gulf. But what does that mean?

Did Mossadegh invite the Red Army into Iran? No, just the opposite; he led the charge to expel it.
Did Mossadegh invite in Soviet military advisors? No, just the opposite; he invited in US military advisors.
Did he grant oil concessions to Moscow? No, just the opposite; he cancelled what concessions had been granted during the WWII occupation.
Did Mossadegh cancel sales of oil to the West? Nope; that was the UK working behind the scenes to execute a ruthless economic blockade and boycott and freeze Iranian assets.
Did Mossadegh stand up and proclaim that he was a communist dedicated to world wide revolution against the western capitalist powers? Nope.

I asked fallingblock to explain what he meant by his statement that Mossadegh "actively courted the Soviet Union," but he cannot as that statement is utterly devoid of meaning. It's like saying that Clinton was "actively building a bridge to the 21st Century." It doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just propaganda.

 

[fallingblock]

Jeepers, idd.....

Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you.
Sunday is the busy day at the range here, and this morning I had to drive into Alice to chase up a handgun permit that has gone astray in the bureaucracy.


************************************************************
"There was no evidence then nor is then any evidence now that Mossadegh had any plans to "turn over" Iran to the Soviets, or that the Soviets were attempting to take over Iran."
************************************************************

On the contrary, idd, the fact that the U.S. and Britain were willing to risk a coup demonstrates that there was a general fear in Western intelligence circles that the Soviets would gain control of Iran's oil. Likely through Mossadegh being replaced by one of their own puppets.

************************************************************


"Whenever the US government targets a group (whether it's destabilizing a foreign government or surrounding a "compound" of "religious fanatics" who are "hoarding" and "stockpiling weapons"),"
************************************************************


Bad example. That latter is a domestic case, involving much less risk to the government than international action, especially in Iran's case, with the other superpower of the time involved.


************************************************************
"they always put out massive propaganda aimed at convincing world opinion and especially US opinion of the legitimacy and awesomely noble intentions of US policy."
************************************************************

This is certainly how the current crop of historical revisionists are operating in trying to discredit the legitimate actions of the West half a century ago by creating these revisionary postulations and hindsight glimpses of events.
************************************************************

" They try to make us believe that the selected Enemy is the devil incarnate. If the Great Satan himself, then perhaps a Little Satan, a pawn of the Great Red Satan."
************************************************************

The revisions try to make us believe that every action taken by the U.S. in the cold war (or before or since) was calculated to bring misery and degradation to all, with no reason other than the sheer evil of the U.S. .
They have no other way to explain these actions, it would seem, especially not the actual historical record.

************************************************************ "In May 1946, the Russians finally withdrew from northern Iran. A new bloc of deputies in the legislature of Iran, known as the National Front (under the leadership of Mossadegh), killed the Soviet oil concessions with a 102 to 2 vote."
************************************************************

Why were the Soviets hanging around, idd? To get a head start for that oil, or to finish writing their postcards?

************************************************************
"Under National Front leadership, the legislature further forbade foreign oil concessions. They planned to have Iran exploit its own oil and benefit directly therefrom."
************************************************************

Oh-oh. Little socialist power in charge of big resources, next to sworn enemy of the West who wants those resources big time.


************************************************************
"It's called eminent domain, and every government in the world does it from time to time including our own."
************************************************************

Actually, idd, when it involves claiming capital developements without adequate or mutually agreed upon compensation, it's called theft.


************************************************************
"In this case, the British had made Iran into its protectorate after WWI."
************************************************************

Technically, idd, I believe The League of Nations appointed Britain to the post.

************************************************************
"After WWII, the Iranians were organized and determined to disallow domination of their energy sector by the British imperialists who had occupied their country. Big surprise, isn't it, that a little country would want to drive out the foreign imperialists and take control over its own destiny and resources."
************************************************************

Especially if they resort to confiscation from the folks who developed those resources. And then there's the Soviet threat to contend with.

************************************************************
"What's next, block? You going to denounce the Boston Tea Party as the work of a gang of vandals? "How dare they destroy British property! Damn commies..."
************************************************************


Nice attempt to compare apples with kiwifruit, idd, but you know there are no similarities in this case. The fellows who made Boston Harbor into the largest sun-tea brew in history were not confiscating the tea for their own or national wealth, They were protesting taxation by the Crown without representation, and rumor has it that at that point they were willing to pay the tax if given equal representation with home Britons. There was no equivalent to the Soviet Union vying for the tea, and tea, for all it's controversy, was not a strategic resource.


************************************************************
"Anyway, the British challenged the legality of nationalization and the terms of the compensation offered them, and the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in favor of Iran."
************************************************************

Oh-oh! The Dutchies ruled against the Brits? What did Shell Oil say?


************************************************************
"After the withdrawal of the Soviets from northern Iran, Soviet influence waned and vanished."
************************************************************

HA! Ho ho, idd, that's a good one. The Soviets were just north of Iran's border and moving south on both sides. Armenia,Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzebekistan and Tadzhikistan. Looked like a pattern at the time, don't you reckon?

************************************************************
"In 1947, Iran accepted American military advisors. In 1949 the Tudeh (Communist Party) was banned."
************************************************************

U.S. advisors? I wonder if they made Mossadegh an offer he couldn't refuse, but chafed at nonetheless?


************************************************************
"To carry out their coup, the CIA recruited General Fazlollah Zahedi, a man who had become so notorious during WWII for his pro-Nazi sympathies (he was Hitler's man in Tehran) that the Allies had him arrested and held for the duration of the war."
************************************************************

Ah, idd. You must know the drill from your readings of history.
If you are looking for someone who is not likely to be compromised by the Soviets, a Nazi is the perfect choice. And as a bonus, Zahedi was not thought to be subject to compromise by the Islamic hard-liners either.


************************************************************
"After the coup the Shah stifled the press, used the SAVAK to murder and torture his enemies, rigged national elections in 1954 and 1956, opened up the energy sector for US multinationals, etc."
************************************************************

Who's a good Shah, then?
Keeping those Russians out and turning a buck for the sponsors.


************************************************************
"In 1972 President Nixon took the unprecedented step of allowing Iran to purchase any conventional weapons, in any quantities they deemed necessary, existent in the American arsenal."
************************************************************

LONG, long after Mossadegh was gone. Nixon's boys figured they'd built a secure base in the Middle East, why not secure it?


************************************************************
"Take a look at fallingblock's claim that Mossadegh "actively courted the Soviet Union." Sounds pretty bad, right?"
************************************************************

Not at all, idd. By his actions, Mossadegh tossed out the Soviet troops, cut their oil and then nationalized Iran's oilfields. He had painted a target on his back for the Soviets that they would not have been able to resist. Unless the Brits and Americans got there first, which they did, thanks be to Allah.


************************************************************
"No one wanted to see the Red Army sitting in such a strategic position astride crucial energy resources of the Persian Gulf."
************************************************************

You've missed the point again, idd.
THE REDS wanted the Red Army in that position.


************************************************************ "Did Mossadegh invite the Red Army into Iran? No, just the opposite; he led the charge to expel it."
************************************************************

The Soviets withdrew out of a mistaken notion that an oil deal was likely in the offing. And with the confidence that they could always return.

************************************************************
"Did Mossadegh invite in Soviet military advisors? No, just the opposite; he invited in US military advisors."
************************************************************

"invite" being the euphemism of the day here. No doubt Mossadegh was made a 'deal he couldn't refuse' with regards to those advisors.

************************************************************
"Did he grant oil concessions to Moscow? No, just the opposite; he cancelled what concessions had been granted during the WWII occupation."
************************************************************

Further hardening the Soviet notion of what would be necessary for them to obtain that oil.

************************************************************
"Did Mossadegh cancel sales of oil to the West? Nope; that was the UK working behind the scenes to execute a ruthless economic blockade and boycott and freeze Iranian assets."
************************************************************

Another "deal he couldn't refuse. Not voluntary by any means, and certain to increase Mossadegh's resentment against the Brits and the instability of his rule.

For goodness sake, idd. Would you just try and think in the terms of the Cold War for a moment!?

Soviet interpretation of the above events:
"Well, this reactionary socialist minion of the West won't invite us to manage Iran's oil, the Brits won't allow him to sell it to us, and the oil is in their strategic stockpile, not ours. Time to remove this obstacle."

************************************************************
"Did Mossadegh stand up and proclaim that he was a communist dedicated to world wide revolution against the western capitalist powers?"
************************************************************

It didn't matter; he had proclaimed his socialist ideology by nationalizing the oil fields, and had painted a target on his back by his actions, no doubt mostly coerced by the Brits. He was a Soviet takeover waiting to happen by the time the U.S. and Britain had him removed.

************************************************************
"I asked fallingblock to explain what he meant by his statement that Mossadegh "actively courted the Soviet Union,"
************************************************************

See above idd. His actions courted the intervention of the Soviets.

************************************************************
" It's like saying that Clinton was "actively building a bridge to the 21st Century."
************************************************************

Durn, idd! Now you've gone and used the "C" word!


************************************************************
" It doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just propaganda."
************************************************************

Not at all idd.

But what the revisionist historians are attempting to do by discrediting the legitimate actions of the U.S. in protecting its interests around the world during the Cold War (and since) certainly IS propaganda.

And some bizarre guilt-ridden handwringing as well.

Perhaps even pseudo-libertarian fantasy?

It seems that we have well and truly hijacked this thread, and for that I sincerely apologize to the original poster and others following it.

I now return to the original topic:

Let Iran declare war on the U.S. if this is the intent of the ayatollas.

I believe the time of the mullahs' rule in Iran is nearing an end.

Perhaps the U.S., acting in its own interest, can assist the people of Iran in gaining their freedom from the excesses of the hardline Islamics?

 

[idd]

On the contrary, idd, the fact that the U.S. and Britain were willing to risk a coup demonstrates that there was a general fear in Western intelligence circles that the Soviets would gain control of Iran's oil.

No, that's merely your allegation without evidence. Restated, your argument is "if the US and UK did such a deed, then they must have had solid legitimate grounds for it." Putting the cart of ideology before the horse of facts, block.

...[Mossadegh] had painted a target on his back for the Soviets that they would not have been able to resist.

That's nothing but your ideology and paranoid delusions at work. You notice how you cite no evidence, no sources, nothing at all really while I cite facts, evidence and scholarship?

What does that tell you?

But what the revisionist historians ...

History is always being revised as more primary sources - such as heretofore classified US and Soviet government documents - make their way into the public domain.

 

[Braz]

Idd,

Just a couple'a years later the world came to the brink of extinction. The USSR wanted to put nukes in our backyard. We backed 'em down. The cold war was real, and it avoided the end of the world. To imply there was no threat from the USSR or that they had no desires on other countries is silly. The US has made mistakes in the past, so did the USSR. Who's side are you on?

 

[idd]

To imply there was no threat from the USSR or that they had no desires on other countries is silly.

Braz,

I agree with you that there was a threat from the Soviet Union. Stalin and his comrades were evil and aggressive, and I am glad that the US stood up to the Russians over Berlin, etc.

That's not really the argument here. The mere existence of the Soviet Union did not justify every foreign policy move by Washington power brokers.

The Cold War was not the only conflict in the world during the period 1945 - 1989. You do understand that not every struggle and war during this period was between western democractic capitalism and totalitarian communism, right? Case in point is Iran during the period 1947 - 1953. This started as a conflict between Iranian nationalists and British imperialists over who would control Iranian oil: the Iranians or the Brits. The US government under Truman wisely stayed out of it. The US government under Ike decided to back the British Labor government with a CIA-sponsored coup against a democractically-elected government. The East-West struggle had zip to do with it. Even internal US government documents from the period which have been declassified show this to be true.

At the time of the coup in Iran in 1953 the US completely denied that it had anything to do with the regime change, although the facts as we now know them indicate that CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt was the Agency's pointman on the coup. (Incidentally, five years after the coup, Kermit Roosevelt left the Agency and went to work for Gulf Oil, later becoming a vice-president there.) In 1979 Roosevelt wrote _Countercoup_, his self-serving version of the coup which depicts the CIA operation as a response to a Soviet-Mossadegh conspiracy to deliver Iran to the Reds. It is, quite frankly, a work of fiction. If you're really interested, go read it. Then read Stephen Kinzer's fascinating book, _All the Shah's Men_. Don't take my word for it. Read these two different accounts and come to your own conclusions.

 

[HBK]

Wow, idd, looks like you should quit while you're a behind.