No surprise: 1953 Iran coup "carried out under CIA direction"

[Syt]

To the surprise of absolutely no one, the CIA was indeed behind the 1953 coup in Iran.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397133/CIA-finally-admits-1953-coup-deposed-Iranian-prime-minister-stood-West.html#ixzz2cQrYDQbd

CIA finally admits it was behind 1953 coup which deposed Iranian prime minister who stood up to the West

- Mohammad Mossadegh was deposed in a military coup on August 19, 1953
- CIA and MI6 have long been thought to have orchestrated the operation
- But today U.S. officials admitted responsibility for the first time ever

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the coup in Iran which deposed prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he restricted the flow of oil to the West.

However, it is only now, six decades on, that the CIA has finally admitted that it was behind the revolution, which was one of the most significant landmarks in modern Iranian history.

It has long been widely acknowledged that the U.S. and British authorities were behind Mossadegh's overthrow - one factor behind the anti-Western sentiments shared by many in Iran which led to the 1979 Islamist revolution in the country.

However, the CIA has never publicised its role in the operation, claiming that it needs to maintain secrecy in order to protect its working methods and sources of information.

But today the agency released documents to the National Security Archive in which it admits that the coup 'was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy'.

The operation, codenamed 'TPAJAX', was 'conceived and approved at the highest levels of government', the documents - entitled 'The Battle for Iran' and compiled in the 1970s - reveal.

The agency admits that the coup, which saw the Shah persuaded to sack Mossadegh and replace him with Fazlollah Zahedi, was a 'last resort' and a 'policy of desperation'.

It took place on August 19, 1953, after negotiations between Britain and Iran over securing UK access to Iranian oil broke down.

MI6 is thought to have asked the CIA to remove Mossadegh and install a pro-Western leader, and the U.S. authorities readily agreed as a way of getting the upper hand over the Soviets in the Cold War.

The internal dossier says: 'It was the potential of those risks to leave Iran open to Soviet aggression that compelled the United States in planning and executing TPAJAX.'

One alternative possibility was a unilateral invasion of Iran by British forces, similar to the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis three years later.

However, that prospect was apparently unacceptable to the U.S., as it would lead to a Soviet backlash and the West would permanently lose access to Iran's oil supply.

'The Soviet army would have moved south to drive British forces out on behalf of their Iranian "allies",' the CIA documents say.

'Then not only would Iran's oil have been irretrievably lost to the West, but the defence chain around the Soviet Union which was part of U.S. foreign policy would have been breached.'

They continue: 'Under such circumstances, the danger of a third world war seemed very real.'

Although the coup was extremely successful in the short term, with Mossadegh being swiftly removed and imprisoned, its long-term effects were less positive.

The U.S. intervention in Iran's internal politics created a strong strain of anti-American sentiment in the country, which culminated in the hostage crisis following the Islamic revolution of 1979.

The UK's involvement in the coup - which has never been officially recognised - also created a backlash within Iran, with many regarding Britain with even more hostility than they do the U.S.

The newly released CIA documents acknowledge these ill effects, stating the the coup is regarded by many observers as being 'near the top of their list of infamous Agency acts'.

While the CIA itself has never previously alluded to its role in carrying out the coup, officials as senior as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have acknowledged that the operation had U.S. backing.

It is unclear why intelligence chiefs have now decided to own up to the true origins of the coup.

[jimmy olsen]

I am shocked, shocked to find coups going on in here!

[derspiess]

How dare we act in our national interest.

[Ed Anger]

How dare we act in our national interest.

derPinochet.

[Valmy]

How dare we act in our national interest.

What does that have to do with it?  Or do you think anything is justified so long as it is in national interests?

[Berkut]

I doubt you could find anyone who would agree with the strawman valmy.

[Valmy]

I doubt you could find anyone who would agree with the strawman valmy.

Obviously not.

[derspiess]

What does that have to do with it? 

Quite a lot, actually.

Or do you think anything is justified so long as it is in national interests?

Not necessarily.  But national interest should be the prime consideration in forming our foreign policy.

[The Minsky Moment]

How dare we act in our national interest.

And how's that working out for you?

[Eddie Teach]

How dare we act in our national interest.

In hindsight it wasn't.

[derspiess]

How dare we act in our national interest.

In hindsight it wasn't.

With 20/20 hindsight, possibly not.  But you can only go with what you know at the time.

[Berkut]

How dare we act in our national interest.

In hindsight it wasn't.

With 20/20 hindsight, possibly not.  But you can only go with what you know at the time.

Possibly not?

I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.

[CountDeMoney]

I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.

Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.

[Maximus]

Not necessarily.  But national interest should be the prime consideration in forming our foreign policy.

As opposed to, say, the founding principles of our country.

[alfred russel]

Possibly not?

I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.

On the one hand the outcome is not good.

But on the other hand, I really don't see how anything that has happened in Iran has really impacted US interests. The Arabic world + Iran + countries that end in -stan are ultimately on the other side of the world, not significant trading partners of the US, and not major powers.