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

[Eddie Teach]

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

Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.

Sure, but there were some warning signs. The attempted gangbang on Israel for one. A savvy observer at the time could have realized that was a Muslim thing and not just an Arab thing.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

Dude, Iran was the model for the Nixon Doctrine's application to the Middle East, and the primary US-sponsored centerpiece for the region in promoting US regional military interests from the 1950s through the 1970s. 

It very much impacted US interests, and the Islamic Revolution and losing the Shah derailed the entire Nixon Doctrine model of using specific regional powers as surrogate US representatives.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.

It wasn't tough to see that the Shah would have a hard time staying in power over the long haul with no strong base of support in civil society.
1953 was the year after Nasser's coup and so it wouldn't take a ton of imagination to conceive how things might go badly.

[CountDeMoney]

Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.

Sure, but there were some warning signs. The attempted gangbang on Israel for one. A savvy observer at the time could have realized that was a Muslim thing and not just an Arab thing.

Islamic populist movements were in their infancy in the 1950s, and only the most esoteric observers in the ivoriest of towers would've foreseen those movements in Iran as growing steam, compared to the substantially larger parallel communist activities at the time.

[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.

Possibly not?

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

Iran falling under the Soviet sphere of influence would have been pretty bad.  Not to say that would've happened with any certainty (again with 20/20 hindsight) but that was the fear at the time.

[Ed Anger]

How dare we act in our national interest.

derPinochet.

I thought I was being clever. 

[derspiess]

How dare we act in our national interest.

derPinochet.

I thought I was being clever. 

No points off for trying

[The Minsky Moment]

Iran falling under the Soviet sphere of influence would have been pretty bad.  Not to say that would've happened with any certainty (again with 20/20 hindsight) but that was the fear at the time.

Nonsense.  It was about the oil nationalization.
The high water mark of the Tudeh Party was the the Azerbaijan crisis in 46/47 - they never fully recovered from that.  Mossadeq was a nationalist , anti-communist, and anti-Soviet.
The coup had nothing to do with any risk of Soviet domination.  It took place a few months after Stalin's death when the USSR was hardly in a position to extend influence.  Soviet weakness -- not Soviet strength -- promoted the coup, as the plotters knew that the Soviets would not be in a position to counter their activities.

[crazy canuck]

Iran falling under the Soviet sphere of influence would have been pretty bad.  Not to say that would've happened with any certainty (again with 20/20 hindsight) but that was the fear at the time.

Nonsense.  It was about the oil nationalization.
The high water mark of the Tudeh Party was the the Azerbaijan crisis in 46/47 - they never fully recovered from that.  Mossadeq was a nationalist , anti-communist, and anti-Soviet.
The coup had nothing to do with any risk of Soviet domination.  It took place a few months after Stalin's death when the USSR was hardly in a position to extend influence.  Soviet weakness -- not Soviet strength -- promoted the coup, as the plotters knew that the Soviets would not be in a position to counter their activities.

And lets not forget that the CIA involvement was a dramatic shift in US policy in the region.  Prior to that British were in favour of supporting a coup because of the loss of British oil rights in the country (actually more like the Iranians finally charging a realistic royalty for the oil) but the Americans did not support the idea.  One election cycle in the US changed all that and the US began to actively support a coup.

As for long term damage.  It would have been pretty easy to understand that the change in policy was at best a dangerous gamble for the sake of some oil concessions by the new regime which had zero popular support. 

[The Larch]

Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.

Sure, but there were some warning signs. The attempted gangbang on Israel for one. A savvy observer at the time could have realized that was a Muslim thing and not just an Arab thing.

Islamic populist movements were in their infancy in the 1950s, and only the most esoteric observers in the ivoriest of towers would've foreseen those movements in Iran as growing steam, compared to the substantially larger parallel communist activities at the time.

Considering that Rambo was chumming up with the Taliban in the 80s, I'd say that muslim extremism was something that was not high up in CIA priorities at that time. 

[derspiess]

Nonsense.  It was about the oil nationalization.

It was for the Brits.  But I don't think that was the US's motivation.

The high water mark of the Tudeh Party was the the Azerbaijan crisis in 46/47 - they never fully recovered from that.  Mossadeq was a nationalist , anti-communist, and anti-Soviet.

He was a nationalist, but I think you're over-selling the anti-communist, anti-Soviet bit.  Not saying he was necessarily pro- those things but the fear on the part of the US was that he might turn to the Soviets as he pulled away from the West.

The coup had nothing to do with any risk of Soviet domination.  It took place a few months after Stalin's death when the USSR was hardly in a position to extend influence.  Soviet weakness -- not Soviet strength -- promoted the coup, as the plotters knew that the Soviets would not be in a position to counter their activities.

While there may be some truth to this, the quoted article states:

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.'

[CountDeMoney]

Considering that Rambo was chumming up with the Taliban in the 80s, I'd say that muslim extremism was something that was not high up in CIA priorities at that time. 

Yeah, and so fucking what anyway, the Islamotards were sworn to defeat the godless Soviets, which just so happened to be our aim, too.  Enemy of my enemy and all that, and why the fuck not. 

You know, all you fuckers love to just smugly sit back and judge the governing philosophies of state actor realpolitik of the past from the cheap seats of the present. 

ZOMG PRUSSIA'S SECRET ALLIANCE WIFF ITALY IN 1866 TOTALLY FUCKED UP GERMANY'S OFFENSIVE COORDINATION WIFF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY IN 1914

Gotta love revisionism on a long enough timeline.

[The Larch]

Considering that Rambo was chumming up with the Taliban in the 80s, I'd say that muslim extremism was something that was not high up in CIA priorities at that time. 

Yeah, and so fucking what anyway, the Islamotards were sworn to defeat the godless Soviets, which just so happened to be our aim, too.  Enemy of my enemy and all that, and why the fuck not. 

You know, all you fuckers love to just smugly sit back and judge the governing philosophies of state actor realpolitik of the past from the cheap seats of the present. 

ZOMG PRUSSIA'S SECRET ALLIANCE WIFF ITALY IN 1866 TOTALLY FUCKED UP GERMANY'S OFFENSIVE COORDINATION WIFF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY IN 1914

Gotta love revisionism on a long enough timeline.

I don't know if you realize it, but I was actually agreeing with you. 

[derspiess]

I don't know if you realize it, but I was actually agreeing with you. 

Yeah, by mocking one of our most treasured national icons.  Do not insult the Rambo! 

[CountDeMoney]

I don't know if you realize it, but I was actually agreeing with you. 

I know, and I don't know if you realize it, but not every sentence in every post is directed at the poster.  ZOMG SO SELF-CENTERED