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

[DGuller]

I hope this pattern of disclosure continues.  In 10 years, we'll know who killed JFK.

[Jacob]

I hope this pattern of disclosure continues.  In 10 years, we'll know who killed JFK.

[garbon]

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.

I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I hope this pattern of disclosure continues.  In 10 years, we'll know who killed JFK.

The Colonel with the gun from the study

[alfred russel]

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.

I was really trying to challenge whether any of that stuff actually matters to US interests. 

[Maximus]

I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.

I said nothing about slave owners.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.'

of course it does.
Hell back then the reason they gave for building the highway system was to deter the Soviets.

[crazy canuck]

When ever this topic comes up I always recommend all the Shaw's men.  And I will do it again.  I drafted a lengthy post but it has frozen and will likely be lost.  So instead I will just link to a scholars observations of the book which has some interesting observations about US intentions at that time and the long term damage the US decision had on the region and US international relations to this day.

http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/Kazemzadeh/kinzer.htm

[Berkut]

I think the takeway in hindsight is not so much was it goo or bad in the long run. I think things in Iran (in the long run) turned out pretty obviously bad for the US, but I agree that it is pretty much useless to judge the actions of 40 years ago by what we know happened over the next 40 years.

The better point is to realize that while they could not know that things would turn out so badly for the US, they also could not know that things would turn out better - the reality is that it is incredibly hard to tell what the consequences of actions are going to be, and hence, taking radical action in the present is almost always impossible to justify on the basis of projecting how things will turn out over the long run. It is simply much too hard to tell, which suggests that NOT doing things like organizing coups unless there is a very, very compelling short term pressure *and justification* for those actions.

You should be able to justify an action as radical as fomenting a coup without a need to imagine some long term state, because the reality is that the long term state is almost impossible to predict after introduction of some massive variable like "Hey, lets overthrow the government via outside influence!"

That, IMO, is the lesson to be learned here.

[garbon]

I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.

I said nothing about slave owners.

Who creates founding principles?

[crazy canuck]

I think the takeway in hindsight is not so much was it goo or bad in the long run. I think things in Iran (in the long run) turned out pretty obviously bad for the US, but I agree that it is pretty much useless to judge the actions of 40 years ago by what we know happened over the next 40 years.

The better point is to realize that while they could not know that things would turn out so badly for the US, they also could not know that things would turn out better - the reality is that it is incredibly hard to tell what the consequences of actions are going to be, and hence, taking radical action in the present is almost always impossible to justify on the basis of projecting how things will turn out over the long run. It is simply much too hard to tell, which suggests that NOT doing things like organizing coups unless there is a very, very compelling short term pressure *and justification* for those actions.

You should be able to justify an action as radical as fomenting a coup without a need to imagine some long term state, because the reality is that the long term state is almost impossible to predict after introduction of some massive variable like "Hey, lets overthrow the government via outside influence!"

That, IMO, is the lesson to be learned here.

But if you look at what people were thinking (through their diaries and other materials) and saying publicly the Americans were quite concerned about supporting the democratic process in Iran as a fundamental good and they recognized that interference would have negative implications.  The Brits simply didnt care.  They really did just want their oil and the rest be damned.

It is too simplistic to say that it is only through hindsight that this could be viewed as a bad idea.

[Berkut]

I think the takeway in hindsight is not so much was it goo or bad in the long run. I think things in Iran (in the long run) turned out pretty obviously bad for the US, but I agree that it is pretty much useless to judge the actions of 40 years ago by what we know happened over the next 40 years.

The better point is to realize that while they could not know that things would turn out so badly for the US, they also could not know that things would turn out better - the reality is that it is incredibly hard to tell what the consequences of actions are going to be, and hence, taking radical action in the present is almost always impossible to justify on the basis of projecting how things will turn out over the long run. It is simply much too hard to tell, which suggests that NOT doing things like organizing coups unless there is a very, very compelling short term pressure *and justification* for those actions.

You should be able to justify an action as radical as fomenting a coup without a need to imagine some long term state, because the reality is that the long term state is almost impossible to predict after introduction of some massive variable like "Hey, lets overthrow the government via outside influence!"

That, IMO, is the lesson to be learned here.

But if you look at what people were thinking (through their diaries and other materials) and saying publicly the Americans were quite concerned about supporting the democratic process in Iran as a fundamental good and they recognized that interference would have negative implications.  The Brits simply didnt care.  They really did just want their oil and the rest be damned.

It is too simplistic to say that it is only through hindsight that this could be viewed as a bad idea.

I think I was saying that it was not a bad idea because in hindsight it turned out badly, I am saying it is a bad idea because messing around with the internal politics of another state in such a manner is dangerous and leads to largely impossible to predict results in the long run. So unless there is a REALLY compelling reason in the short run, you should probably just wait and see what happens.

[derspiess]

I think I was saying that it was not a bad idea because in hindsight it turned out badly, I am saying it is a bad idea because messing around with the internal politics of another state in such a manner is dangerous and leads to largely impossible to predict results in the long run. So unless there is a REALLY compelling reason in the short run, you should probably just wait and see what happens.

That's fair.  The good thing is we've progressed far beyond that & would never make a mistake like that again

[crazy canuck]

I think I was saying that it was not a bad idea because in hindsight it turned out badly, I am saying it is a bad idea because messing around with the internal politics of another state in such a manner is dangerous and leads to largely impossible to predict results in the long run. So unless there is a REALLY compelling reason in the short run, you should probably just wait and see what happens.

That's fair.  The good thing is we've progressed far beyond that & would never make a mistake like that again

[Jacob]

That's fair.  The good thing is we've progressed far beyond that & would never make a mistake like that again