The 1953 Iran CIA coup is not only one of the most controversial political topics to ever reach mainstream America, but it is also perhaps the most divisive. To understand the histography of viewpoints to this issue, it is best to understand the positions of both an orthodox versus non- orthodox perspective, common sources versus more global sources, conservative vs liberal and civilian vs. historian. An example of these two divisive positions is the ideology of Kinzer and Abrahamain. While both of their writings are credibly and argued intelligent, both take different approaches in their respected positions. In Steven Kinzer’s book “All the Shah’s Men”, he takes a much more neoconservative approach to the topic. He His argument throughout the book implies that America has a right to intervene to help the spread of communism and that we went into Iran for humanitarian purposes. On the other hand, we have the historian Abrahamian, who takes a more liberal approach to the matter. His article argues that we went to Iran for solely economic purposes. He argues that we went into Iran and used the humanitarian effort by the containment of communism to distract the people why we were truly there. Kinzer’s position on the topic is a much more warhawk, neoconseravtive approach and using the containment policy as the foundational reason for going into Iran , while Abrahamain is arguing as economical reasons as the foundational reason for going into Iran.
One of the ideologies that Mr. Kinzer focused on in “All the Shah’s Men” was the ideology of benevolent assimilation. Like in the Phillipines under the McKinley Administration, this is what Steven Kinzer implies was the main reason for going into Iran. In the book, he emphasizes two ...
... middle of paper ...
...to Agreement with the Anglo- Iranian are similar because the both provide insights to similar historical events. Iran (like the Phillipines and Cuba) was a primitive society and since those particular countries were in dismal states, it was easy for much wealthier countries, who had the skills and knowledge to exploit their respected native populations in their respected countries. The mentality was since these countries were big and powerful, they could easily manipulate a society not only mentally, but also culturally. Abrahamian not only takes a more liberal viewpoint on the 1953 coup and its aftermath, but he also takes a more patronizing view of the United States. Unlike Kinzer, he analyzes that the Occidental powers was not in Iran for humanitarian reasons, rather they were there for economic reasons and used humanitarian purposes to justify their involvement.
Kinzer tells us that the Iranians celebrated their nationalism in taking control of their oil, but their success was a shock to the British multinational companies in Iran. They did not like the idea of Iran nationalization, so they plan a coup to overthrow the Prime Minister Mossadegh. But this plan failed and the British were disarmed and sent back to their country closing down their embassy in Iran. The British tried to present their case to the United State in a way that the United State would intervene. So they presented a case that Mossaghe is not only nationalizing the Iranians oil, he is also leading Iran into communism. This case stirred the American action and they feared if they assassinate Mossaghe, his seat will be open and communist ...
Bill, James A. The eagle and the lion: The tragedy of American-Iranian relations. Yale University Press, 1988.
...ries and the 1979 revolution. The author presents Iran through the leadership of mullahs and shah tradition. The book has rich information covering the history of Iran. Mottahedeh managed to develop an impressive book that satisfies the curiosity of a reader wanting to understand the history, culture and political atmosphere of Iran through the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century. Roy Parviz Mottahedeh and Ali Hashemi represent two views of Islamic learning and Iranian history and culture. While Ali Hashemi represents a religious view of Islamic learning and history of Iran, Parviz represents a secular view of Islamic learning and ambiguity of culture in Iran. The two views help to bring out the ways in which Islamic religion and culture influenced political atmosphere, in Iran especially at a time when politics in Iran was shaped by religion.
... ranking officials of Mossadeq administration, such as Hossein Fatemi, the minister of Foreign Affairs and close friend of Mossadeq, were executed and imprisoned also. The shah was back in power and he had the security of two of the most powerful countries in the world as allies; the United States and Britain. The Shah’s cooperation was sessional for the final settlement of the terms of Iranian oil concession. Walter Bedell Smith, Secretary of State during the Eisenhower administration, summarizes the Shah’s mindset at the time; “The Shah is a new man. For the first time he believes in himself because he feels that he is King by his people’s choice and not the arbitrary decision of a foreign powe.”
First, the Shah, out-of-touch with what his people wanted, became the catalyst for massive xenophobic and anti-Western feelings to spread throughout the nation. By giving up traditional Islamic ideals and becoming sort of a “puppet” for the U.S. and the Western world, the Shah made a mockery of himself and of those traditional Islamic values, which were paramount in Iran. For many years, Iranians wrote letters to the Shah, voicing their discontent with many aspects of his rule — the spread of the Bahá’í Faith, the collapse of Islamic traditions, and the crumbling economy. The Shah, however, did nothing to fix these issues. Instead, he designed a political reformation movement, hoping to silence his opponents, to introduce personal rights for women, and to establish a sense of fiscal equality. This series of reforms, which appeared to be a blatant attempt to Westernize Iran, became known as the “White
In November 1979, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a recently overthrown Shah of Iran, asked President Jimmy Carter for admission to the United States. President Carter initially refused, knowing that ramifications would come from the Shiite community. However, upon learning that Pahlavi had cancer, President Carter, in a conversational gesture, allowed Pahlavi and his wife to enter the country. As President Carter had guessed, Shiite students, in the city, of Tehran schemed a plan to “free” Pahlavi and bring him to justice for his crimes. On November 4, 1979, they took over the United states embassy in Tehran and took hostage of the sixty-six Americans in the embassy. After over one hundred days of negotiations, President Carter grew tired of waiting, and order a military helicopter strike. Because the strike did not receive the right amount of planning, the helicopters ran into swirling sand, and nine of the helicopters crashed. Immediately following this botched evacuation, Iran became stingier, and the negotiations dragged on for almost an entire year before the American’s gained their freedom. Many historians theorize that had the evacuation received the proper planning, the operation could have actually resulted in success, and the prisoners would not stayed in captivity for so long.
Throughout the 20th century, the United States tried to control Iran to ensure the exportation of oil to America. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941 and became allies with the United States. However in the 1950s, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh began to gain political power. Unlike the Shah, he was extremely against western influence in Iran. Mossadegh won national elections and he demanded more power. In order to retain influence in Iran, the CIA helped overthrow Mossadegh and bring Pahlavi back to power....
...tween Iran and the United States, and the decline of the provisional government and later political moderates.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a religious uprising that involved the collapse of the longstanding Monarchy in Iran. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the background and ideology of the Iranian Revolution with the Russian Revolution of 1917. I will then outline the major differences and similarities between the two.
Maghen, Z. (2009, January). Eradicating the "Little Satan": Why Iran Should Be Taken at Its
In All The Shah’s Men there seems to be a very strong hatred for all foreign powers, including the United States, taken by the citizens of Iran. I believe that this ultimately occurred because of the impatience of certain government officials in Washington D.C., and also in Great Britain. If only there could have been better communication between countries, I feel that there would have been a solution reached. The stubbornness of the British for the most part, led to many lives being lost, and a feeling of perpetual disgust being shown towards the United States for their involvement. Although the British were our allies and we did have an extreme fear of communism taking over the free world, this coup was disorganized, forced along too quickly, and put forth without any guidance or strong evidence, which in the end proved to completely defy what the United States was trying to impose on the world, and what Mossadegh was trying to give his people; freedom and democracy.
Arjomand, Said Amir. “Iran's Islamic Revolution in Comparative Perspective.” World Politics, Volume 38, Issue 3 (1986. 4), 383-414.
The introduction to Persepolis gives a great deal of background information to the unrest in Iran leading up to the Islamic revolution. Iran had been in a state of unrest for “2500 years” (page11). Iran was ruled by foreign nations and exploited by the western world for its rich expanses of oil. In 1951 the prime minister of Iran tried to take back his country’s wealth by nationalizing
Although the Iranian Revolution was caused by combination of political and religious motivations and ideas, the desires of the people supporting the movement were more dominantly religious ideas that were wished to be imposed in society and in a new government. The Shah, or king, of Iran at the time was Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who had developed relations with nations in “western” world, specifically with the United States. The United States supported the White Revolution, which was a series of social reformations the Shah made to remove Islamic v...
Iran lost the support of the US in 1979 after the hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran. In Tehran, “66 members of the US embassy staff were taken hostage by Khomeini’s supporters” (Steele 12). The hostages were held for 444 days (Steele 12). The aftermath of the crisis was the international isolation of Iran. The US being a superpower, drove similar responses in its allies. Iran had lost a majority of their allies, which would hurt them during the war. In addition to the loss of the support of the Western countries, the Arab countries were also against Iran and supporting Iraq. The Arab countries also shared Iraq’s trepidations about the Iranian rhetoric of “exporting Islamic Revolution” (Karsh). As reported by graduate Mr. Jacek, Iran was left to defend itself economically and militarily. The other superpower at the time, the Soviet Union, had a positive relationship with Iran in the beginning. The Soviet Union had been supporting Iran in the beginning of the war. The Soviet Union then carried out an invasion of Afghanistan, and Tehran opposed the Soviet role in the invasion of Afghanistan. Iran’s relations with the Soviet Union became problematic, which negatively affected Iran (Karsh). The war with Iraq slowed down Iran’s research. Near the end of the Iran – Iraq War, Iran started working with a rogue nation, North Korea. The countries partnered up to work