The 1953 U.S. Intervention in Iran
Once upon a time, in a mountainous land between Baghdad and the Sea of Caviar there lived a nobleman. This nobleman, after a lifetime of carping at the way the kingdom was run, became Chief Minister of the realm. Within a few months he had the whole world hanging on his words, his deeds, his jokes, his tears, and his tantrums. His personal behavior, which included wearing pajamas for numerous public appearances; speeches to the Majles (Parliament) from his bed, which was brought into its chambers. Frequent spells of public weeping, helped focus world attention upon him during his premiership. Yet, his people loved all that he did, and cheered him to the echo whenever he appeared in the streets. Though, behind his grotesque antics lay issues and ideas that would affect many lands far beyond his mountains (Roosevelt, 1972, p.15)
Today, we examine this bizarre leader who went by the name of Mohammad Mossadegh, the U.S. intervention of Iran in 1953 and that conflict's relationship with the democratic peace theory. Many have heard of the democratic peace but few can relate it to the United States involvement in Iran during August of 1953. I will attempt to illustrate that the democratic peace theory was a relevant and true assumption of actions and relations between the United States and Iran in 1953. To illustrate their relations we will briefly examine the actual confrontation with the Unites States and Iran during August of 1953, to understand if there were any true characteristics of a war. Also, we will take a look at the countries involved to see if they themselves qualify as a liberal democracy. Finally, we will attempt to exhibit any link between the U.S. intervention...
... middle of paper ...
...tudies, (Summer 1993), pp.467.
Risen, James. "Secrets Of History: The C.I.A. in Iran; How a Plot Convulsed Iran." New York Times. April 16, 2000, pp.10A.
Roosevelt, Kermit. Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran. New York: McGraw-Hill Press, 1972.
Russett, Bruce. "Fact of Democratic Peace," in Michael Brown, Sean Lynn-Jones, Steven Miller (eds.) Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1999), pp.58-81.
United States. Congress. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Iranian Foreign Policy. Hearings, Subcommittee on Africa and the Near East, 32nd Congress, 1st Session. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1964.
United States. Congress. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Iranian Foreign Policy. Hearings, Subcommittee on Africa and the Near East, 48th Congress, 1st Session. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1980.
In the novel All The Shah’s Men we are introduced to Iran, and the many struggles and hardships associated with the history of this troubled country. The Iranian coup is discussed in depth throughout the novel, and whether the Untied States made the right decision to enter into Iran and provide assistance with the British. If I were to travel back to 1952 and take a position in the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) for the sole purpose of examining the American Foreign Intelligence, I would have to conclude that the United States should have examined their options more thoroughly, and decided not to intervene with Iran and Mossadegh. I have taken this position after great analysis, which is something that Eisenhower and his staff never did. By discussing the history of Iran, the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and Document NSC-68 I will try to prove once and for all that going through with the coup in Iran was a terrible mistake made by the United States.
All of the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of democracy in Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries whom are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually led to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role with these policies were based on his military type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies when implemented would facilitate the goal of containing communism, and also
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders. The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
Between the years of 1983 and 1986, the United States was involved in a series of covert operations, collectively known as the Iran-Contra Affair. These operations were at best controversial, and at worst blatantly illegal.The Iran-Contra Affair (or the Iran Contra-Scandal) revolved around the issue of foreign policy, specifically with regards to Iran and Nicaragua. In 1979, revolution in Iran resulted in a complete change in the countries relationship with the United States. Having previously been an ally of the U.S., Iran, under its new regime, had become decidedly anti-American. These changes caused a time period of unrest that lasted into the mid 1980’s between the U.S. and Iran. Stabilizing the situation in Iran was one of the key objectives that motivated many of the authorities who were ultimately responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair. In 1985, seven hostages were taken by a terrorist group in Lebanon. This terrorist group had ties with Iran. Therefore, when Iran requested that the United States sell arms to them, President Reagan saw it as a potential way of getting the hostages returned. President Reagan wanted to see them returned safely, and hoped to restore good relations between the U.S. and Iran in the process. Many members of Congress were strongly against the idea. To go through with the arms deal was in direct violation of several laws, including policies against selling arms to entities on lists of terrorists countries, or terrorist-friendly countries, (Iran was included on such lists). Additionally, in negotiating with Iran, the Reagan administration would be dealing with known “terrorists,” something Reagan was openly very against. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration granted the Iranian’s request, in spit...
“INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW.” Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2014.
Prados, John. Safe for Democracy The Secret Wars of the CIA. Chicago, IL: Ivan R Dee, Publisher, 2006.
While it is unknown as to what occurred with every hostage during the crisis, one retired diplomat on a special assignment in Tehran, Robert C. Ode, kept a journal detailing his experience: “I strongly protested the violation of my diplomatic immunity, but these protests were ignored…Some students attempted to talk with us, stating how they didn’t hate Americans—only our U.S. government, President Carter, etc.” Ode’s description of his captivity and his captors beliefs led to an insight into the motives of the Iranians. This valuable source allows historians to understand that President Carter and the United States government were responsible for the Iranian hatred. However, Ode’s journal is limited in it’s credibility due to possible alterations of the story in response to fear or pain. In addition to the declared state of hate for the Carter Administration, the government’s poor decisions throughout an attempted rescue attempt of the hostages displayed the weakness of the United States. According to
Over the course of the last century, the Islamic Republic of Iran (formerly known as Persia) has seen colonialism, the end of a dynasty, the installation of a government by a foreign power, and just over three decades ago, the popular uprising and a cleric-led revolution. These events preceded what could be considered the world’s first Islamic state, as politics and fundamentalist religion are inextricably linked in contemporary Iran. Looking at Iran from the mid 1940’s until the present day, one can trace the path that led to the rise of fundamental Islam in Iran in three distinct periods. The first is that which began with the rise of secular nationalism and the decline of Islam. In the second, the secular, western-friendly government eventually gave way to the Islamic revival in the form of a government takeover by hard-line clerics and disillusioned, fundamentalist youth; both motivated and led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Rule of Iran by these fundamentalist clerics then led to the formation of the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy that governs present-day Iran. The current government has some democratic appearances, but all real power is in the hands of the supreme leader, an Ayatollah who is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a group of clerics chosen by the Guardian Council. With the Iranian Revolution, political Islam was born, with the fundamentalists holding the reins of power in Iran to the present day.
In the 1970’s Iran, under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a very centralized military state that maintained a close relationship with the USA. The Shah was notoriously out of touch with working class Iranians as he implemented many controversial economic policies against small business owners that he suspected involved profiteering. Also unrestricted economic expansions in Iran lead to huge government expenditure that became a serious problem when oil prices dropped in the mid 1970’s. This caused many huge government construction projects to halt and the economy to stall after many years of massive profit. Following this was high rates of inflation that affected Iranians buying power and living standards. (Afary, 2012) Under the Shah, political participation was not widely available for all Iranians and it was common for political opposition to be met with harassment, illegal detention, and even torture. These measures were implemented by the Iranian secret police knows as ‘SAVAK’. This totalitarian regime combined with the increasing modernisation of the country paved the way for revolution.
The "Iran-Contra Affair. " The Encyclopedia of the Cold War: Political, Social, and Military History. Ed. Spencer C. Tucker, b. 1875.
When the king opened the gates of the city to your soldiers, treating them as if they had indeed been Gods, we tried to follow his example, but soon those men began to act as if our Palaces where their own to do with as they please. It became clear that they thought that all they had to do was to stretch out their hands and there would be food or drink. They also took an intense liking for women.”
Griffith, William E. “The Revial of Islamic Fundamentalism: the Case of Iran.” International Security. Volume 4, Issue 1, 1979, 132-138.
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
Believe it or not, that little battery-operated piece of plastic with the multi-colored buttons can make anyone the supreme ruler of the land. I always want to have the remote in my possession, even though I never get it. The one who holds the remote is elected leader and reigns from a throne, usually a reclining chair. The subjects not perched high above on the throne, like myself, are seated on the lower levels, the couch and floor. They watch in awe as the ruler uses ...
Compassion, like generosity is also admired. But a ruler must be careful that he does not show compassion unwisely. A new ruler has to be cruel initially, because being a new ruler is full of d...