• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Myth of an American Coup in Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack Hays said:
As usual, the conventional wisdom is wrong. What really happened in Iran in 1953?

The Myth of an American Coup | The Weekly Standard

:cool:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust neocons with U.S. History, particularly, when it comes to clandestine moves made by intelligence agencies.

Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran
The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup, 1953
The National Security Archive v. The Central Intelligence Agency
CNN Transcript - CNN Insight: U.S. Comes Clean About The Coup In Iran - April 19, 2000
AFP: Obama admits US involvement in 1953 Iran coup
C.I.A. Destroyed Files on 1953 Iran Coup - NYTimes.com
SECRETS OF HISTORY - The C.I.A. in Iran -- A special report. - How a Plot Convulsed Iran in '53 (and in '79) - NYTimes.com
C.I.A. Tried, With Little Success, to Use U.S. Press in Coup - NYTimes.com
History Bleached at State - NYTimes.com
State Dept. Historians Say C.I.A. Withholds Decades-Old Papers - New York Times
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
I wouldn't trust neocons with U.S. History, particularly, when it comes to clandestine moves made by intelligence agencies.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to be much of a neocon, especially since he was in the Obama administration. In addition, CFR isn't much of a neocon hangout.

Ray Takeyh, DPhil is an Iranian-American Middle East scholar, former United States Department of State official, and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.[1] He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University.[2]

Born in Tehran, Takeyh obtained his doctorate from Oxford University in 1997. Prior to joining the Council, he was a fellow in international security studies at Yale University, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a professor at the National War College, and a professor and director of studies at the Near East and South Asia center at the National Defense University.

Takeyh has written extensively on Iran and on U.S. policy toward the Middle East. He has testified several times before various committees of the US Senate and has appeared as an Iran expert on a variety of television programs, including the PBS Newshour.

In his writings and public appearances, Takeyh has tended to be skeptical about the efficacy of current U.S. efforts to deal with Iran and its nuclear program. He has characterized the regime in Tehran as an opportunistic power that is seeking to expand its influence in the region rather than as an apocalyptic threat to the world.

In 2009 Takeyh served as an aide to Dennis Ross in the Barack Obama Administration focusing on Iran policy. When Ross moved from the State Department to the National Security Council staff Takeyh returned to the Council on Foreign Relations.:cool:
 
Its hardly any wonder why history repeats itself. Most people won't even accept that a mistake happened much less try and learn from it.
 
Jango said:
CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup - By Malcolm Byrne | Foreign Policy
Click to expand...

As important as the main thrust of the article is, I just have to quote following as the most interesting part. It seems the CIA always wants to convince the public that it never does these things:

But U.S. government classifiers, especially in the intelligence community, often have a different view on these matters. They worry that disclosing "sources and methods" -- even for operations decades in the past and involving age-old methods like propaganda -- might help an adversary. They insist there is a world of difference between what becomes publicly known unofficially (through leaks, for example) and what the government formally acknowledges. (Somehow those presidential admissions of American involvement seem not to have counted.)
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
As usual, the conventional wisdom is wrong. What really happened in Iran in 1953?

The Myth of an American Coup | The Weekly Standard

:cool:
Click to expand...

I call bull****. Sounds like a neo con fantasy. He leaves out massive gulps of facts that of course would disprove his theory.

Mossadeq wanted to nationalize the oil companies in Iran. The "freefall" of the economy the author refers too, was directly linked to the efforts of the British and Americans on behalf of the 7 sisters oil companies to defend the flow of oil out of Iran. They in no way wanted a nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company... aka BP of today, so they did everything to undermine Mossadeq and his government, so they could either trigger a coup, new elections or actively force a coup with the help of loyal supporters in Iran.

The CIA and MI6 were heavily involved in putting the Shah in power and keeping him there until the end and only neo-cons would even attempt to deny this.
 
Nationalization of the oil industry has certainly not helped the people of Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Russia, or Saudi Arabia, among many others. Politicians or dictators then control the revenue but little of this revenue gets down to the people. Better that governments tax the industry rather than nationalizing it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Doesn't seem to be much of a neocon, especially since he was in the Obama administration.
Click to expand...
Um, wiki left out an important detail, he is one of the founding members of the Iran Strategy Task Force.

I suppose this is just another example of you citing a particular author.......just for arguments sake....devils advocate and all.
 
Jack Hays said:
As usual, the conventional wisdom is wrong. What really happened in Iran in 1953?

The Myth of an American Coup | The Weekly Standard

:cool:
Click to expand...

Oohh look! Another thread where the OP takes a position (guaranteed to generate flames) without providing any argument other than a link to a flawed and biased article

The next step is to respond to criticisms with ad homs and additional links to flawed and biased sources while continually failing to post an actual argument beyond "the link(s) posted prove I'm right"
 
 
PeteEU said:
I call bull****. Sounds like a neo con fantasy. He leaves out massive gulps of facts that of course would disprove his theory.

Mossadeq wanted to nationalize the oil companies in Iran. The "freefall" of the economy the author refers too, was directly linked to the efforts of the British and Americans on behalf of the 7 sisters oil companies to defend the flow of oil out of Iran. They in no way wanted a nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company... aka BP of today, so they did everything to undermine Mossadeq and his government, so they could either trigger a coup, new elections or actively force a coup with the help of loyal supporters in Iran.

The CIA and MI6 were heavily involved in putting the Shah in power and keeping him there until the end and only neo-cons would even attempt to deny this.
Click to expand...

The Council on Foreign Relations disagrees with you, and they are most definitely not a neo-con organization.

[h=3]The Myth of an American Coup - Council on Foreign Relations[/h]www.cfr.org › Iran‎:peace
 
 
Jack Hays said:
Nothing new here.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
The Council on Foreign Relations disagrees with you, and they are most definitely not a neo-con organization.

[h=3]The Myth of an American Coup - Council on Foreign Relations[/h]www.cfr.org › Iran‎:peace
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
Nothing new in any of that. The Council on Foreign Relations isn't convinced either.:peace

[h=3]The Myth of an American Coup - Council on Foreign Relations[/h]www.cfr.org › Iran‎
Click to expand...

sangha said:
Oohh look! Another thread where the OP takes a position (guaranteed to generate flames) without providing any argument other than a link to a flawed and biased article

The next step is to respond to criticisms with ad homs and additional links to flawed and biased sources while continually failing to post an actual argument beyond "the link(s) posted prove I'm right"
Click to expand...

Don't anyone say that I didn't warn you
 
Jack Hays said:
My problem is that I cannot discern a point to avoid.:roll:
Click to expand...
I know, it is my fault, I referenced a group you are unfamiliar with.

My bad, I thought you would actually "look up" a group not known to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom