The Shah Reconsidered[W:39]

Master PO said:

yes it is, however we are only discussing the foreign policy part.

please show the founders saying american should be involved in the affairs of other nations.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Certainly a gripping narrative . . . if only it were true.

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

Council on Foreign Relations


Jun 10, 2013 - Ray Takeyh debunks the myth that the CIA was responsible for ... The key to the plot was to gain the cooperation of the shah, who had the legal ...


[h=3]Six Myths about the Coup against Iran's Mossadegh | The National ...[/h]nationalinterest.org/.../six-myths-about-the-coup-against-irans-m...

The National Interest


Sep 2, 2014 - ... to Stephen Kinzer's highly popular “All the Shah's Men” and the most recent revisionist histories of Dariush Bayandor and Ray Takeyh.

Click to expand...

The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.
The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6.

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Actually, we're not discussing neoconservative foreign policy or any other policy. We're discussing the Shah of Iran.
As for American founders, Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, launched Lewis & Clark, and dispatched our Navy & Marines to deal with the Barbary pirates.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

As Takeyh points out, the CIA narrative was itself led astray by the inaccurate claims of Kermit Roosevelt, the Agency's point man in Iran.

Click to expand...

It is ironic that CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, published his book on the 1953 CIA coup in Iran and the return of the shah in the same year that “his majesty’s government” was overthrown. An American friend gave a copy of the book to me shortly after its publication in 1979. I skimmed through the book and put it on my bookshelf. The CIA coup appeared irrelevant when the old and decadent institution of monarchy in Iran seemed to be finished once and for all.

More importantly, however, I, along with many other Iranians of my generation, knew the story full well and did not need Kermit to repeat it. We knew that the shah owed his throne to the likes of Kermit.

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

What Kermit Roosevelt Didn’t Say

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

A fine example of the inaccurate narrative described in the OP.

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

lets re-cap our exchange

1...i said, the u.s. and England conspired to remove the elected leader of iran, and replace him with the shah

2...you stated it was a myth, and posted from the CFR and the national interest

3....i posted the CFR, national interest are neoconservative run...and believe in getting involve in the affairs of other nations, .

4....you told me you dispute it.

5....i posted from the CRF, and with LINKS, proving what neoconservatives believe in getting involved in foregin affairs

6.......now your telling , we are only discussing the Shah of Iran, after my initial post talked of the shah of the Iran, being conspired against by our nation and England...which you quoted.

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

Sorry dude, but the CIA admitted it. I'm sure it's a nice book, but it's skewed.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Your #44 provided nothing on the CFR other than a misspelled rendering of the name. CFR has no particular neoconservative connection.
I did indeed dispute your narrow characterization of neoconservatism, and your inaccurate characterization of the US founders' views.
Regardless, this is all off-topic.

[h=3]Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

Wikipedia


The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded in 1921, is a United States 4900-member organization, nonprofit, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. ...President‎: ‎Richard N. Haass
Location‎: ‎New York City, New York‎, U.S

Headquarters‎: ‎58 East 68th Street
Budget‎: ‎Revenue: $77,485,500; Expenses: $6...

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

you have not posted from the founders proving your point, and you have not posted which counters my links about neoconservative being involved in other nations affairs.

you claimed the subject is the shah, which you were happy enough to divert from.

what you posted about the where the CRF was founded has bearing on our exchange...why it is posted ..who knows

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

One more time: the point is that the CIA were themselves misinformed. No one disputes that Roosevelt's mission was to get the Shah into power. Takeyh's point is that the Shah would have succeeded with or without Roosevelt, who could hardly have been expected to report that his activities didn't matter.

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

You've missed the point completely: the CIA engaged in a coup in Iran. Whether or not he would have succeeded with or with out our meddling is a matter of opinion, which I;m sure your author talks about. That however does not negate the fact that in 1953 our CIA engaged in an overthrow pf a sovereign country.

THAT is the point I was making about the trouble we have with Iran and ME today.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Because the CFR has no neoconservative connection and published Takeyh's debunking of the myth of a CIA coup in Iran. No link needed to disprove your claim about the founders. Jefferson's known actions do that. I do not counter your point about assertive neoconservative foreign policy; I simply noted that was too narrow a description of their views.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Fair enough. It is the contention of the OP book's author (as well as Takeyh) that the "trouble" we have in Iran today is the product of a dishonest historical narrative pushed by the Shah's opponents.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

". . . The revolutionaries “studied western journalists’ reporting methods, fed them story ideas, steered them toward sympathetic interviewees, and supplied them with the revolutionary movement’s facts and figures,” Cooper argues, citing Bani-Sadr. This led to the publication of grossly inflated numbers of activists jailed and executed by the shah’s secret police. The figures, Cooper says, helped provoke anti-shah sentiments and were not corrected, even after Red Cross inspectors investigated and rejected the claims. Revolutionaries themselves, the book notes, have since refuted the numbers. . . ."

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

first...your national interest, is neoconservative , are you going to dispute that?...you cant.

second....the CRF has a history of being involved other nations.


third.....just saying Jefferson does not prove your point on the founders, if you like, you and i can both agree and i will post from the founders, and then you post from the founders, can we agree to this?

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

I recounted Jefferson's actions. That trumps anyone's words. QED
The political lean of National Interest's founder is irrelevant to our discussion.
The CFR is a forum for US foreign policy thinkers or all persuasions.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

You found an obscure Shah supporter who says SAVAK is made up. Wow, good job, Jack, you just cracked history wide open.

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

Our behavior in the ME has more to do with our troubles today than any of the Shaw's opponents. Following WWI, ending empire and setting up nation states was the new thing.

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

you have not recounted anything, but postings your own words., and you trump nothing.

oh, so you saying your own posting of national interest is irrelevant?

the CRF has a long history of getting involved in the affairs of other nations.....thats a fact!

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

Our behavior in the ME has more to do with our troubles today than any of the Shaw's opponents. Following WWI, ending empire and setting up nation states was the new thing.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Your declaration that something is a fact does not make it so. I cited an article in National Interest. The article is relevant; the ownership of National Interest is not. I posted well known actions by Thomas Jefferson. Those are common knowledge and require no link.

The CFR is just a forum.

Click to expand...

Master PO said:

oh?... so your saying that the CRF, have never involved themselves with foreign governments?

the national interest is neoconservative, and supports foreign involvement

actions?... who cares, post a statement from Jefferson, ,i will post one if you agree to the same from the founders to post one..do you agree?

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

The discussion of the founders is over. You lost. Jefferson sank you.
The discussion of National Interest is over. It's irrelevant.
CFR is a forum. That discussion is over too.

Click to expand...