© the eyeranian

without Reagan and Bush Sr I would not be free and might be rotting away at some prison camp, so I hope the alternative history where there is no CIA backed coup in Iran might have a different consequences.

On a related note. Some of my compatriots are bitter to americans for selling us out at Jalta. I don't know, but I cannot be bitter for them for not choosing to continue WWII with WWIII, which in all likelihood would have cost millions of lives. If there were no Lenin, Stalin or Hitler there would have been no such choices. Most likely there wouldn't have been an Iranian coup backed by CIA either as there would have been no cold war.

Oh, although the US victory in the cold war brought me freedom, it doesn't mean that I think that the US didn't make mistakes in the cold war. CIA meddling in Iran was a terrible mistake for sure.

Look, the fact of the matter is that the Cold War was a bit of a farce. The Russians unlike the Nazi Germans were not serious opponents of the US. The Soviet Union was a Third World country with an almost First Class military.

You could almost say that the Cold War was invented to enable the US to avoid the almost inevitable depression in the only way it knows how: by massive defense expenditures.

Thesis: Since 1929, there has been no serious prosperity in the world without massive government spending of some kind.

Ok, I'm not going to be very elaborate in my writing, but I would like to ask this question?

Which one would the US want controling some of the largest oil fields in the world?

A democratic, educated, rich Iran, which can make smart decisions about utilizing their national treasures, to benefit the people in the country.......or a form of a chaiotic mayham that exists in Iran, in which the rulers of the country are looking at their own pockets rather than the well being of all Iranians....

stability in Iran is more dangerous to the US than the unstable Iran.

Sasan:

Just exactly why would the U.S. be upset by Iran being a democratic, educated, rich country with a much higher standard of living?

How could that possibly be a threat to the US when richer Iranians would keep buying more stuff from the Americans?

Thank you for elaborating.

bill king, it didn't feel a farce to me or my family (many of whom got killed during it). I wonder why you think the nazi Germany was a serious threat while the Soviets not. Especially considering that it was the soviets that beat the nazis. It doesn't seem very logical to me. Actually looking at the numbers I would say that the nazis were never a real threat to the US, but as a European I am thankful for the help we got from the US to get rid of them.

The soviets had the world's largest military with nuclear capability and the ability to destroy the US and the entire world along with it. Fortunately the nazis had nothing like that. Even though the Soviet Union was hardly a third world country it doesn't really matter what is the living conditions of the people if you are considering military might.

It seems to me that because the cold war didn't end in an all-out war with millions of casualties,which could have easily happened, some people are seriously underestimating its importance.

The only thing that made the Soviet Union formidable was that it had nuclear weapons. Otherwise, the rest of its military was not even close to first class. Read Alexander Cockburns excellent book "The Threat." He points out that one in three Soviet soldiers were Muslim conscripts who couldn't be trusted with weapons! The Soviet officers were scared to death of them, so Muslims were truck drivers, cooks, ditch diggers - in otherwords, non-combat support. Yet still we heard over and over again that the Soviet army was over 2 million strong!

Additionally, the nuclear threat from the USSR was exaggerated and it was clear by the 1980s that America far outclassed the USSR after living in fear of the USSR unknown capabilities.

How likely would the collapse of the USSR have been without the Cold War? Well, if Americans truly have faith in capitalism then very likely. It was an economic meltdown caused by inefficient statism that killed the USSR.

The argument that a prosperous, democratic oil rich Middle Eastern nation is not a threat to US interests (at least in the past) can be discounted by the very fact that oil nationalisation was the primary reason for the CIA disposing of Dr. Mossadegh's government. Yes, better off citezans in foreign nations can buy goods from the post-industrial West and the American national interest is very much aligned with that. However, who actually runs the country? Do you think that ex-oil execs with fingers in the oil pie are going to figure "Hey, I'd much prefer to let the Iranians build their economies over the next 50 years so we (or more likely the Japenes and South East Asians) sell them consumer goods or cheap, subsidised agricultural products OR shall I screw them over now so I can get oil cheaply from the thieving mullahs?"

The notion that all American leaders and agencies work in a concerted effort for the common good is laughable and contrary to most historical anaylis. Self-interest if aligned with communal interests produces wonderful results (e.g. Marshall Plan) but more often than not it leads to ruinous policies that entrench conflict and pain on far away lands and people.

An industrialised, powerful Iran was part of the American plan provided:

a) It bought heavily from American / European weapons manufacturers

b) It acted as policeman for the region ensuring that Soviet satellite states didn't come into existence

c) It did provided cheap energy to the West in the form of oil

d) It acted as an ally of Israel

The Shah regime was doing well in his Faustian pact on parts all parts but broke golden rule c) (firstly, via Dr. Mossdegh then indepdently via the OPEC consortium). So when his nepotistic regime displayed all the classic cracks of an autocratic, statist and failed political-economic system, there was no CIA to bail him out. His failure was having statesman ambitions to placate his growing dissident population which went beyond the reality of his puppet state.

The real question is: Has the threat of terrorism and the benefits of global spread of democratic / capitalistic institutions changed the dynamic between the US and Iran? Are we now at a point where it is true to say that a prosperous, democratic Iran would be an asset to the USA whilst not being a hindrance to its oil / energy interests?

I'm not sure. I suspect the diversification of energy sources by oil companies since the 1970s may make the impact easier to bare for them. The threat of global terrorism and the domestic impact of 9/11 may have changed some government priorities in the US.

However, the war on Iraq seems to be a clear indication that not all is right with the American agenda. Saddam's regime whilst brutal and (to moralists) evil, doesn't fit on the axiom of priorities such as internal security. I find the promotion of democracy by pre-emptive wars also a dubious motive perhaps merely because it is unprecedented (not even WWII was about that and the only prior roughly equivalent examples may have been Korea and Vietnam, neither of which were handled well).

The answer for Iran may be the same one for the various Soviet states: economic collapse due to mismanagement and finally democraticisation. All Iran needs is a Gorbachov (sp?) and I thought Katami was it but he has no teeth. If historical patterns can be applied, I suspect a shift of power to the conservative elements and then after unrest a resurgency of the reformists which would result in a tidal wave of reforms that unhinges the political infrastructure. However, that is if America and the rest of the world do not apply pressure either economically (entrenching the black market elements that feed the mullahs power base) or militarily (which will have unpredictable long-term results and set the country back decades).

Ah, Mossadegh as saint/martyr whatever. Good thing he's dead, because no living person could accomplish everything the Iranians seem to think he could.

Mossadegh was a communist. How smart could he have been? Communism is one of the stupidist ideas in the long history of stupid ideas.

Most likely result of him being in power? Wholesale looting of Iranian oil by Russia coupled with gross mismanagement of oil production. (Because russian workers had drilling quotas in Tunguska instead of oil quotas, they over drilled the field such that the Siberian oil reserves now require "special techniques" to extract the oil because the natural pressure has been lost.)

He probably would have been bumped off by Russia instead of the US anyways.

No doubt we could have handled Iran better, but 1953 was only 5 years after England threw up their hands and dropped their empire in our lap. Sure we made mistakes, but being responsible for the world was something the US never wanted. We probably either got bad advice from the British, or we knee-jerk got rid of him because he was a communist. Get over it.

Remember, communism==atheism, so a communist Iran would have much influence in the Arab world.

All the "Russia wasn't that much of a threat" is just laughable. Count the number of ex-communist and communist-client countries and try playing Risk against someone using the democratic countries.

Anyone remotely suggesting that Mossadegh was a communist and forgeting the role Iranian Communist Party (Tudeh) played in weakening his support that eventually led to his downfall is either in dire need of some history lessons or is a bit too desperate in trying to justify a historical wrong committed by the U.S. government. I hope it's the former.

Pierce T. Wetter III,

You really need to study history before talking about Dr. Mosaddeq. No, he wasn't saint/martyr or anything. He was a shiny part of our history which was destroyed by your government. The importance of talking about Mosaddeq and his government is clear when you see where we are 50 years after him. The historical crime your government committed against us, has had a huge impact on our lives.

He was not a communist, but let's say he was. Who are you to tell other nations that they should not adopt communism as a way of governing their countries?

"Most likely result of him being in power? Wholesale looting of Iranian oil by Russia coupled with gross mismanagement of oil production...".
Our oil was being looted by the British anyway before Dr. Mosaddeq nationalized our oil. And mismanagement? It is my money and I want to waste it. Do you have any propblem with this simple fact of freedom of choice? Or you think that oil belong to the US anyway?

I have more in my August 2 comment section about this if you like. MY URL is available here.

Milwauken, I agree the Soviet/Russian military was hardly first class. It wasn't first class when it defeated Napoleon's first class armies and it wasn't first class when it defeated the German top notch armies (that BTW included my countrymen). The soviet/russian armies have always (starting from the times of Ivan Groznyi) consisted of unmotivated troopers with extremely low morale, but their rulers have always ruled by fear and relied on masses to get the job done. I think its a mistake to try to analyze russian armies using western measures.

Seyed Razavi, USSR was toppled in effect by massive military pressure from the USA. It would not have happened without the cold war and the arms race. Economic mismanagement, ineffective bureaucracy, etc. has always been part of Russia and actually communists were managing it better than the czars ever did (and perhaps better also than Putin and the oligarchy is now). It was the arms race and especially US concentration on high tech weaponry (including the star wars project - the importance of this single scifi fantasy is remarkable) that strained the USSR to the point where it was clear that it needs to reform in order to keep up with the race. The holy communist triumvirate - the party, the KGB and the army all had to come to the same conclusion for them to be able to tolerate the first changes that were to become the beginning of the end.

From within the russian empire, Gorbachew was hardly the enlightened ruler wishing the best for his people as portrayed by the european media, but a man who didn't have the stomach to go through with what he started. In my opinion he viewed himself as a new Peter the great, but unfortunately for him he just didn't find the demon inside him that would let him organise the bloodbaths needed to keep the tyranny in power (his bodycount can be measured only in thousands which is puny compared to any ruler of Russia ever ruling the empire for more than one year).

As the people saw that he didn't have the guts to go all the way and kill everybody opposing him like his predecessors had, the revolt was inevitable. By the time the old hands tried to intervene, the damage was already done and the fear that was the glue keeping the USSR together had vanished.

The point of the above is that none of it would have happened unless the need to reform was not created first by the paranoia fed by the US spending billions and billions on the cold war.

I agree that the Cold War, particularly the Reagen / Thatcher administrations, put enormous pressure on the Soviets but the facts based on third-party analysis of Cold War records from Russia show the long-term effects of Stalinization seem like a greater factor on the destruction of the USSR than the scifi fantasy, as you rightly put it, of Star Wars or military competition. I'm dismissing that as a primary factor but its to early to say and all the arguments for that are made without much reference to historical evidence from within Russia and by those whose political bias is evident.

The notion that the USSR would have continued if it wasn't for that pesky Cold War is IMO not supported by most of the evidence. I think you are too quick to dismiss the internal pressure that was building and the effects of the fall of the Berlin War.

Gorbachev was a funny thing: adequetely ambitious and incompetent to set in motion forces which he could neither guide nor control ensuring the political destruction of the USSR.

Oh and to the person who called Dr. Mossadegh a Communist - thank you. Its always nice to read a joke straight from the ghost of McCarthy. "He's a Communist! Destroy! Destroy!"

Mossadegh wasn't a Communist, but he did seem to be a socialist. And hadn't he disbanded the Iranian parliament by the time he was kicked out? If Iran had been a democracy, the Islamists probably wouldn't have come to power the way they did, but it doesn't mean everything would've been perfect. They likely would've formed a powerful faction within ruling governments for quite a while, even if they didn't have absolute power. And economically, I suspect that Iran would've done worse than it did under Pahlavi.

And like I said before, I think it's also important to take into account the way that many East Asian success stories developed. Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc. all had oppressive dictatorships for many decades during the Cold War. But after they'd developed first-world economies and a stable middle class, democracy was ushered in. If Pahlavi had stayed in power, I suspect that Iran would be a democracy today as well.

Great discussion about the old USSR. I read once that when Gorbachev was a lower level apparatchuk in the early 1980s, he was dismayed by news of an aerial dogfight between Israeli and Syrian jets. The Isrealis reportedly shot down dozens of Syrians in a very short period of time, all without a single lost jet of their own. The Israelis of course were flying US planes, and the Syrians flew Russian Migs. "What can't Russia make a superior warplane?" asked Gorby. Eventually, he came to understand that Soviet economics, philosophy and culture were all intertwined, and in need of drastic reform. Without reform, Soviet Migs would always be second class. Unfortunately for Gorby , he didn't understand that in the modern day Soviet system, reform was an all or nothing proposition. Introducing a little bit of reform into a repressive society in the communication age is like introducing a little tiny crack into a dam. Eventually, the force of public expression will cause the system to collapse. That's what happened in Nov., 1989, when the Berlin wall fell. The rest of the dam broke in the next few years, as the communist satellite countries broke free, one by one.

When I said the cold war was "a bit of a farce", I didn't mean that the Soviet Union wasn't dangerous. Stalin alone, to enforce collectivization, had ten million or so Ukrainian kulaks killed by taking away their seed and causing a famine. (Before Communism, the Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe exporting the wheat that Europe today imports from the US and Canada.) What I meant was just as Saddam Hussein, dangerous as he was, was easily defeated by the Americans, that the US could have finished off the Soviet Union before 1949 (I'm not sure whether the US could have faced a coalition of the Soviet Union and China).

Here are some facts that I found suspicious:

- Towards the end of World War II, Patton was forced by Eisenhauer to withdraw from Czechoslovakia. In addition, the US army waited for the Russians to advance and take Berlin.

- The US allowed the Soviet Union in 1956 to invade Hungary and did the same thing in 1968 in Czechoslovakia. (In both cases, it was a question of Tito-like Communists trying to take control.)

- Regarding the capability of the Russian army, Napoleon and Hitler were defeated by the Russian winter and by the long supply lines, not by the superior ability of the Russian army.

Just a quick ( but may be not very important), note to Milwaukenafter all who cares about who has the more capable killing machine, obviously some do; with pride.

After 29 years of first Mig 25 being built, it is still the fastest fighter that exists (3.1 time speed of sound). May be Soviets got it by luck though ;-)

This is an interesting game but a game only. You can go back further and say what would have happend if Darus did this or that. One of the common themes that you see these days is people blaming the Shah/Khomeni on the CIA and claiming that the current situation in Iran is purely their fault. I think it's time that we take some personal responsibility for our country and stop looking to blame other factors for the way Iran is now.

The CIA did what they thought was in the best interest of the US, they do not care about Iran or the people of Iran, why should they ? It's the same in Iraq, the people of Iraq were nothing but a pretext for the war, the main cause is how it would benefit the US or in this case Bush. Would Iranians have acted any differently if we had the power that the US had ? NO, we would not. We would have caused the same "massacres" the same conflicts to benefit ourselves.

Excellent point Asad. May I add that, IMO, as shamefully as Western powers have acted toward the Islamic world, forced colonialization and regime changes are not the cause of Middle Eastern poverty and backwardness. They are a symptom.

Asad,

I couldn't disagree more with you on your prosumptions, whether we would be acting the same as the US is acting now. How sure are you to make such a strong comment based on your prosumption?

Beside, I am glad Milwauken, indirectly at least, adimts what the US is doing is "massacares" here and there.

Asad, by making it look natural to become murderous as a result of becoming powerful, are you in fact suggesting that no one can be powerful and fair?

One question: Do you dispute the fact that what CIA did to us in 1953 has had a huge impact on our lives? I am not suggesting that we should sit and cry for what happened, but I would definiately not suggest we should forget about it either. If we forget about it, it will happen again in different way may be. We should remember it and learn from that horrible experience so we do not let it happen again.

I am not suggesting we forget about it at all, we should learn from it. You have summed up my point very succintly by saying "are you in fact suggesting that no one can be powerful and fair?"

Yes, unless you would like to redefine fair somehow. Do you think the people who had to live under the Persian empire thought their rulers were fair ? How about the people who lived under the Romans ? What powerful country in what period of time can you think of that acted in a "fair" fashion ?
My biggest issue with the US govt isn't that they massacre, invade other countries. It's that what they are doing is not in the best interest of Americans. If anything I say it's more dangerous for Americans to travel abroad now than it was before 9/11. All of the good will the world had towards the US has been wasted and in such a short amount of time.
But back to the point the CIA coup had a huge affect on Iran, and the area but as one CIA man put it, they got a good 50 years out of the Shah, the question should be is the current regime in Iran worth those 50 years ?

Regarding the Migs, speed is only one of many factors that go into making a capable warplane. Gorby was also lamenting the lack of training and professionalism in the Syrian air force I'm sure. He had reason to: they relied a great deal on Russian trainers for their expertise.

I'd be interested, Faramin, in your opinioin, what lessons could Iran learn from the 1953 coup that will prevent another coup from happening again?

Asad, you have a good point, nonetheless I respectfully disagree. We probably can't name a superpower who has acted with total fairness. Although that's very much open to debate, as history gets so distorted over few decades, (actually even just over a few years), that it's very hard to make a sound judgement about an ancient empire. But let's assume that the persian and roman, and all empires were unfair, and their greatness tainted by cruelty. So what is your point? How does that justify the cruelty by itself? Tell me a period in the history when poverty didn't exist. Does that mean we should give up or condone, or succumb to the forces who create poverty?

Most importantly what's the point of you and me discussing here, if the rule of the jungle is the ultimate word. What good has our so much celebrated "civilization" done, if we are right where we started thousands of years ago? And what have we achieved if our society has not stretched its perspective beyond that of the people of 2500 years ago.

I don't think that we are just as cruel as we were 2500 years ago. Or actually let's correct it, I don't think that cruelty can go as unnoticed in the eyes of us, humans of this era, as it was 2500 years ago. And also I don't think that what you and me or a typical citizen thinks, had as much weight 2500 years ago, as it does now. In short, I think it's reasonable to expect that bad things happen less and less as we evolve.

Milwauken,

And I'm interested to know what lesson you think US could learn from 1953 coup? Is there anything worth learning? Other than just how to do it better and cheaper next time, of course.

Prior to WWII, most countries, the rich and powerful ones anyway, played by the rules of realpolitik. The rules of realpolitik were pretty simple, really. First, all the countries of the world had to act rationally, which is to say, in their best interest. If a country acted foolishly, say, by acting hostile toward a more powerful country, then the more powerful country crushed the less powerful aggressor. Countries formed alliances to make themselve stronger. For a thousand years, maybe more, realpolitik worked in as much as it created predictable patterns of behaviour among nations. If a country acted unpredictable, then it was attacked. Let's call this the law of the jungle.

In the aftermath of WWII, many European nations started to shed their former colonies, and a new law emerged, a more liberal world order that recognized a nation's right to exist. It didn't matter that the country was rich or poor; it's people had a right to self determination, and the UN was set up, in part, to perpetuate the new world order.

The transition from law of the jungle realpolitik to liberal world order was not instantaneous, or particularly smooth. We are still feeling the birthpangs. The 1953 coup was realpolitik in action - the US was checking what it believed, rigthtly or wrongly, to be an aggressive move by the USSR. The laws of realpolitik dictated that it was in America's best interest to have an Iranian leader that was to its liking.

So what was America's lesson? I can't speak for the geniuses in Langley, but if I could, I'd say this:

First, there are always unintentional consequences to every action, especially in realpolitik. The CIA spooks call this blowback. When the action involves overthrowing a popularly elected leader for a dictator, the blowback takes on Tsunami-like proportion.

Second, don't overthrow a popularly elected leader for a tyrant. This lesson includes a few cavaets. One election does not a Democracy make, after all, even thieves vote to split up the loot. And don't forget Sadaam's last electoral landslide. But in a bona fide election, which I'm assuming that Mossadegh's was, it's best to let Democracy take its course.

We don't have to go back to 1953 in Iran. The US has and will continue to suppress governments elected by a country's population in multi-party elections in Latin America. It just tried to do this in Venezuela in 2003, did it in Chile with the Pinochet coup (when Chile had been a country with multiparty elections for over a century). Now the people of Guatemala are worried that a dictator responsible for massacring the Mayan population will be attempting to get back into power. So the US's behaviour in Latin America since the ejection of the Spanish and the Portuguese as well as its behaviour elsewhere in the world is a bad omen for the Middle East. In a nutshell, that's why people distrust the US. Luckily, Canada has been able to repel the US and keep it from trying the same actions there.

You see, that's what I like about this site - the things you can learn! I wasn't aware that the US had military plans to attack Canada.

Milwauken,

As you are well aware, the attack is social and economic even though the US already owns a big chunk of the Canadian economy.

On behalf of my fellow Americans, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for producing goods and services that attract Canadians. Like moths to a flame, I suppose.

Milwauken,

By US social and economic attacks, I am referring to the trade wars and anti-medicare abuse that we get from the so-called US neo-conservatives. I am not referring to commerce. The US is attacking every sector of the Canadian economy (through so-called trade disputes) that US-owned companies don't control.

This entry was mind storming for me. I've put some comments (in Persian) in my weblog about it. Please find it here:
http://davandeh.persianblog.com/?date=13820518#722493