Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?
When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
Not surprisingly, there hasn't exactly been a groundswell of popular support in the United States for President Ahmadinejad's suggestion. Just 11% of U.S. voters think America should apologize for "crimes" against Iran, according to a poll from Rasmussen.
Of course, if you know anything about the United States, you wouldn't leap to the conclusion that Americans, as a country, are a bunch of jerks who can't admit when they've done anything wrong. Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: most Americans have little knowledge about the history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As far as they know, the U.S. hasn't done anything wrong. So why should we apologize?
Unfortunately for us, outside our borders U.S. foreign policy isn't judged according to what we know, but according to what our government does and has done. And it is well known in Iran and throughout the Middle East that the U.S. (at the urging of and with the assistance of the UK) organized a coup against the democratically-elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossaedgh in 1953, in retaliation for Mossaedgh's stubborn insistence that Iran's oil belonged to Iranians. And for the next twenty-five years, the U.S. kept in power a dictatorship in Iran, actions justified in no small measure by the alleged need to protect "our oil" that God had misplaced "under their sand."
[To brush up on your history, read Stephen Kinzer's excellent account, a tour de force of accessible writing, or watch the 6 minute version here.]
If you know this history, the proposal that the U.S. apologize for overthrowing Iranian democracy seems a lot more reasonable. Imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose that in 1953, when someone who is now 65 was 10 years old, Iran, together with the British (something we have in common with Iran is the experience of Britain as a colonial power), organized a coup that overthrew the democratic government of the United States and replaced it with a dictatorship that lasted until 1979, when someone who is 39 today was ten years old. And now comes Iran talking about improved relations. Do you think that no-one in the United States would suggest that Iran acknowledge its role in the coup as a step to improving relations?
But if it is reasonable for Iranians to propose that the U.S. apologize for its role in overthrowing Iranian democracy and installing a dictatorship, would it be feasible for the U.S. to do so? I maintain that it would not only be feasible, but useful.
While 1953 is recent enough that there are people alive who remember it, it is long enough ago that those directly responsible for the coup are long gone. In this way it differs from admitting, for example, that Bush Administration officials authorized torture in violation of U.S. and international law - that admission could have immediate legal consequences for the responsible officials.
In contrast, acknowledging the U.S. role in the 1953 coup would not put anyone at risk of prosecution, and would not harm us in any way.
On the contrary, it could be a game-changer in U.S. relations with the Muslim world - indicating that there really is a new guy at the helm.
Is there a precedent? There sure is: a close one. In 1999, President Bill Clinton gave a "near-apology" for the U.S. role in Guatemala's civil war.
Guatemala City, March 10 - President Clinton expressed regret today for the U.S. role in Guatemala's 36-year civil war, saying that Washington "was wrong" to have supported Guatemalan security forces in a brutal counterinsurgency campaign that slaughtered thousands of civilians.The "original sin" of the U.S. role in Guatemala's civil war was the U.S.-organized overthrow of the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 - the year after it overthrew democracy in Iran.Clinton's statements marked the first substantive comment from the administration since an independent commission concluded last month that U.S.-backed security forces committed the vast majority of human rights abuses during the war, including torture, kidnapping and the murder of thousands of rural Mayans.
"It is important that I state clearly that support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression of the kind described in the report was wrong," Clinton said, reading carefully from handwritten notes. "And the United States must not repeat that mistake. We must, and we will, instead continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Guatemala." ... Clinton's aides said the president had thought for some time about how to word his near-apology. The Guatemalan military received training and other help from the U.S. military in an era when the United States supported several Latin American rightist governments fighting leftist insurgents.
If President Clinton could "near-apologize" for the U.S. role in Guatemala, is it beyond the realm of imagination that President Obama could "near-apologize" for the U.S. overthrow of democracy and support of dictatorship in Iran?
If President Obama did so, mightn't it be a "game-changer" in U.S. relations with Iran? What would it cost us to merely state the truth? And doesn't the righteous man admit fault when he has the opportunity to do so?
Many Americans would be justifiably proud of President Obama if he would apologize to Iran for the 1953 overthrow of Iranian democracy on behalf of the United States. Patch Adams told me: "when you write about this, please say that I support it."
- Posted in
65 Comments so far
Show AllAmerica is a proud, stiff-necked country run by proud, stiff-necked people; THAT'S why it can't or won't apologize for its wrong-doings overseas. Ignorance of the real score plays a part, yes; but so does pride and stiff-neckedness.
Allow me to be the first to say that this is an absolutely excellent idea. If Obama REALLY wants to present his administration as bringing "change", this would be a great start. What a wonderful change in attitude this may bring about in US-Iran relations.
The US press keeps hammering away on Ahmadinejad and referring to him as Iran's "hardline" president. (I can't remember who, but someone here wonderfully equated this tendency to a Pavlovian response on another article). How more "hardline" can you get than refusing to apologize for something nasty you did to someone else years ago?
Amen. And we should not stop there. We have a lot of apologizing to do. Of course other countries are in the same boat to a smaller extent, but why shouldn't we lead in the mea culpas? This would be an excellent step toward 'change.'
Yes, thank you for pointing out the very important fact that Iran was not an isolated case. Hardly. It was one of MANY. This could be the starting point for other, much-needed apologies. I'm not holding my breath, and it might not do anything for relations . . . but then again it just might . . .
And you brought up such a good point. Why shouldn't we be first to do these mea culpas? If America is truly the world's "leader", like its often-brainwashed citizens so want the world to believe it is, why not truly lead the world in sincerely apologizing for its long line of imperialistic actions and lead the world down a different path?
Apologize, certainly! I would like to see President Obaba visit Iran and give America's apology in one of their universities. Otherwise we shall continue to suffer from bad Karma - or bad Kermit.
I don't expect any apology. We are already seeing some bad Karma, and if it can last lifetimes for individuals, it can last thousands of years for societies.
By the way let's not forget all the aid we gave the Nazis, or how we helped Nazi war criminals find places to hide, or welcomed into this country if they could be useful.
Humbaba,
If the Kermit comment was meant as a pun, may I commend you profusely! That was awesome.
There was certainly one Roosevelt carrying " a big stick" in 1953.
Shhh... Talk softly about the big stick of capitalism...
or people will realize it is undemocratic...
Wasn't kermit in love with a pig in lipstick?
Are you talking about Sarah Palin?
I think that both the US and Iran should apologize to Nicaragua for the Iran/Contra affair. That would be a good start.
OK, and while we are at it, do we include Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia and others in the Mideast; Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Columbia, Dominican Republic and others in our own backyard? What do we do about Hawaii?
In each of these cases and more, we have overthrown a democratically elected government to protect some corporate interest or the other. In each of these cases and more, we have installed a repressive dictatorship.
But first, we need to get control of the CIA and NSA, bring them under strict oversight - and yes we have to do something about Congress.
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge.....
If Obama was to start apologizing for the crimes of American Imperialism it would be such a long list that Americans would shit themselves.
-----------------------------------------
Remember the butchery in Gaza by the IDF.
Just say, "We overthrew your democratically elected government because we wanted cheap oil, and we wanted to control it. So, we installed a puppet dictator with a secret police goon squad (SAVAK) that tortured and murdered protesters and political opponents with reckless and savage abandon for 25 years... Oops. Mistakes were made."
See, that wasn't so hard, now was it?
For the US, sorry seems to be the hardest word. (With apologies to Elton John).
I think it naive to suggest that MOST Citizens of the USA do not know of their countries History in Iran, thus see no reason to apologize.
I believe most are fully aware of that history, just as there are of all the crap that the United States has foisted on other people since that time.
Are most also not aware of the legacy of Slavery, or how the Native Americans were treated?
This is UBER-nationalism at work. It is as much "Ignorance" as the Germans were ignorant of what thier country was doing during the Nazis.
I totally disagree with you.
People outside the USA have a much better grasp of our history in overthrowing governments to instill dictators who favor US well being over that of their own citizens. We learn very little real history in school, just as we get very little of meaning from the news.
I will use as example your elected Politicians. All of them aware of How the United States sponsored a coup in Iran in 1953 . The vast majority seeing no reason to apologize.
Citizens of America are not as stupid as they like to let on. Pleading ignorance is a convenient excuse for that uber-nationalism.
I will use as example relatives visiting our family from Poland at the height of the cold war. They had went to schools preaching the virtues of Communism and the news that the Communist state delivered to them every bit as controlled.
Yet they were remarkably well informed on OUR Society and system of Governance before they got here and WELL aware of the failings of their own system.
How was it they were willing and able to "Get Informed" in the 1960s and 1970s living behind the iron Curtain?
Now certainly they had no idea of the SCOPE of our excess and bounty but they were certainly well informed as to the excesses of their own Governments.
Different countries, different people.
The problem with your Polish analogy is that they did not like their own politicval system. That gave them a motivation to learn about possibly better systems.
Most Americans have no REASON, no MOTIVE, to learn about the history of most countries in the world. Americans are no different from any humans; unless something effects them directly, the desire to learn about it is greatly reduced. Americans do not believe Iran is a better country (to live in).
Go talk to any American you know. See how many of them even know who Mossadegh is. Or, for fun, ask a young American, one who did not live through the Vietnam war, to place Vietnam on a map.
It is not a matter of stupidity. Or pretense of stupidity. It is lack of (any) interest.
>>It is not a matter of stupidity. Or pretense of stupidity. It is lack of (any) interest.
I suggest that lack of interest is due to their not wanting to destroy the "worldview" they have built up inside their heads about the benevolence and innate "goodness" of the United States of America.
Again you want a like example look to Nazi Germany. They COULD have learned the truth about what Hitler was about but CHOSE not to because of the inherent belief they had that they were somehow victims and deserved of more . Their nation called Germany a light unto others and deserved of more.
Look to israel today as another example. They do not advocate war on the Palestinians and support the bombing of gaza in overwhelming numbers because they are "unaware" or ignorant of israeli History there.
They do so because they feel they more deserved, a chosen people and that the land was given to them by god.
This is TRIBALISM and nationalism at work. US and them , the US as defined by a religion wherein the others religion is an enemy.
Thomas More is not someone I think of as ignorant or lazy. Nor do I think he "does not care" yet he gets his facts wrong on something like Iwo Jima when he uses it as an example of why the USA had to drop Nukes on japan.
If you want an analogy think of parents whose kid is bad. Whenever that kid gets in trouble said parents blames it on someone else. Its the "Johnson Kid" or "Them Damn Niggers" down the street causing Johnny to get in trouble all the time. Their "Johnny" is a good boy who would NEVER cause trouble or use drugs. Or drink liquor, or steal from stores.
Yet Johnny can be doing this all along and everyone else in the neighborhood knows Johnny is a bad kid.
These parents are not unmotivated , or ignorant, or stupid. They let the fact that it THEIR Johnny, their flesh and blood blind them to the truth. Someone elses kid is the bad kid.
The truth is always out there for them to learn. They CHOOSE not to learn that truth because it will reflect poorly on themselves.
The same mechanics work with patriotism and nationalism.
I'm surprised to read this story and find no reference to Madeleine Albright's apology. You can argue it wasn't enough, but to leave it out entirely when she was the functioning Secretary of State isn't very good journalism. For that matter, I don't recall hearing if Ahmadinejad has mentioned it either (not that I expect scholarly research from him).
At this link http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp
, you can see the following text:
In a speech delivered in March 2000 by Madeleine Albright (then secretary of state ), the U.S. government finally acknowledged what it had done to the Iranian people and to democracy in Iraq:
In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah’s regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah’s government also brutally repressed political dissent. As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations.
Dara Parsavand
thank you
This may happen for the wrong reasons, as there is anecdotal evidence that the U.S. may become a friend of Iran as they need them to help fight the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because Iran is on our side in this fight. So let the brainwashing begin.
one apology would not cover the bill
like the mafia - there are no apologies
besides there is no telling when the american government will be back to depose the next leader
there will be no apology for that one either by the way
cheers, b
No, but it would mean that we would have to also apologize to Guatamala, Chile, Dominican Republic, Hati, Cuba, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Angola, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq (where WE installed Saddam Hussein as our little stooge),
Afghanistan (where WE installed the Taliban the first time to get rid of the Russians), and on and on the list goes.
Poet
You're such a liar. The US was anti-Saddam until after the Iranian Revolution. Oh, and the Taliban didn't exist until 1996, a full 7 years after soviet withdrawal of the country.
>>You're such a liar. The US was anti-Saddam until after the Iranian Revolution. Oh, and the Taliban didn't exist until 1996, a full 7 years after soviet withdrawal of the country.
You are wrong again, but that par for the course.
It was the CIA that helped Orchestrate the Coup against the Iraqi Governmnet of the day wherein Saddam and the Baathists then came to power. They did so because they did not feel the existing Governmnet was tough enough on Communists.
When Saddam faced arrest the CIA helped spirit him out of the country and in to Egypt. They then helped smuggle him back into the country to Orchestrate the Baathist coup.
One of their first actions was to provide Saddam with a list of "Communists" they felt he should eliminate.
The Iraqi Communist party was the strongest in the entire Arab world at the time. Saddam was on the US payroll as far back as 1957.
It was very likely that without the Baathist Coup, Iraq would have elected a Communist Government.
For once, an assertive response. If you could cite references I would be fascinated, and would concede defeat and apologize. Limited to that issue, of course.
Google what you want to know... A few keywords will do...
You will probably come up with 618,000,000 references...
Or try wikipedia... I think with these technologies, references and links are mere conveniences,
and one can do their own research regardless if someone posts a link...
I guess my point is that no one needs to prove anything to anyone...
There is enough information out there for anyone to do their own research and make up their own mind...
I am not sure about the exact date of the "Taliban Founding Convention", but I believe that the Taliban part of a fluid and continuing expression of a nationalist fundamentalist movement that resisted the Russians' domination (and home grown secularists and progressives) and was trained and financed by us at that time. Unfortunately, they were not as grateful as expected.
I hope I am not blurring the lines between ethnic and political groups too much, but I think I am basically correct in linking the mujahideen and other similar movements to the Taliban as nationalist and theocratic. Although they may be divided in some ways, they are tribalists who share an independent spirit towards outsiders who try to dominate them.
We should stay away. We have no business there and we don't know what we are doing.
Joe
The Taliban stemmed from Pakistan, they were not Afghan nationalists. The accusation that the US 'created' the Taliban is painting recent Afghan history with far too broad a brush. At best, as far as US culpability, the rise of the Taliban was a result of the butterfly effect of having successfully brought down the left-wing government in Kabul. Butterfly effect and nothing more.
Taliban was originally a creation of the Pakistani secret service ISI. They were essentially students out of religious schools (Madrassas) in Pakistan (Talib - means student, I think). The Pakistani calculation was that having a 'friendly' government in Afghanistan would give them the 'strategic depth' on their western border, also allowing them to focus on the eastern front - against India. It would also give them enormous leverage in their dealing with the U.S. - American oil companies have long been after the oil and gas in the Central Asian republics, and a pipeline has to pass through Afghanistan and Pakistan (unless you make friends with the Iranians). Apparently the Taliban 'representatives' visited the U.S., perhaps as late as the year 2000, in connection with the pipeline negotiations. Now that the Taliban are officially cut loose (but some journalists think the ISI-links have not been severed fully, and the Pakistani elected government cannot really do much about the ISI - it's a power unto its own), once again Pakistan plays the India-card whenever it gets blamed for what happens on the Afghan border by threatening to move its troops out of there. It appears that even Obama has walked into their trap - he and some others have talked about 'resolving' the Kashmir conflict first, so that Pakistan can put more of its troops on the Afghan border. Indians are not pleased - despite the public euphoria over Obama's election, they, like most nations, do not want external meddling in their problems. It's this kind of simplistic thinking - what might have appeared as a grand scheme to the neocons - that produced the mess in Iraq. Not sure if any lessons have been learned, and also not sure if the Afghan 'mission' is entirely unrelated to this proposed pipeline. Of course, the Taliban have demonstrated that they are second to none when it comes to barbaric actions within their country - so it's a tough situation. Rushing to invade Iraq can NEVER be justified, whichever way you look at it - of course, it was based on some calculation that went horribly wrong.
Highintel: Can we do better?
What history books have you been reading? "My Pet Goat"?
-----------------------------------------
Remember the butchery in Gaza by the IDF.
We should apologize to all those places and more. Right now I would start with Iran, since that is where we have been concentrating our latest campaign of demonization. Some are trying to lay the propaganda groundwork for military escalation or tightened "blockade". An apology would be comforting to the Iranian people, if they believed it.
Joe
Do we really want to go down that road? Once we start apologizing, we'd have to apologize to the Native Americans, the descendants of the black slaves, etc. For being the land of the free and home of the brave we sure have a lot of apologizing to do.
I want to go down that road... Sure beats the one we are on now...
Don't look now!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm
Russia-Iran nuclear deal signed
Russia and Iran have signed an agreement for Moscow to supply fuel to Iran's new nuclear reactor in Bushehr.
Under the deal Iran has to return spent nuclear fuel rods from the reactor, which was designed and built by Russia.
The clause is a safeguard meant to banish fears that Iran might misuse the rods to build nuclear weapons, a concern of the US, Israel and others.
The agreement sets out a time-frame for delivery of the fuel, but officials said the dates would be kept secret.
The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says the deal is significant because Bushehr will be Iran's first reactor to go on stream - a project that has become an issue of national prestige in the face of intense US opposition.
The signing, which had been expected on Saturday, was apparently delayed over disagreements about when the spent fuel should be returned.
Russia had been insisting that no spent fuel should be diverted for the manufacture of weapons.
Iran has repeatedly said its nuclear programme is solely for the generation of power...........
But I could be wrong !
Deepa
US should also apolozise to Iran for its overt and covert support to terrorist organisations against Iran.
US has a long record of supporting terrorist organizations to further its perceived strategic interests. After the downfall of the US supported dictator Shah of Iran, containing the influence of Iran in West Asia has become a major US foreign policy objective. In order to achieve this goal, the US is making use of several terrorist organizations to carry out covert attacks inside Iran.
In April of 2007 the ABC News journalists Brian Ross and Christopher Isham reported that the US was funding a terrorist group Jundullah or Allah’s Brigade to carry out strikes inside Iran. According to them, its leader Abdul Malik Regi, a former Taliban member, was alleged to be involved in large-scale narcotics trafficking through Iranian exiles with connections in West Asia and Europe.
The Report of the United Nation’s Office on Drugs and Crime points to the interlink between drug trafficking and terrorism. The CIA’s role in the expansion of opium cultivation in Afghanistan may be found in the book “Whiteout, the CIA, Drugs and the Press” by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn. Opium production has skyrocketed since the US occupied the country by toppling the Taliban regime in 2001. Opium cultivation steadily increased: 30,750 hectares of poppy in 2002, 61,000 hectares in 2003, 104,000 hectares in 2005, 165,000 hectares in 2006, and 193, 000 hectares in 2007 compared with 7,606 in 2001 under the ousted Taliban rule.
While the Bush administration repeatedly claims that it is committed to curbing the Afghan drug trade, statistics prove that the US occupation has served to restore rather than eradicate the drug trade. Afghanistan now supplies about 92 percent of the world’s illicit opium. Opium trade has a good market in US and Europe. Over 95 percent of the revenues generated by this lucrative contraband accrues to business syndicates, organized crime and banking and financial institutions. The benefit of drug trade to US and Europe is twofold: their banking and financial institutions receive billions of dollars annually; and by supporting poppy cultivation and drug trade they get the loyalty of terrorist organizations without much expenditure to buy that loyalty.
In February of 2007 Jundullah set off a bomb in the Iranian city Zahedan which killed at least eleven members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Iranian state television showed the confession of an alleged perpetrator, Nasrollah Shamsi Zehi, that he was trained at a secret camp in Pakistan.
Media reports suggest that the US is also supporting another extremist organization, Mujahideen-e-Khalq, for attacks against Iran. This organization was involved in the 1991 anti-Shia massacres in Iraq. It was designated as a global terrorist organization in 1997. Another terrorist organization that the US is using to carry out attacks against Iran is a Kurdish terrorist group, Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistane, or Party of Free Life of Kurdistan.
Ya know, I've always wondered something. Everyone always speaks of 1953 coup against Mossadeq like it was the crime of the century. Little do these people know that Russia has a MUCH greater history of meddling in Iran's affairs, even going so far as coveting the north of the country for themselves. So why the, do Iran and Russia have such good relations, without a russian apology?
Could it be that Ahmadinejad wants a political victory? An apology from the President of the United States would be the PERFECT vindication for the Islamist revolution that brought the Mullah's into power. And Ahmadinejad is 'old guard' when it comes to that very revolution. Think people, think!
Russia has a MUCH greater history of meddling in Iran's affairs,-- well I would hope so, Russia is only a few miles from Iran. Powerful countries most always meddle more with nearby neighbors than those on the other side of the globe. Look at the US and latin america, endless meddling, but get serious a minute, when one nation destroys democracy in another nation, that's pretty major, and we were the ones responsible, not Russia.
Why then was the Soviet embassy not stormed during the Iranian Revolution as the American one was?
Are you using drugs or does your brain sometimes skip a gear?
I asked a direct question, all knowing one. You should be capable of providing an answer. Or else at least concede that Iran's current regime is anti-western and not nationalist.
Could it be that Russia is secular, an exporter of oil and gas and sees an opportunity in selling fuel for their (Iran's) nuclear energy industry?
You give Ahmadinejad way too much credit; but, based on some of your other posts, why let a few facts get in the way of a perfectly good argument?
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge....
My original point still stands. We are secular as well, and we too would benefit from doing business with Tehren. The point is,
Russia has meddled with Iran FAR more than the US ever did.
No Iranian head of state has demanded a Russian President apologize.(to my knowledge)
The Soviet Embassy was NOT overrun during the Iranian Revolution as the US's was, even though Russia had meddled far more.
Based on this, all one can conclude that Iran isn't being objective, and is being anti-Western.
The US, political elites anyway, would much rather apologize to China and Israel than to Iran. As for the people, well, we're gonna have to snap them out of their false knowledge over time before they'll even think about it.
Who is "Us"? Does it also include Britain? How many here know that the idea for the coup originated in Britain, who convinced the Americans about the necessity of getting rid of Mossadeq? This is yet another of those cases where the USA gets all the blame, and the role of the British (and sometimes the French) is conveniently (for them) forgotten. Here is an extract from Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World - by Mark Curtiss, a British historian and journalist (for anyone who likes to get a broader perspective on history, this book is a must-read! Check out the link for a fuller account - I am only copy/pasting portions here):
The CIA is conventionally regarded as the prime mover behind the 1953 coup. Yet the declassified British files show not only that Britain was the major instigator but also that British resources contributed significantly to it. Churchill once told the CIA agent responsible for the operation that he “would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture”.
Prelude to covert action
In the early 1950s the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) - later renamed British Petroleum - which was managed from London and owned by the British government and British private citizens, controlled Iran’s main source of income: oil. According to one British official, the AIOC “has become in effect an imperium in imperio in Persia”. The AIOC was recognised as “a great foreign organisation controlling Persia’s economic life and destiny”.
Iranian nationalists objected to the fact that the AIOC’s revenues from Iranian oil were greater than the Iranian government’s, with profits amounting to £170 million in 1950 alone. The Iranian government was being paid royalties of 10-12 per cent of the company’s net proceeds, while the British government received as much as 30 per cent of these in taxes alone.
....
But Musaddiq overstepped the mark, as far as Britain was concerned, in nationalising oil operations in May 1951. The following month the Attlee Labour government began plans to overthrow him, dispatching to Iran an Oxford lecturer provided with considerable sums of money.
In the dispute that followed, Musaddiq offered to compensate the AIOC but Britain demanded either a new oil concession or a settlement that would include compensation for loss of future profits. “In other words”, according to Iran scholar Homa Katouzian, “the Iranians would have had either to give up the spirit of the nationalisation or to compensate the AIOC not just for its investment but for all the oil which it would have produced in the next 40 years”.
Iran’s nationalisation and offer of compensation were perfectly legitimate in international law, but this was irrelevant to British planners. Britain did “not consider that a deal on acceptable terms can ever be made with” Musaddiq. Instead, the Foreign Office noted that “there is hope of a change which would bring moderate elements into control”.
The first step taken to remove the threat of independent development was stopping the production and export of oil, which deprived Iran of its main source of income until the 1953 coup. This was done in the knowledge that “the effect might be to bankrupt Persia thus possibly leading to revolution”. Other, mainly US, oil companies leant their support by refusing to handle Iranian oil, to prevent other oil-exporting countries learning a “bad” lesson from Iran’s example.
The second step was to begin covert planning. “It has been our objective for some time to get Sayyid Zia appointed Prime Minister”, the Foreign Office noted in September 195l. Zia had “no popular support” and his appointment “was likely to provoke a strong public reaction”, according to Iranian academic Fakhreddin Azimi. But to the Foreign Office Zia was “the one man who would be able and anxious to get a reasonable oil settlement with us” and promote Iran’s “future stability”.
A third option was direct military intervention, especially military occupation of the area around Abadan, the world’s largest oil refinery and centre of AIOC’s operations. According to the Foreign Secretary, this: “would demonstrate once and for all to the Persians British determination not to allow the…AIOC to be evicted from Persia and might well result in the downfall of the Mussadiq regime and its replacement by more reasonable elements prepared to negotiate a settlement…it might be expected to produce a salutary effect throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, as evidence that United Kingdom interests could not be recklessly molested with impunity”.
Plans were laid for war against Iran. But in the end the option was viewed by the Foreign Office as “quite impracticable” because it was believed that Iran would be able to resist the comparatively small number of troops that Britain could deploy. The US was also opposed to the British use of force, and President Truman sent a personal message to this effect to Attlee. Both the British Foreign Secretary and the Defence Minister favoured the use of military force to seize the oil installations. The option of military intervention was kept open until September 1951, when London finally decided to evacuate British personnel, and continue covert action, instead.
After winning the general election the following month, Churchill berated his predecessors “who had scuttled and run from Abadan when a splutter of musketry would have ended the matter”. “If we had fired the volley you were responsible for at Ismaila at Abadan” Churchill explained to his Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, “none of these difficulties …would have occurred”. (The reference was to the British action at Ismaila, Egypt in January 1952. After Egyptian rebels assaulted a British military base, British soldiers occupied the town, surrounded the police headquarters, and proceeded to engage in a turkey shoot, killing fifty people and wounding a hundred before the surrender.)
...continued below
...continued from above
Preference for a dictator
Britain’s aim was to install “a more reasonable government”, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden explained. “Our policy”, a British official later recalled, “was to get rid of Mossadeq as soon as possible”. An adviser at the British embassy, Colonel Wheeler, explained that “a change of government could almost certainly be effected without difficulty or disturbance”. So by November, a Foreign Office official could report that the “unofficial efforts to undermine Dr Mussadiq are making good progress”.
After the failure of the oil negotiations, the main British negotiator advised the Shah that the “only solution” was “a strong government under martial law and the bad boys in prison for two years or so”. Britain’s ambassador in Tehran agreed, noting that “if only the Shah can be induced to take a strong line there is a good chance that Musaddiq may be got rid of”. The new government should then “take drastic action against individual extremists”.
With 1952 came Britain’s preference for “a non-communist coup d’etat preferably in the name of the Shah”. It was clearly understood by the British embassy in Tehran that “this would mean an authoritarian regime”.
British planners had no illusions about the Shah. They noted that “the chief complaint of his political critics [is] that he wishes to monopolise power for himself”. Neither did he “sufficiently check the members of his family and their entourage from interference in politics and their profitable incursions into business”.
As with the secret planning in Indonesia in 1965, Britain supported the establishment of a strong-arm dictatorship in the face of popular, nationalist alternatives. A coup could be successful, planners noted, “provided always a strong man can be found equal to the task”. This “strong man” would “rule in the name of the Shah”. The files show that the ambassador in Tehran preferred “a dictator”, who “would carry out the necessary administrative and economic reforms and settle the oil question on reasonable terms”.
...In October 1952, the Iranian government closed down the British embassy, claiming - correctly - that certain intrigues were taking place there, and thus removing the cover for British covert activities. An MI6 and Foreign Office team met with the CIA in November and proposed the joint overthrow of the Iranian government based on Britain’s well-laid plans. British agents in Iran had been provided with a radio transmitter to maintain contact with MI6, while the head of the MI6 operation put the CIA in touch with other useful allies in the country.
British pay-offs had already secured the cooperation of senior officers of the army and police, deputies and senators, mullahs, merchants, newspaper editors and elder statesmen, as well as mob leaders. “These forces”, explained the MI6 agent in charge of the British end of the operation, “were to seize control of Tehran, preferably with the support of the Shah but if necessary without it, and to arrest Musaddiq and his ministers”.
On 3 February 1953 a British delegation met the CIA director and the US Secretary of State while the head of the CIA’s operation, Kermit Roosevelt, was dispatched to Iran to investigate the situation. On 18 March “the CIA was ready to discuss tactics in detail with us for the overthrow of Musaddiq” and it was formally agreed in April that General Zahidi was the acceptable candidate to replace him. By then, British and US agents were also involved in plans to kidnap key officials and political personalities. In one incident the Chief of Police was abducted, tortured and murdered.
The final go-ahead for the coup was given by the US in late June. Britain had by then already presented a “complete plan” to the CIA. Churchill’s authorisation soon followed and the date was set for mid-August. That month, Kermit Roosevelt met the Shah, the CIA director visited some members of the Shah’s family in Switzerland, and a US army general arrived in Tehran to meet the Shah and General Zahidi.
The signal for the coup scenario to begin had been arranged with the BBC; the latter agreed to begin its Persian language news broadcast not with the usual “it is now midnight in London”, but instead with “it is now exactly midnight”. On hearing these broadcasts the Shah fled the country and signed two blank decrees to be filled in at the right time, one dismissing Musaddiq, the other appointing Zahedi as prime minister.
...
In their secret planning, the British deliberately played up the communist threat scenario to the Americans to persuade them to help overthrow Musaddiq. One file notes that, in proposing the overthrow of Musaddiq to the Americans, “we could say that, although we naturally wish to reach an oil settlement eventually, we appreciate that the first and most important objective is to prevent Persia going communist”. The MI6 agent believed “the Americans would be more likely to work with us if they saw the problem as one of containing communism rather than restoring the position of the AIOC”.
“I owe my throne to God, my people, my army - and to you”, the Shah told the head of the CIA operation responsible for installing him; by “you” he meant the US and Britain.
Now that a “dictator” had been installed in line with Foreign Office wishes, stability could be restored, initially under the favoured candidate prime minister, General Zahidi. An agreement the following year established a new oil consortium that controlled the production, pricing and export of Iranian oil. This provided Britain and the US with a 40 per cent interest each. Indeed, the 40 per cent figure for the US was the price Britain secretly (and grudgingly) agreed to pay the US in exchange for US help in overthrowing Musaddiq.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Oakknot
Sir:
Your facts are impeccable, and I am reminded by your argument of one useful thing I learned both in the Army and from the Pagans: Take Responsibility for Your Actions. By our apolgizing for what OUR CIA did in Their Country, the U.S. takes responsbility for what It has done. Bugger the Brits, let them sort out their resposibilty; we have out own mess of karma to work out in this world
Namaste
Sioux Rose, I've been catching up on history by reading books with an alternative take on history, and I have to say, it's fascinating. I have to wonder, if it's also making me paranoid - for example, I can never watch news on MSM and take things at face value anymore :)
Oakknot, I completely agree with your point: "Take Responsibility for Your Actions". It's absolutely important. The reason I posted this part of history was only to put things in perspective. For all its macho behavior and violent past, I think the US got into serious imperial business around this time - perhaps even starting with the Iranian coup. Even after that, when the British and the French wanted to attack Egypt for taking control of the Suez Canal in 1956, President Eisenhower clearly put his foot down and said no. They then had to take the help of Israel to initiate the attack. There's so much in the book I referred to above. For example, an entire island (Diego Garcia) was "vacated" by the British, with their traditional inhabitants thrown out, and handed over to the U.S. for its military base. Fast forward to this millennium, Britain was a major part of the "coalition of the willing" - of course, they are almost completely out of Iraq by now - but they've earned their brownie points that can be cashed anytime, and the US gets all the blame. Same with the Israel/Palestine situation. So may be it's also time to review some 'traditional' friendships as well as 'enemies' - such as Cuba, Venezuela, etc. History is always a useful tool in moving forward.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Sioux Rose
ALCYON: Thank you for providing such a detailed chronology of events. I never learned any of THAT in school! And I have to admit, my reading of "extra-curricular" history has been limited. I appreciate (as I'm sure others do) your taking the time to share this data.