CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

Octoldit

Gold Member
Sep 8, 2008
1,003
176
130
Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq

Mohammed-Mosaddeq-008.jpg

Mohammed Mosaddeq is described in one US document as 'mercurial, maddening, adroit, and provocative'. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis


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.

Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.

British documents show how senior officials in the 1970s tried to stop Washington from releasing documents that would be "very embarrassing" to the UK.

Official papers in the UK remain secret, even though accounts of Britain's role in the coup are widespread. In 2009 the former foreign secretary Jack Straw publicly referred to many British "interferences" in 20th-century Iranian affairs. On Monday the Foreign Office said it could neither confirm nor deny Britain's involvement in the coup.

The previously classified US documents include telegrams from Kermit Roosevelt, the senior CIA officer on the ground in Iran during the coup. Others, including a draft in-house CIA history by Scott Kock titled Zendebad, Shah! (Viva, Shah!), say that according to Monty Woodhouse, MI6's station chief in Tehran at the time, Britain needed US support for a coup. Eden agreed. "Woodhouse took his words as tantamount to permission to pursue the idea" with the US, Kock wrote.

Advertisement
Mosaddeq's overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American politicians, consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west's oil interests in the country.

The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".

One document describes Mosaddeq as one of the "most mercurial, maddening, adroit and provocative leaders with whom they [the US and Britain] had ever dealt". The document says Mosaddeq "found the British evil, not incomprehensible" and "he and millions of Iranians believed that for centuries Britain had manipulated their country for British ends". Another document refers to conducting a "war of nerves" against Mossadeq.

The Iranian-Armenian historian Ervand Abrahamian, author of The Coup: 1953, the CIA and the Roots of Modern US-Iranian Relations, said in a recent interview that the coup was designed "to get rid of a nationalist figure who insisted that oil should be nationalised".

Unlike other nationalist leaders, including Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Mosaddeq epitomised a unique "anti-colonial" figure who was also committed to democratic values and human rights, Abrahamian argued.

Some analysts argue that Mosaddeq failed to compromise with the west and the coup took place against the backdrop of communism fears in Iran. "My study of the documents proves to me that there was never really a fair compromise offered to Mosaddeq, what they wanted Mosaddeq to do is to give up oil nationalisation and if he'd given that of course then the national movement would have been meaningless," he told the Iranian online publication, Tableau magazine.

Advertisement
"My argument is that there was never really a realistic threat of communism … discourse and the way justifying any act was to talk about communist danger, so it was something used for the public, especially the American and the British public."

Despite the latest releases, a significant number of documents about the coup remain secret. Malcolm Byrne, deputy director of the national security archive, has called on the US intelligence authorities to release the remaining records and documents.

"There is no longer good reason to keep secrets about such a critical episode in our recent past. The basic facts are widely known to every school child in Iran," he said. "Suppressing the details only distorts the history, and feeds into myth-making on all sides."

In recent years Iranian politicians have sought to compare the dispute over the country's nuclear activities to that of the oil nationalisation under Mosaddeq: supporters of the former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often invoke the coup.

US officials have previously expressed regret about the coup but have fallen short of issuing an official apology. The British government has never acknowledged its role.

Source: CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup
LINK: octoldit.info
 
[SARCASM]Get this crazy-ass conspiracy theorist nonsense out of the History forum! :talktothehand: [/SARCASM]
 
And the Iranians should thank us profusely for rescuing them from the Tudeh, Stalin's gangsters who would have dominated if that clueless Mossadegh had won. The Shah was a pussycat compared to the usual Communist dictatorship, and especially compared to the current batshit crazies in charge now for that matter.
 
And the Iranians should thank us profusely for rescuing them from the Tudeh, Stalin's gangsters who would have dominated if that clueless Mossadegh had won. The Shah was a pussycat compared to the usual Communist dictatorship, and especially compared to the current batshit crazies in charge now for that matter.
Yeah, just like the western black operations of more recent decades (not least of which those that are currently underway in the resource-rich Middle East), it was all about protecting the hapless locals from themselves! I'm sure it had nothing to do with Mossadeq's efforts to audit the books of the AIOC (better known today as BP) and to significantly hamper western access to Iranian oil reserves! :rolleyes:
 
That's right, Gang! It's NEVER about the oil or other resources; it's always about spreading our 'democratic values' to those backward barbarians overseas (never mind if that occasionally entails propping up the odd monarchy or dictatorship over democratically elected leaders) !!!
 
Yes, I didn't think you actually knew anything about geopolitics or Iran, and were just parroting gibberish you read somewhere.
 
And the Iranians should thank us profusely for rescuing them from the Tudeh, Stalin's gangsters who would have dominated if that clueless Mossadegh had won. The Shah was a pussycat compared to the usual Communist dictatorship, and especially compared to the current batshit crazies in charge now for that matter.

It was about oil, stealing oil.
 
And the Iranians should thank us profusely for rescuing them from the Tudeh, Stalin's gangsters who would have dominated if that clueless Mossadegh had won. The Shah was a pussycat compared to the usual Communist dictatorship, and especially compared to the current batshit crazies in charge now for that matter.

It was about oil, stealing oil.

Actually it about the Soviets, and before them the Tsars; that game was going on long before oil was valuable, and it will go on after the oil is gone. But I do understand propagandists aren't really concerned with realities or even objectivity, so continue on with the usual conspiratard fantasies, like pretending the Soviets and the Tudeh were just noble populist humanitarians whose only concerns were the freedoms and well being of the Iranian people n stuff, or whatever other idiocy rings their bells. I'm sure the Tudeh would have been selfless in their disposition of the money from the oil they sold, right?

We understand why the conspiratards intentionally avoid context and pointing out the alternatives; reality isn't much fun for propagandists and assorted sociopaths spreading delusional BS.
 
And the Iranians should thank us profusely for rescuing them from the Tudeh, Stalin's gangsters who would have dominated if that clueless Mossadegh had won. The Shah was a pussycat compared to the usual Communist dictatorship, and especially compared to the current batshit crazies in charge now for that matter.

It was about oil, stealing oil.
What, Penelope, you don't buy Picaro's view that the UK/US players carried out the coup out of the goodness of their hearts?! You know, to save the Iranian People from the evils of undue foreign influence...from the likes of "Stalin's gangsters", that is?! :doubt:

Obviously, you know nothing about geopolitics, Young Lady! o_O
 
Last edited:
And the Iranians should thank us profusely for rescuing them from the Tudeh, Stalin's gangsters who would have dominated if that clueless Mossadegh had won. The Shah was a pussycat compared to the usual Communist dictatorship, and especially compared to the current batshit crazies in charge now for that matter.

It was about oil, stealing oil.

Actually it about the Soviets, and before them the Tsars; that game was going on long before oil was valuable, and it will go on after the oil is gone. But I do understand propagandists aren't really concerned with realities or even objectivity, so continue on with the usual conspiratard fantasies, like pretending the Soviets and the Tudeh were just noble populist humanitarians whose only concerns were the freedoms and well being of the Iranian people n stuff, or whatever other idiocy rings their bells. I'm sure the Tudeh would have been selfless in their disposition of the money from the oil they sold, right?
"the Soviets and the Tudeh were just noble populist humanitarians whose only concerns were the freedoms and well being of the Iranian people"

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

Mohammed-Mosaddeq-008.jpg

Mohammed Mosaddeq is described in one US document as 'mercurial, maddening, adroit, and provocative'. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis


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.

Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.

British documents show how senior officials in the 1970s tried to stop Washington from releasing documents that would be "very embarrassing" to the UK.

Official papers in the UK remain secret, even though accounts of Britain's role in the coup are widespread. In 2009 the former foreign secretary Jack Straw publicly referred to many British "interferences" in 20th-century Iranian affairs. On Monday the Foreign Office said it could neither confirm nor deny Britain's involvement in the coup.

The previously classified US documents include telegrams from Kermit Roosevelt, the senior CIA officer on the ground in Iran during the coup. Others, including a draft in-house CIA history by Scott Kock titled Zendebad, Shah! (Viva, Shah!), say that according to Monty Woodhouse, MI6's station chief in Tehran at the time, Britain needed US support for a coup. Eden agreed. "Woodhouse took his words as tantamount to permission to pursue the idea" with the US, Kock wrote.

Advertisement
Mosaddeq's overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American politicians, consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west's oil interests in the country.

The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".

One document describes Mosaddeq as one of the "most mercurial, maddening, adroit and provocative leaders with whom they [the US and Britain] had ever dealt". The document says Mosaddeq "found the British evil, not incomprehensible" and "he and millions of Iranians believed that for centuries Britain had manipulated their country for British ends". Another document refers to conducting a "war of nerves" against Mossadeq.

The Iranian-Armenian historian Ervand Abrahamian, author of The Coup: 1953, the CIA and the Roots of Modern US-Iranian Relations, said in a recent interview that the coup was designed "to get rid of a nationalist figure who insisted that oil should be nationalised".

Unlike other nationalist leaders, including Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Mosaddeq epitomised a unique "anti-colonial" figure who was also committed to democratic values and human rights, Abrahamian argued.

Some analysts argue that Mosaddeq failed to compromise with the west and the coup took place against the backdrop of communism fears in Iran. "My study of the documents proves to me that there was never really a fair compromise offered to Mosaddeq, what they wanted Mosaddeq to do is to give up oil nationalisation and if he'd given that of course then the national movement would have been meaningless," he told the Iranian online publication, Tableau magazine.

Advertisement
"My argument is that there was never really a realistic threat of communism … discourse and the way justifying any act was to talk about communist danger, so it was something used for the public, especially the American and the British public."

Despite the latest releases, a significant number of documents about the coup remain secret. Malcolm Byrne, deputy director of the national security archive, has called on the US intelligence authorities to release the remaining records and documents.

"There is no longer good reason to keep secrets about such a critical episode in our recent past. The basic facts are widely known to every school child in Iran," he said. "Suppressing the details only distorts the history, and feeds into myth-making on all sides."

In recent years Iranian politicians have sought to compare the dispute over the country's nuclear activities to that of the oil nationalisation under Mosaddeq: supporters of the former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often invoke the coup.

US officials have previously expressed regret about the coup but have fallen short of issuing an official apology. The British government has never acknowledged its role.

Source: CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup
LINK: octoldit.info
We will file that with Obama assisting with the overthrowing of the sovereign governments of Libya, Syria, Egypt.
 
And the Iranians should thank us profusely for rescuing them from the Tudeh, Stalin's gangsters who would have dominated if that clueless Mossadegh had won. The Shah was a pussycat compared to the usual Communist dictatorship, and especially compared to the current batshit crazies in charge now for that matter.

It was about oil, stealing oil.
What, Penelope, you don't buy Picaro's view that the UK/US players carried out the coup out of the goodness of their hearts?! You know, to save the Iranian People from the evils of undue foreign influence...from likes of "Stalin's gangsters", that is?! :doubt:

Obviously, you know nothing about geopolitics, Young Lady! o_O


How many Iranians or Arabs do you know who have turned down money from oil companies, exactly? The answer is ' none', actually, so you still have nothing but some simplistic juvenile sniveling. And of course you avoid discussing what life is like in the Soviet satellites, because you know you're full of shit.
 
Last edited:
And the Iranians should thank us profusely for rescuing them from the Tudeh, Stalin's gangsters who would have dominated if that clueless Mossadegh had won. The Shah was a pussycat compared to the usual Communist dictatorship, and especially compared to the current batshit crazies in charge now for that matter.

It was about oil, stealing oil.
What, Penelope, you don't buy Picaro's view that the UK/US players carried out the coup out of the goodness of their hearts?! You know, to save the Iranian People from the evils of undue foreign influence...from the likes of "Stalin's gangsters", that is?! :doubt:

Obviously, you know nothing about geopolitics, Young Lady! o_O

Have any evidence you're some sort of moral authority and hence have some ability to discern what everyones' motives are? Any evidence you're not just a hypocrite, and have never done a thing in your entire life but whine?
 
No one remembers the 1973 oil wars? or of the 70's. Of course the communism influence was a main concern of the US, we had communists in the US at that time as well. The British main concern was the oil, and being a British alley with a concern for communism spreading we did a coup and put the Shah in. The Yom Kipper war in Israel (73?)caused many Arab countries to quit selling oil as the US was ally to Israel and helping Israel.
Also the Shah had already made known he was not going to renew the deal made with the British which was due to expire either 20 or 25 years from 1954 when he was put in. Also the communist was still active in Iran from what I have read, and what better way to get rid of the communist than by a theocratic government.

I believe we did the coup in 1979 as well to get rid of the Shah and stop communism spread.

If you don't remember the lines in the 70's , only so much could be bought and then you had to go only on certain days, and there were shootings with the truck drivers and all over. So good by gold standard (Nixon) and deal made with Saudi Arabia, they would only take US dollars for oil. Relationships come and go. This is my take on it from what I remember from reading. Nixon also begun the HFCS, bad for us , but cheaper than sugar cane.

I believe all oil in a country should belong to that gov and the people of the land and drilling should be bid out. Our natural resources should not belong to corporations.
 
The oil embargoes of the 1970's hurt the Soviets far worse than it did the West, actually; they imported a lot of refined petroleum products despite having all those oil reserves of their own; they were generally incompetent. the Israeli victories in '67 and '73 also hurt the Soviets' credibility with their client states in the ME as well as Africa. The Brezhnev Doctrine was in bankruptcy by 1973, thanks in no small part to their expenditures in Viet Nam, and after 1973 they became dependent on foreign petroleum product imports and also massive food shipments from the West. Of course the right wingers like to pretend Saint Ronald bankrupted them, but that's bullshit; Johnson/Nixon did that.
 
I guess the statute of limitations on corruption and incompetence expired. If the truth be freaking known the CIA hasn't been on top of anything since freaking WW2. In case we need to be reminded, CIA stands for central intelligence agency. It means they are in the freaking notional intelligence business. That's why taxpayers shell out their hard earned dollars to fund a freaking secret budget. The budget seems to be the best kept secret because it looks like there are no more secrets left in the world thanks to a bunch of traitors that the CIA was also clueless about. The CIA was clueless about NK's invasion of South Korea, the Berlin Wall and of course the most notorious example of intelligence failure and negligence, 9-11. The JFK administration used the CIA as the administration's little private army when they recruited , trained, equipped and transported the Cuban invasion army to the Bay of Pigs, Cuba and then abandoned the poor souls. Lee Oswald worked in the U=2 military surveillance program in Japan and defected to Russia. A couple of months later a U-2 plane was shot down. Coincidence? It doesn't really matter because the CIA apparently welcomed Oswald back to the U.S. with no hard feelings. It's no secret that LBJ's CIA was in charge in Vietnam. We won every battle and lost the freaking war and now we are back in the corrupt LBJ-2 administration where the CIA is calling the shots in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of the Mid-East. How is it going guys?
 
Last edited:
Picaro said:
How many Iranians or Arabs do you know who have turned down money from oil companies, exactly?...
As far as Mosadeq's National Front was concerned, it wasn't about the money; it was about opposing the existing Western domination and control of Iran's natural resources, the primary goal being to take back what had been stolen from the Iranian People in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in a series of unconscionable 'concessions' to British imperialists.
Picaro said:
...so you [...] have nothing but some simplistic juvenile sniveling. ...
As opposed to your simplistic geriatric finger-pointing? :dunno:

Case in point:
Picaro said:
...And of course you avoid discussing what life is like in the Soviet satellites, because you know you're full of shit.
I know this probably flies in the face of your personal credo, but two wrongs have never made a right.

I'm not out to justify the actions and goals of the other vulture that was picking at the bones of Iran's sovereignty alongside the British Buzzard.
Have any evidence you're some sort of moral authority and hence have some ability to discern what everyones' motives are?...
One needn't be a "moral authority" to denounce the actions of the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world. That's the singular beauty of Western Imperialism; it's objectively wrong on so many levels.
Picaro said:
...Any evidence you're not just a hypocrite, and have never done a thing in your entire life but whine?
None that I'm willing to divulge to some crusty old curmudgeon on an internet discussion board! Be sure to bear in mind the long revered logical precept, though: the lack of evidence for X isn't itself evidence of the lack of X. ;)
 
Ike was elected in 1953 when America's reaction to Truman's quagmire in Korea couldn't even guarantee the incumbent allegedly popular democrat (according to the liberal media) a 2nd full term without a contested primary challenge and Truman dropped out of the political arena. Was the CIA out of control way back then when America's focus was on the Korean war and had the agency become a virtual a shadow government dictating foreign policy independent of political sanctions as it apparently does today?
 

Forum List

Back
Top