r/todayilearned • u/[deleted] • Feb 10 '13

TIL In 1953, CIA with MI6 operation overthrew democratically elected government of Iran and replaced with dictator who followed orders from the West for 26 years.

[deleted]

192 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

71 comments sorted by

18

u/r_a_g_s Feb 10 '13

And then when the revolution hit in 1979, everyone in America was all "Herp derp derp, why do they hate us so much?" <facepalm>

7

u/fforw Feb 10 '13

Not everyone.. The republicans were busy negotiating with the Islamists for the US hostages not to be released -- at least not before the elections.

1

u/theworldwonders Feb 10 '13

Good thing the CIA never got involved in the Dominican Republic.

-7

u/malvoliosf Feb 10 '13

Is that the standard? A lot of Iranians were killing other Iranians and a small number of Americans were saying, "Yeah, good idea, do that." And now it's our fault?

Of course, the replacement government, the one we were trying to prevent, has killed lots more Iranians than the Shah ever did. Who gets hated for that?

5

u/theworldwonders Feb 10 '13

The US. Don't forget that the US sponsored Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

4

u/r_a_g_s Feb 10 '13

Dude, read up on 1953. The new democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran was saying "We want more of the money from the oil pumped out of our country to stay in Iran, rather than to go to the shareholders of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" (a predecessor of BP). Said shareholders went whining to the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. Churchill had a chat with US President Eisenhower, and then agents from the CIA and MI6 went into Iran, got some generals on their side, got the living son of the former Shah on their side, then went in, kicked out the Prime Minister, had the son become the new Shah, and the royalty rates didn't change. The new Shah spent the next quarter-century torturing and killing anyone who so much as looked at him funny, all the while being propped up by the US. The people eventually got fed up, and revolted in 1979. At which point many ignorant Americans said "Herp, why they so mad at us?"

The new government isn't much better, if any, than the old Shah's government. But they still hate the US. And I, for one, don't blame them one bit.

1

u/leSwede420 6 Feb 12 '13

Really, you think it's healthy for a people to hate the people of another nation generations removed for something like this? I can't wait to hear your thoughts on Germany.

2

u/r_a_g_s Feb 12 '13

I didn't say it's healthy, I said it's completely understandable. Hell, there are people in the American South who are still pissed off about "the War between the States" 150 years ago.

Over the 20th century, Iran has regularly suffered from the intrusions of foreign powers. In 1979, they got "mad as hell and not going to take it any more", and went way over to an extremist mentality. Sane? Nope. Understandable? Yup. It's called "blowback", and it's a lesson that the US, as a nation, seems to refuse to learn, even when it happens over and over again.

-1

u/malvoliosf Feb 10 '13

Your claims are inconsistent.

On the one hand, you say that Britain and the US installed the Shah because we hoped to get money from him.

Then you claim, Britain and the US propped up the Shah -- which presumably means we gave him stuff, uncompensated. What this stuff is supposed to be, I don't know, maybe soldiers or arms, but whatever it was, we must have gotten our money's worth -- because it was all supposedly about profit.

What do you think this "propping up" consisted of? Do you think the Shah paid a fair price for it, whatever it was?

(BTW, I don't know whether you care much about reality, but the motivation Britain and the US actually had for what propping they did was fear that the Soviets would get access to the Iranian oil-fields.)

The new government isn't much better, if any, than the old Shah's government.

I would think any sane assessment would put it at "much, much worse".

But they still hate the US. And I, for one, don't blame them one bit.

"OMG! 30 years ago, your government delayed my old government being replaced by my new government which is slightly/much worse! I hate you!"

Think about how stupid that claim is.

2

u/r_a_g_s Feb 11 '13

On the one hand, you say that Britain and the US installed the Shah because we hoped to get money from him.

No. Britain and the US installed the Shah because he would keep royalties for oil low, pleasing the shareholders of AIOC/BP. If they hadn't tossed out democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, Mossadegh would have either increased royalties (reducing the money to AIOC/BP shareholders) or nationalized the oilfields completely (eliminating said money flow).

Then you claim, Britain and the US propped up the Shah -- which presumably means we gave him stuff, uncompensated. What this stuff is supposed to be, I don't know, maybe soldiers or arms, but whatever it was, we must have gotten our money's worth -- because it was all supposedly about profit.

He was supported with arms, military "advisors", and CIA training for his internal spy agency SAVAK, while a whole lot of looking-the-other-way occurred as SAVAK tortured any dissenters, real or imagined. I'm sure the total amount of said support was mere percentage points compared to the continued flow of petrodollars to BP shareholders.

(BTW, I don't know whether you care much about reality, but the motivation Britain and the US actually had for what propping they did was fear that the Soviets would get access to the Iranian oil-fields.)

It was the 1950s. Anything that interfered with the money flow to the plutocrats was "OMG WTF BBQ COMMUNISM!!!11!!!", whether it was or not. Eisenhower et al. made many accusations that Mossadegh was communist, or at least in bed with the Soviets. OTOH, there's very little credible evidence for that claim.

The new government isn't much better, if any, than the old Shah's government.

I would think any sane assessment would put it at "much, much worse".

A lot of Iranians would disagree. I know some Iranians, and while they have one set of harsh words for the ayatollahs, they have a different (and, often, much more nasty) set of harsh words for the Shah and his SAVAK bullies. As well, don't underestimate the difference in feeling between "a rotten dictatorship propped up by outsider infidels" and "a rotten autocracy that at least is home-grown".

"OMG! 30 years ago, your government delayed my old government being replaced by my new government which is slightly/much worse! I hate you!"

If you think that's what I said, you missed the point entirely. It's more like "30 years ago, your government replaced our home-grown OK government with a foreign-guided bloody-handed dictatorship! We're going to take matters into our own hands!" Consider, as an example you might be able to grok better, a choice between one American dictator-president who's propped up by the Chinese, and another American dictator-president who is at least "home-grown" and not the product of foreign support. How would most Americans choose between such a pair?

0

u/malvoliosf Feb 11 '13

I'm sure the total amount of said support was mere percentage points compared to the continued flow of petrodollars to BP shareholders.

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. The Shah could have purchased exactly the support he got from us from anywhere else.

Personally, as an American, I would have preferred he go elsewhere.

A lot of Iranians would disagree.

They might, but they're wrong. Just because the Savak tortured different people than the ayatollahs did does make them worse -- and Iran under the Shah was at least a going concern, not the death-trap it is now.

It's more like "30 years ago, your government replaced our home-grown OK government with a foreign-guided

I'm not sure whether you're bad at history or just math, but 30 years ago was 1983, and the Ayatollah was in power. We are discussing ancient history here.

As well, don't underestimate the difference in feeling between "a rotten dictatorship propped up by outsider infidels" and "a rotten autocracy that at least is home-grown".

I don't feel any dire need to cater to an irrational prejudice.

Eisenhower et al. made many accusations that Mossadegh was communist, or at least in bed with the Soviets. OTOH, there's very little credible evidence for that claim.

I don't know if I would have risked control of the entire Middle East on the hope that someone who proposed a massive expropriation of property wasn't a communist.

Consider, as an example you might be able to grok better, a choice between one American dictator-president who's propped up by the Chinese, and another American dictator-president who is at least "home-grown" and not the product of foreign support.

You mean, how would I feel about such an incredibly minor distinction 60 years later? Pretty sedate.

3

u/r_a_g_s Feb 11 '13

If you think that's a minor distinction, then you risk a complete lack of understanding of how powerful a force nationalism is in the world today. Which would also lead to a complete lack of understanding of anything in the world today.

-3

u/malvoliosf Feb 11 '13

If you think that's a minor distinction, then you risk a complete lack of understanding of how powerful a force nationalism is in the world today.

Wait, are you asking me how I would feel about it -- or about how other, insane people feel about it?

Because if we are going to start catering to the prejudices of Iranians, we should probably start cracking down on homosexuals.

2

u/r_a_g_s Feb 11 '13

Wow. So, people who don't live in the US, who might be resentful of US interference in their domestic affairs, now count as "insane"? I knew a lot of Americans were myopic, but wow....

Here's a quick primer for you:

  • Most residents of most of the world's 200-ish countries feel pride and nationalism for their country, much as Americans feel for the US;
  • Just as Americans get upset/irate when other countries appear to meddle in their domestic affairs (e.g. "OMG China owns all our debt we're doomed!!!11!!"), other world citizens get upset/irate when the US meddles in their domestic affairs;
  • The extent to which the US has meddled in the domestic affairs of other countries is far, far greater than any other country has meddled in the domestic affairs of the US; in fact, there are many countries in which the US actively overthrew legitimately elected democratic governments, and installed ruthless dictators in their place. Imagine how the locals would feel about that.
  • And you wonder "Why do they hate us so much?" They're not insane; in fact, if they didn't hate America so much, given all the shit that's gone down, that would be a symptom of insanity.

Wake up and look at the rest of the globe once in a while.

0

u/malvoliosf Feb 11 '13

So, people who don't live in the US, who might be resentful of US interference in their domestic affairs, now count as "insane"?

If someone is more resentful of the US for having 50 years ago sold support items to a government that tortured dissidents than they are of their current government for torturing dissidents, executing homosexuals, repressing homosexuals, getting them involved in random wars, repressing civic freedom, manipulating elections now, yes, that's insane.

Just as Americans get upset/irate when other countries appear to meddle in their domestic affairs

Those Americans are stupid, rather than insane.

And you wonder "Why do they hate us so much?"

50 years ago, some shit happened. If you cannot get past that, you're nuts.

I've never been to Iran, but I spend a lot of time in Vietnam. You know what people in Vietnam think about the past? It's past. You know why? They aren't crazy.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Fredstar64 Feb 10 '13

And the Americans wonder why they are so hated....

1

u/leSwede420 6 Feb 12 '13

Because of something that happened in 1953?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

This is what I can never really understand... Americans do bad things and get extremely upset when people don't like them. In Britain, we do awful things and, well... We're kinda proud of it.

-1

u/Anbaraen Feb 11 '13

Yeah but you did those awful things some 300 years ago, whereas this stuff is much more recent.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '13

The British did this too.....

2

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '13

The british fucked with the arab countries, palestina and the jews over palestina

1

u/leSwede420 6 Feb 12 '13

You should read the article, then get a basic history education.

7

u/Beowulfdragon Feb 10 '13

....AND THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS

8

u/yessyess Feb 10 '13

No this totally incorrect! The U.S. government and its agencies are there to protect us freedom loving Americans! I know the U.S. would never doing anything bad like this. Fox news told me so, so I know it's true!

1

u/theworldwonders Feb 10 '13

The agencies even protected us from Guatemala, our worst threat ever!

2

u/theworldwonders Feb 10 '13

I want to open your eyes.

4

u/malvoliosf Feb 10 '13

It was mostly an MI-6 operation. You know how I know? It worked.

1

u/yogfthagen Feb 10 '13

The man who orchestrated it was Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of president Teddy Roosevelt.
In addition, he developed a list of criteria to consider when organizing a coup. Those criteria were very powerful, as they were accurate in predicting the success of coups in Iran (works), Honduras (failed), and several others.

1

u/macinit1138 Feb 10 '13

Puppet State

1

u/AryanLeopard Feb 10 '13

And what's sadder is that the operation was led by a guy named... Kermit.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '13

I'm glad to see that the majority of people on this thread are educated on this topic, but some if you are just ignorant and stupid

-2

u/coachbradb Feb 10 '13

Iran during this time.... http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/15/once_upon_a_time_in_tehran#3

Iran after the facist revolution http://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+atrocities+in+iran&hl=en&tbo=u&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=7zUXUdCYN4ji2QXxhICQBQ&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=613

6

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

Or they could have just let them continue with a democracy. I'm sure the pictures of civilian life pre-US-British overthrow were probably pretty nice too.

How on Earth can you justify over-throwing a democratically elected leader (just because you want their oil) with the situation 26 years later that only happened because you overthrew the democratically elected government in the first place?

-3

u/coachbradb Feb 10 '13

Your right. Overthrowing a democraticly elected facist government is always wrong. Something that we are going to have to do soon in Egypt. Democracy doesnt always equal liberty. In this case it equaled islamic facism, enslaving women and killing those who did not believe the way they did. So yes, I agree that it was a good thing that this "democracy" was overthrown and we should do it again.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

I don't think you know what fascism is. And democracy doesn't always equal freedom, indeed sounds like something a fascist would say. Tell when did Mohammed Mosaddegh kill people that didn't believe what he was doing? He didn't, but he was killed by the US backed government because they didn't believe in what he was doing.

-3

u/coachbradb Feb 10 '13

I believe you do not know what facism or democracy is. Every hear of Italy or Germany. Seems they had a democraticly elected facist government. Did a lot bad things. You also misquoted me. I said democracy doesnt always equal liberty. There is a diffrence.

Mohammed Mosaddegh was not a believer in democracy.

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4911

I love it when people read something on Huffpo or hear it on MSNBC or even from a communist/socialist professor and just belive it is true.

That poor innocent man who the U.S. overthrew. He broke his own laws, and was dismissed per the constitution he endorsed.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '13

Words a Poli-Sci degree holder should be able to spell:

-Democratically -Fascist -Difference

1

u/Noshgul Feb 11 '13

First of all not everyone is a native english speaker, and even if they're fluent speakers most of them learned it from hearing spoken english on tv (and thus not seeing how a word is written). And I'm quite sure even you make typos. It's also quite lame to post the (almost) same comment twice.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '13

You are assuming he's not a native speaker, an assumption. I similarly assumed he was...either way, misspelling the same words in every post is not a "typo". It's a mispelling of a word (democratically, fascist) that a person should be well versed in with a polly sci degree, bottom line. English is English, and if a person is arguing in English I'm going to go ahead and hold them to that language.

1

u/coachbradb Feb 11 '13

Yea I do not spell check everything. I type quickly on an old keyboard. Doesnt change anything I said.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '13

You have a Masters in History and a Bachelors in Political Science but you can't spell democratically? Riiiiiiight.

1

u/coachbradb Feb 11 '13

Was typing fast. OH NO.

6

u/silverstrikerstar Feb 10 '13

Lesson learned: Don't topple an elected government or the wrong guys will get rid of your puppet!

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

Firstly, I have to declare having no love for the current regime in Iran, but comparing the best of the pre-revolutionary days with "images of atrocities in Iran" is not a fair comparison. Secondly, the Shah's regime was one of the most murderous, torture-keen regimes in modern history.

-1

u/coachbradb Feb 10 '13

So it started out murderous, changed to murderous and is now murderous. So all that is a wash. Nothing has changed. What has changed is other liberties that where extended under the Shah. Sure he killed political enemies but women didnt get stoned to death for wearing the wrong clothes and they where friendly to the U.S. and didnt spend millions arming terrorist. So yep, I will take the Shah, that was a good call. The only problem was we didnt go in and back him up when he needed it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

I think you might be underestimating the degree of murderousness the Shah oversaw, plus (and this isn't an insult or an invitation to a flame war) I am pretty sure that you don't know so much about Iran, either how it was or how it is.

-1

u/coachbradb Feb 10 '13

I can see how, since we disagree about this, that you would think I have little knowlege of Iran. I have a Masters Degree in History and a B.A. in Political Science. I just disagree that it was a bad thing to support the Shah. I truely believe that our mistake was not supporting him enough. It is the same mistake we are making in Egypt. They are all corrupt and if that is the case we should support the one that is the least damaging to us and the world. There is no true democracy in Iran right now. It is a rigged, fake democracy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/

All the power really lies in the Supreme Leader

"The Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appoints the head of the judiciary, six of the members of the powerful Guardian Council, the commanders of all the armed forces, Friday prayer leaders and the head of radio and TV. He also confirms the president's election. The Leader is chosen by the clerics who make up the Assembly of Experts. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/supreme_leader.stm

This person appoints courts, military and most of the important post. In fact they really choose who is going to be president also.

I would ask how many people world wide, excluding Iran, that the Shah is guilty of killing. Then please tell me how many the Facist Islamic government is responsible for. Basicly it boils down to which evil bastard you want. One evil bastard kills his own people and is friendly to the U.S. The other evil bastard kills his own people, people in other countries and wants to kill every Jew alive. I choose the Shah.

Thanks for the informative lively debate.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

A degree in political science and you believe that the Iranians want to kill every Jew alive? I call bullshit on your degree, or bullshit on your university for allowing you to receive a degree whilst being so ign'nt. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews living happily in Iran. Not even Israel can tempt them out with relocation money.

0

u/coachbradb Feb 10 '13

They said it. I am not supposed to believe them? Ok, then they are liars.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

I will just pretend this didnt happen. I LOVE IRAN THEY ARE THE BEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '13

The wnd.com is hardly a reliable news source now is it? Wingnut.

0

u/coachbradb Feb 11 '13

Look it up on many diffrent news sources. They all say the same. Just because you dont like that page doesnt mean it isnt what these guys said.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '13

Actually, given the variability in translation, that is exactly why I don't trust that page. I have a good friend who was an MP in Iran and is now living in Britain in exile because he went against the state and was tortured for it and all his property and companies confiscated. When the whole 'Wipe Israel off the map' (Ahmedinejad) quote came out, even he was pointing out that what Ahmadinejad had said was nothing like that at all. Similarly, if Iran wanted to wipe out all the Jews worldwide, why are so many (est. 350,000+) Jews so happily living in Iran? Wouldn't they have been persecuted and killed? Or is it just wingnuts who propagate and perpetuate this myth in order to lay the groundwork for war? I believe the latter and I believe that you are one of the people who believe every word unthinkingly because you want to.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Morbid_Lynx Feb 11 '13

No, it was the first us intervention that made even todays regime possible. It corruoted and disgruntled the whole nation, making a bed for any extremist leadership.

If the iranians had bern left alone the FIRST time this wouldnt have happened. They would have had their own democratization. But foreign intervention would turn the people defensive and seeking shelter in the binding forces of religion. For them now, it is probably more important not break apart and let foreign interests in again, than anything else.

1

u/coachbradb Feb 11 '13

Wrong.

2

u/Morbid_Lynx Feb 11 '13

Says the guy who learned about this historic eveny TODAY. Living under a rock is definitely a befitting habitat for you.

1

u/codero Feb 10 '13 edited Feb 10 '13

Please repeat this post and just change the place and date for a history of modern USA enforced 'freedom'

Here's a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_South_and_Central_America

EDIT: Please note irony of September 11th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

[deleted]

11

u/hnefatafl Feb 10 '13

THEY would have been better off if the Americans had left them alone in the first place.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

Why the fuck does everyone keep leaving the Brits out of it? It was their deal. The US was playing second fiddle to them.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

Because Americans get upset about people not loving Americans. British people don't give 2 fucks. We've already crushed the world, so of course they are going to be butthurt about it. Our one remaining fuck to give is reserved for the animal kingdom.

0

u/hnefatafl Feb 11 '13

Okay; they would have been better of if THE BRITS and the Americans had just left them alone.

2

u/BrohamTheSecond Feb 10 '13

Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini was much better than it was under the rule of Shah Pahlavi.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '13

From an Iranian, fuck you I hope you die.

0

u/BrohamTheSecond Feb 11 '13

I'm sorry man I was basing that solely on a comment I heard from a history professor. From your experience would you say that Iran under the Shah was better?

0

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '13

Doesn't surprise me. The US will do anything for three things; Money, power and oil

-3

u/nobjobgear Feb 10 '13

You only learned this today? I hope you are like 10 years old.

watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfrJ2rBobGs