Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 1

A sentence was changed from
 * This was the first time the CIA had ever overthrown a democratically elected government.

to
 * This was the first time the CIA had orchestrated a plot to depose a head of government.

I disagree with parts of this change. There are two important points here. One is that the government was overthrown, not the head of government. (The Shah did not replace Mossadegh's position -- the Shah was a different position.) Secondly, the phrase "democratically elected" was removed. Both the original claim and the new claim are correct, but the first is more specific. I'm going to change the sentence for these reasons. If you disagree, please let me know. Quadell (talk) 18:12, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Nice summary btw. --GD 20:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I note that in the last paragraph that Kermit Roosevelt is also called Kim. I presuem they are the same person. Further the 'TP'preference is a CIA designation for the particular office that runs an operation. The system is usually ignored for purposes of alphabeitization. I would propose someone set up a redirect page from 'TPAJAX' to this page. I would do it myself but that I am on vacation and away from mymachine with all the neat macros. Paul in Saudi

The claims, made here, are historically disputed and not soberly analyzed.
It is not helpful to present the public time and again with a repetitive and over-simplistic portrayal of the events of 1953! While these narrations make good TABLOIDS, they are apt to distort and misinform Wikipedia readers. This is what I through into this debate, on the DISCUSSION reference to the article on Mohammad Mossaddeq:


 * The self-congratulatory claims of Messieurs Wilber and Kim Roosevelt, with respect to their roles in the events of 1953, which led to the ousting of Dr. Muhammad Mossaddeq from his position as Prime Minister, need to be viewed with due caution. Serious historical analyses have found contradictions, gross exaggerations and blunt lies in the portrayal of their roles. Numerous pundits have felt compelled to proliferate (unreflectedly) the tale of the "CIA" coup, e.g. The Iranian activists in the uprisings as well as counter coup instigation are minimized unrealistically to bit-part players, while it is undisputed from a rational point of view and factual eyewitness accounts that two foreign individuals can have hardly steered a few thousand (conservative and mostly xenophobic) Iranians, in the narrated fashion. For example, Kim Roosevelt's claim that he supposedly communicated with General Fazlollah Zahedi in German, is mere nonsense, as General Fazlollah Zahedi spoke only Russian and Turkish, beside his native Persian (Farsi). Others cite the "memoirs" of General Fardust, which have been actually written by the ruling Mullah Regime, based on propagandistic diction. The CIA today claims to have lost its entire documented coverage of the events of 1953 in a FIRE! It is easy, therefor, to claim anything in anybody's fancy, without documented facts backing those claims.


 * I don't know a lot about the 1953 events, but I sort of suspected something like this. Just as the CIA may have had an interest in exaggerating their accomplishments, so too do many Wikipedia editors today seek to paint the U.S. as an omnipotent meddler (and saboteur). Very Verily  09:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Much of the info on this page comes from "All the Shah's Men", a book which relies on much more than the CIA's claims for its conclusions. Just about all historical events are "disputed" by someone, but the book is certainly "historically analyzed". It lists over a hundred contemporary historical documents in its bibliography. It was praised by Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Business Week, the New York Times, Library Journal, the Washington Post, the editor of Congressional Quarterly's Homeland Security, the Economist, etc. etc. etc. It's not just another "repetitive and over-simplistic portrayal of the events of 1953!"   – Quadell (talk) (help)   12:30, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

In response to your assertions, QUADELL, here is an exerpt of HARVARD FELLOW Kaveh Shahrooz' pertinent crtitique of KINZER's Book: ( http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/current/booknotes-All.shtml )

''Despite general strength, All The Shah’s Men suffers from two shortcomings. First, Kinzer attempts to explain too much about the Iranian perspective, and about Mossadegh’s refusal to compromise, through  the lens of Shiite Islam. Despite Islam’s importance in Iranian politics, using Shiite theology to explain the nationalization of the oil industry is far  too reductionist. It is disappointing that the book discusses Shiite traditions at length, but fails to consider the influences of various decolonization  movements around the globe on the Iranian struggle.

More importantly, Kinzer does not illustrate precisely why he believes Operation Ajax has given rise to today’s terrorist activities. Though he points out that the 1953 coup has made Iranians distrustful of the United States, Kinzer fails to consider the issue in sufficient depth. The author's central thesis may have been strengthened if he considered the Shah’s post-1953 crackdown on secular and democratic opposition groups and  how this approach translated into the radicalization and Islamization of dissent. Had Iran’s secular democracy been allowed to develop, mature, and solidify under Mossadegh, it is likely that the Islamic fundamentalism now  threatening the entire region would not be a serious issue."

Well there's certainly a variety of links on this page aren't there. Heh. Trey Stone 08:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Explaining edit &mdash; I have no "dog" in this hunt. But it should be in the article that the National Security Archive, a private organization, "declassified" nothing, as this is beyond its perview (as much as it might like to).  Only governmental authorties can declassify anything, which they sometimes do when it becomes public knowledge anyway (sometimes through the activities of groups like the National Security Archive, which wants essentially everything to be made public and far less governmental secrecy at all levels), or when it no longer serves any governmental purpose to keep knowledge about an event surpressed (many incidents of World War II have only recently become public information on the grounds that no purpose was being served by keeping the details about them surpressed any longer).

Maybe, this might end this fruitless discussion: I added a link to a critique to Kienzer's book, written by a CIA historian, published on cia.gov. In this critique, the actual fact that the CIA toppled the Mussadeg government is not diputed at all! Strengths and flaws of the book are discussed, too. The CIA man even concludes that US' strategy to topple democratic governments has not paid off. --Anon 1

A new proponent. Enhancement and Augmentation in nutshell to the above. The truth about the SAVAK(U.S.-kid_killers&torturers): I can't confirm that the afterwards well-known second gulf_war general Norman Schwartzkopf builded up SAVAK (Reference:The nowadays Iran-opposition[etc] pretends that since the later 60-ies;Hans Magnus Enzensberger). There is a few eyewitness around the Persian Shah & I am one of them how who has seen how the U.S.-Savak tortured children ... not to say more. --Anon 2


 * first, register and sign your comments. second, yes the CIA implemented a plan, however the unrest within Iran should not be glossed over. there was a vocal number of people who wanted the shah back -- Mossadegh was a fiery figure, naturally polarizing. so while the CIA did have a major role in this yes -- based on Cold War fears and wanting an ally on the Soviet border, and as with Britain the oil interests -- the royalist agitators were not CIA puppets, and Mossadegh did not have the support of the whole Iranian populace. J. Parker Stone 09:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While the Iranian royalists aren't CIA puppets, they did accept aid that the CIA would provide (and the CIA did provide aid, as it suited their purposes to do so). Caudax 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Ajax has been acknowledged by the US government. During the Clinton Administration Madeline Allbright acknowledged that the US had been behind the coup. Stop trying to push CIA talking points. --Gorgonzilla 13:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture
The picture on the page is not that of a coup in August in Tehran--look at soldiers' overcoats! It is from the preceding events in Feb. 1953. We need a picture for this article and the similar article in the Persian Wikipedia. Can anyone help? aliparsa 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sour Grapes again!
Sounds like more bias from the wikipedia!! I don't care what madam albright thinks about the Ike administration!More panzy's complaining about the US coup!

Umm, this coup just like the arbenz one DID pay off very nicely. Thanks to him Iran was a good guy. Unthanks to a weak jimmy carter who failed to place him back on the throne Iran is not anymore Thanks to Ike we didn't have to worry about a bad iran starting in 1953. Since 1979 we have had to, however