We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Here's the once-secret story of the CIA and Brit-led coup against Premier Mossadeq. It is not a pretty story, and the Shah had little recommend him other than his affection for the West.
The Report to London is particularly discouraging. Churchill did not have his act together. We see, today, the unintended consequences of that clever scheme. To be fair to all, though, the retrospective view is always smarter.
I have recently finished reading All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer and the 2 Volume Eisenhower Biography by Steven Ambrose. I tend to think that Eisenhower and the US were manipulated by England to believe that the Communists were taking over Iran via Mossadeq when in reality Churchill was seeking return of Iranian oil to Englands control.
Ambrose seems to indicate that Eisenhower initailly supported Mossadeq's democritization of Iran, even calling him a great man, but was turned when Western inspired rioting convinced Ike that the Communists were in destabilizing the country and that Mossadeq was privy to said process. Really a sad story. Especially when one realizes that America was a nation that Iran looked up to prior to that whole situation.
I realize that the retrospective view is smarter but the real question is whether or not the US learned from its error?
Lets see... the Allies remove the Shah because he was pro-Nazi during WWII, and that would threaten oil supplies. He had been sitting on a powderkeg of multiple parties each representing different factions from mercantalist to royalist to industrialist to communist to nazi...the Allies install a 'democratic' government that, after the war, starts to go all wobbly, so the decision is made to put the Shah's son in power... Iran was going all wobbly because of the aforementioned factions running everywhichway through the Nation and starting to turn the place into something that would go communo-anarchic of some sort or another. By putting the Shah in place the West gets a relatively loyal thug to sit on top of that political powderkeg. Then the West supports the Shah and his secret police which worsens politics in the Nation until things get really nasty and a semi-popular minoritarian religious leader is brought back to try and stop a bloodbath, which then goes on anyways...
Hmmmm... which was the first wrong in this set-up? Democracy wasn't all too ready for prime time before removing the Shah, proven thereafter by the politics going on, then those lovely 19th century problems, which are STILL present, under the brutal regime in power then requires someone to actually try and hold the place together. I blame the original political set-up as it has lasted through brutal dictatorship, chaotic democracy, more brutal dictatorship and now a harshly brutal totalitarian religious theocracy. When the mullahs go the place will, again, become a mess, that is my prediction!
Maybe we should have just let Iran align with the Nazis so we could scrape up some troops with the Brits and Aussies and properly invade it. That might have extended the war into '46, had the Japanese have a jet fighter defense force and the US getting the worst sinking of ships as an invasion fleet is hit by that 600mph jet fighter attack.
Might it be true that "Democracy wasn't all too ready for prime time..." be an inherent cornerstone of same.
Meaning... despite our best wishes and thoughts... we are continually confronted by the Machiavellian nature of 'local' politics... which, while not so much different than our own, do seem to constantly confound and confuse us.
Different worlds indeed.
Yes, had WWII lasted a year or so longer the world might be a less complicated puzzle.
Hard to learn from this error when it is rather unique. In other overthrow situations around that same time, such as Arbenz and Allende, the dictator being overthrown had turned hiis country over to be part of the expanding Soviet empire.
Unique, yes. In general though, it appears to be a crap shoot more than an educated guess, at times... I suppose I'm saying that our policy decisions appear to be guided by a certain naiveté versus a hard-line 'realpolitik'. Our bedrock values, working against us, rather than for us.
Hopefully the powers that be will input any lessons learned variables into the great human game theory equation, thereby proving that cooperative democratic groups always come up with better solutions than totalitarians do.