All The Shah’s Men is a historical account written by Stephen Kizner that reconstructs the American backed Iranian coup of 1953. I chose to read this book because I am interested in America’s role in Middle Eastern history and current affairs. One of the many reasons to place this book on a high-school American history-reading list is that it provides key insight into a quintessential example of US involvement in the politics of other independent countries. This book is important to American history because it narrates a turning point in US foreign policy and the Middle East. Unfortunately, the compelling description of the events in Iran are used to draw tenuous conclusions about the root cause acts of Jihadist violence directed against …show more content…
I learned that the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddegh and the Iranian parliament nationalized the oil industry including the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British corporation. The British were furious with Mosaddegh’s actions and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. However, Britain’s efforts made little difference and they turned to the USA for help in a plan to overthrow the Iranian government and replace it with the Shah. The USA initially refused to be involved but the British officials managed to convince Eisenhower that Iran posed a communist threat. The CIA convinced Reza Shah to participate in the coup and bribed newspaper editors and civilians to make it appear as though the Shah had popular support. The CIA organized mobs to storm Mossadegh’s residence and had him arrested for violating the Iranian constitution. After the coup the Shah ruled for 26 years and secularized and modernized Iran using oil money. In his book, Kizner claimed that this event was the first time the USA used the CIA to depose a democratically elected government. However, the book omitted that the CIA was involved in the 1949 Syrian coup d’état. Yet, the Iranian coup led to the CIA becoming a central part of USA foreign policy operations and was seen as an effective way to shape world events. Furthermore, Kizner outlined how he believed the coup set back Iranian political development
In early 1951, the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry by Mosaddegh was the trigger for the United Kingdom to begin discussion with the United States to overthrow Mosaddegh and return the power to the shah. When the coup attempt was thwarted, the CIA decided to call off continuing with the operation because they did not want it to get traced back to the United States. However, Kermit Roosevelt believed that the United States should not be done interfering with Iran, and
Furthermore, the Shah purchased billions of dollars worth of weapons of security from the US. In 1979 the realm was overthrown by extreme Islam’s that were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. The intention of the Iranian students was to display their displeasure against the Shah. Their demand was the return of the Shah for a trial followed by his death. In addition, they asked that the US stay out of their country’s affairs. Carter’s approach required the safeguarding of American hostages but also guaranteed an alliance with Iran. Carter’s tactics on the situation had devastating effects on his run for re-election (Hamilton, 1982).
The American public was so captivated by the Iran Hostage Crisis because they were blindsided by this radical action and their knowledge of America’s involvement in Iran was limited. The media played a major role in influencing their emotions and they already had trouble trusting the American government. This unknown involvement began in 1943 when President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin met in Tehran to discuss how to remove the British and Soviet military forces from Iran because Iran wanted to be its own nation. The United States aided the young Shah, the ruler of Iran, and his government with military weapons and loans. Over time, Prime Minister Mossadegh, of Iran, gained more and more power until he was the true ruler of Iran and the Shah was just a figurehead. The United States, fearing the spread of communism, devised a secret plan for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to over throw Prime Minister Mossadegh.
Looking back to 1953, the nation was at a much different place. However, the decisions that were made in 1953 greatly impacted the nation’s involvement in terrorism today. Stephen Kinzer, author of All The Shah’s Men, addresses how the United States’ role in the 1953 CIA coup in Iran leads up to modern terrorism that can be seen in society currently. Additionally, Kinzer is a very credible source considering he has worked in more than fifty countries and is an award-winning foreign journalist. Furthermore, Kinzer has been the New York Times bureau chief in multiple different countries; some being Berlin, Managua, Nicaragua, and Istanbul. With that being said, Kinzer has a vast amount of knowledge regarding the nation’s role in foreign affairs. According to Kinzer, the 1953 CIA coup in Iran politically destabilized the nation, led to the rise of modern terrorism, and immensely affected the CIA’s reputation. This paper examines Kinzer’s arguments with the assessment that the nation involving itself in foreign affairs undeniably leads to unintended consequences.
On David Farber 's book Taken Hostage, Farber informs us about the Iran Hostage Crisis and America 's First Encounter with Radical Islam. This book tells us how the United States and Iran got into conflict, leading to the Iranians holding American Embassy members hostage as revenge for them feeling betrayed by the United States. It also informs us about other events that occurred in a decade that caused the United States many problems. Farber talked about all the events that lead to the Iranian Hostage Crisis. November 4, 1979, seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran and the hostage of four hundred and forty four days following, were the first steps leading up to the perpetual War on Terror. Farber believes the failure from American policymakers and more specifically from President Carter, to identify the severity of the crisis made for the prolonged crisis. The sheer ineptitude of Carter administration was the cost of the US to lose it’s way economically, culturally, politically and even military. Carter struggled to respond to the impulses of Islamic fundamentalism within the prevailing Cold War paradigm. They saw the real battle as against secular modernism and they recognized that the US was the major force spreading this cultural and political belief throughout the world. The media misrepresentations of the struggle and mass media manipulation of Americans played on the peoples emotions. Although Carter was popular at the beginning of his presidency, this began
All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer details the 1953 American-orchestrated coup in Iran. Iran was under British economic control, but as it modernized, Iranians began fighting for their own control. Their fledgling democracy was working to modernize, until the UK and the US decided to interfere to protect Britain’s colonial holdings from Soviet influence. Because the US was not interested in protecting a British business, British politicians emphasized the threat the USSR held to Iran, leading to Americans inserting themselves into a nation’s politics in which they had no place. They successfully orchestrated a coup, however, the negative, long-term, anti-Western results overwhelm any positive effect. All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer paints a picture of the results of action without adequate attention to future results.
November 4, 1979, seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran and the hostage of four hundred and forty-four days following, were the first steps leading up to the perpetual War on Terror. In the book Taken Hostage by David Farber informs about the Iran Hostage Crisis and the First Encounter with Radical Islam. United States and Iran got into conflict, leading to the Iranians holding American Embassy members hostage as revenge for them feeling betrayed by the United States. It also informs us about other events that occurred in a decade that caused the United States many problems. Farber believes the failure of American policymakers and more specifically from President Carter, to identify the severity of the crisis made for the prolonged crisis. The sheer ineptitude of the Carter administration was the cost of the US to lose it’s way economically, culturally, politically and even military. Carter struggled to respond to the impulses of Islamic fundamentalism within the prevailing Cold War paradigm. They saw the real problem as against modernism and they knew that the US was the major force spreading this belief throughout the world. The media misrepresentations of the struggle and mass media manipulation of Americans played on the peoples emotions. Although Carter was popular at the beginning of his presidency, this began to change when he was unable to solve economic problems and was unsuccessful in negotiating the release of the American hostages in Iran.
The 1970s was a rough time for Americans. The economy was struggling and gas prices were doublings, sometimes gas stations even ran out of gas. While all this was going on, the media caught the attention of the American people on the story of the sixty six hostages that were captured in Tehran. Soon that became the center of attention. Both in Iran and America, people focused on what would happen and especially how President Jimmy Carter would respond. In his book, Taken Hostage, David Farber closely examines the events that led up to the hostage crisis. He informs us of America’s first encounter with radical Islam and what had caused the conflict between them. For four hundred and forty-four days, President Carter tried to put effort into resolving the issues but he failed on releasing the hostages. Since the American people paid close attention to this issue, they were highly disappointed with President Carter and his processes. From our class lectures and throughout the tensions illustrated in Farber’s book, we learn of how the role of Cold War policy had fueled the crisis between the United States and “Radical Islam”, the Cold War policy shaping the response of the U.S. to the crisis, and also understanding the present War on Terror.
In the novel All The Shah’s Men we are introduced to Iran, and the many struggles and hardships associated with the history of this troubled country. The Iranian coup is discussed in depth throughout the novel, and whether the Untied States made the right decision to enter into Iran and provide assistance with the British. If I were to travel back to 1952 and take a position in the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) for the sole purpose of examining the American Foreign Intelligence, I would have to conclude that the United States should have examined their options more thoroughly, and decided not to intervene with Iran and Mossadegh. I have taken this position after great analysis, which is something that Eisenhower and his staff never
The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning
In the novel All The Shah's Men we are introduced to Iran, and the many struggles and hardships associated with the history of this troubled country. The Iranian coup is discussed in depth throughout the novel, and whether the Untied States made the right decision to enter into Iran and provide assistance with the British. If I were to travel back to 1952 and take a position in the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) for the sole purpose of examining the American Foreign Intelligence, I would have to conclude that the United States should have examined their options more thoroughly, and decided not to intervene with Iran and Mossadegh. I have taken this position after great analysis, which is something that Eisenhower and his staff never
For most Americans, the story begins in 1979 with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, when a group of revolutionary university students took over the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran, and held 52 American diplomats, intelligence officers and Marines hostage for 444 days. But for most Iranians, and to fully understand the repercussions of this aforementioned event, the story begins almost three decades prior, in 1953. This was the year that the United States overthrew the recently established democracy in Iran, led by Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. He had become very popular in the country for having the ambition to finally take advantage of the wealth that Iran needed to grow
The American government is known to promote democratic values throughout the world. Though the ideals America was fighting for during the Cold War, the government still managed to participate in the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh threatened to nationalize Iran’s oil in 1951 and later gained the support of the Iranian government. The British companies had many investments in Iranian oil. It is with the approval of nationalization that the economies of both British and Iran were ultimately harmed. The British government requested the help of the US so that they could perform a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. With suspicions of Mossadegh supporting communism, and being supported by the Tudeh Party, the United States government was willing to sacrifice their democratic ideologies and credibility in the region for the insurance of an anti-communist leader. This would prove to cause problems that still resonate in today’s political and military negotiations in this region.
The importance of democracy took a backseat to economics and national pride when the CIA orchestrated an elaborate coup to overthrow the government of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq. In the beginning of the Cold War, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq, passed the oil nationalization agreement, which nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings in Iran. The CIA, with assistance of MI6, planned, funded and implemented Operation TPAJAX, a covert CIA operation. CIA collaborated with Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and the elected government of Iran. The TPAJAX plan consisted of two components a political and a military element. The political component of TPAJAX created an artificial campaign of destabilization to accumulate, in a sanctuary, by clergy-led crowds inside the Majles enceinte where a censor motion and bribing of deputies would cause the fall of Mosaddeq through parliamentary procedures. The military component of TPAJAX was only a contingency to maintain the desired outcome against resistance by Tudeh or Mosaddeq supporters. The CIA orchestrated the 1953 Coup of Iran to overthrow Mosaddeq; primarily to maintain existing western control of Iranian oil, thus preventing the collapse of Great Britain’s economic system and alleviating the risk of an Iranian government strongly influenced by the Soviet Union.
Iran has always, it seems, been the breeding ground for some kind of political upheaval or another. In recent times, back in 1979, there was a major revolution which was, in some ways, similar to the revolution we are seeing today. The people were angry and they were tired of being controlled by the government that was in power. They had concrete ideals and were incredibly passionate about their revolution. The revolution Iran is experiencing today does not appear to be quite as passionate and does not appear to maintain a belief in any real solid political system. They just know they want something different. In the following paper we present an illustration of the current revolution that is taking