Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Clerical involvement in the 1953 CIA backed Iranian coup of Mossadegh

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In the decades long stand-off between US and IRI, critics of Yankee imperialism cite the origins, not to the Embassy hostage crisis not long after the 79 revolution, but justifiably point to the CIA backed coup against populist prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.

Seldomly discussed is the alleged CIA links and involvement that the pre-revolutionary clergy had in the coup.

Namely Ayatullah Khomeini's predecessor, Ayatullah Kashani. Which appears to be well-documented:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/64-years-later-cia-finally-releases-details-of-iranian-coup-Iran-Tehran-oil/

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/Iran/2018-03-07/new-findings-clerical-involvement-1953-coup-Iran

 

http://markcurtis.info/2016/10/09/Iran-1953-working-with-the-ayatollah/

 

https://lobelog.com/misreading-the-1953-coup/

 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/blame-foreigners-disasters-1953-coup-yes-iranians-must-look-their-own-failings

 

Now I bring this up as I did not find a thread on ShiaChat regarding the Shia clergy's role in the coup.

What are your thoughts on this?

How is Kashani perceived by most Iranians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of observations:

Sir Francis Shepard's proclamation that the lranians could not run their own oil industry is the same as the "Egyptians can't run the Suez Canal" in the run-up to the Suez Crisis in 1956 or with the US in its "the Panamanians can't run a canal." 

Princess Asfra's 1980 "memoire" was written for her. There needed to be another counter-narrative to Kermit Roosevelt's 1979 "Countercoup" -which the original edition the FBI had to go around and buy up every unsold copy. So "Countercoup" was rewritten with a few critical changes (one paragraph, sentences in other paragraphs, the captions under pictures -Kermit R. with  Zahedia on a staircase as one example-, that ties and especially ballpoints pens(status symbols) were used to pay rioters.

One paragraph in the middleasteye.net that is not elaborated on is: "The idea of looking into the mirror in  search of answers to political weakness, vulnerabilities or failure does not exist in lranian political culture" --which is another Sir Francis styled proclamation.

Trouble brewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if this is true that would not shocked me so much. 

Clerics are here for respecting Allah laws not human laws. 

So if someone tend to go agaisnt this they will do their best to be against him even by collaborating with America. 

And son of pahlavi was probably seen as less secular than his father at this time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Even if this is true that would not shocked me so much. 

Clerics are here for respecting Allah laws not human laws. 

So if someone tend to go agaisnt this they will do their best to be against him even by collaborating with America. 

And son of pahlavi was probably seen as less secular than his father at this time. 

"Taghoot ka tahwan say jeehad "  

That is the justification given by wahabi clerics too in the 80s I remember when they pocketed foreign money to sent recruits to support the Afghan bandits against red army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

It's like discovering the clergy was collaborating with the Shah.

Naming one of them just because he was Khomeini's predecessor (to what btw ?) is like saying : 'hey before you kicked us out, you were friends with us !' even though the truth was 'you were our dogs'.

And that pic with Khomeini... must date back to the 30s, if that's even him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

@Ashvazdanghe any thoughts?

Salam at begining Mr..Mosadegh & Ayt Kashani had anti tyranical ideas that they could force Shah to peacefully leaved power in their hands & left Iran but Mosadegh & his party turned to communists & made good relation with soviet unions beside that they were seeing Ayt Kashani & clerics like him just as a tool for controlling masses of people because politicians like Mosaddegh & his party had no connection with people like other elites but for turning toward communists Ayt Kashani becomes neutral about him & his party that America & Britain take the time & created false stories about receiving money by him through them to destroy image of Ayt Kashani between his followers & preventing people to join again to people like as Imam Khamenei (رضي الله عنه) that used ayt Kashani heritage which Americans again made stories about supporting him also after Iran revolution political  inheritors of Mosadegh like as Mr. Bazargan & Bani Sadr became first two presidents of Iran that first one resigned after ho staging American embassy & second one showed their true face that tried to replace clerics with MKO terrorists as their old communists ally by support of sovite union  that now all of their remnants are receiving financial aids but their only presence limited in gathering of old politicians beside othet Iranian opposition parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

"Taghoot ka tahwan say jeehad "  

That is the justification given by wahabi clerics too in the 80s I remember when they pocketed foreign money to sent recruits to support the Afghan bandits against red army.

I don't think they really imagined that would form al Qaida later. 

Edited by Mohammadi_follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I don't think they really imagined that would form al Qaida later. 

al-Q, 'the Base', was an entry point through which several thousand volunteers entered the fight in Afghanistan.

Later, UBL used the name al-Qaida so the same people -and referred people- would know who was involved as they assembled in Sudan.

lf l remembber correctly, three thousand of these were Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

al-Q, 'the Base', was an entry point through which several thousand volunteers entered the fight in Afghanistan.

Later, UBL used the name al-Qaida so the same people -and referred people- would know who was involved as they assembled in Sudan.

lf l remembber correctly, three thousand of these were Americans.

I mean that I don’t think they imagined that a global terror group would be formed as we know nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I mean that I don’t think they imagined that a global terror group would be formed as we know nowadays.

ln the beginnng, al-Qaida was an umbrella organization that quickly got some affiliations from lsIamic groups that were/are "globalists" but very few "localists" interested only inside their home countries. Their objective and the objective of their supporting sponsors was to attack US interests in the Eastern Hemisphere. The August 1997 wag-the-dog missile strikes changed that -in the mind of AQ's leadership. While all this was going on, the ClA's UBL Center was watching and in the media making UBL out to be somekind of 'hero'/'resistance leader'. After 9-ll, aQ lost its sponsors.

So, l disagree with this statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

ln the beginnng, al-Qaida was an umbrella organization that quickly got some affiliations from lsIamic groups that were/are "globalists" but very few "localists" interested only inside their home countries. Their objective and the objective of their supporting sponsors was to attack US interests in the Eastern Hemisphere. The August 1997 wag-the-dog missile strikes changed that -in the mind of AQ's leadership. While all this was going on, the ClA's UBL Center was watching and in the media making UBL out to be somekind of 'hero'/'resistance leader'. After 9-ll, aQ lost its sponsors.

So, l disagree with this statement.

OK but do you think they really realized that these persons would struggle against leaders of Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia also included) and doing terrorist attacks like 9/11. Honnestly I don't think so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

OK but do you think they really realized that these persons would struggle against leaders of Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia also included) and doing terrorist attacks like 9/11. Honnestly I don't think so. 

Offhand, l remember such groups being arrested and 'punished' in Libya, Egypt and KSA in the 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...