Introduction Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah’s Men provides a compelling narrative of the 1953 coup in Iran, shedding light on a pivotal moment in history and its enduring ramifications. The coup, orchestrated by the United States and the United Kingdom, overthrew Iran's Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and reinstated the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, highlighting the intricate interplay of geopolitics, ideology, and economic interests. This essay delves into the multifaceted nature of U.S. involvement in Iran, examining whether it can be categorized as a continuation of Western imperialism and its impact on democracy in the Middle East, while critically evaluating Kinzer's arguments. Contextualizing Western Involvement in Iran To understand the events of 1953, it is imperative to contextualize them within the broader history of Western involvement in Iran. The 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed significant foreign influence in Iran, particularly from European powers such as Britain and Russia. This influence, driven by economic interests and geopolitical ambitions, culminated in the exploitation of Iran's resources, notably its oil reserves, by foreign corporations like the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) [1]. The AIOC's control over Iran's oil industry epitomized Western economic dominance in the region and set the stage for …show more content…
However, labeling it as a mere extension of Western imperialism oversimplifies the complex motives behind U.S. intervention. Kinzer argues that the primary driver of Operation Ajax was the perceived threat posed by Mossadegh's neutralist stance and potential alignment with the Soviet Union amidst Cold War tensions [2]. Thus, the intervention can be construed as a strategic maneuver to counter Soviet influence rather than a straightforward exercise of imperialist
going fine, her father owning two fishing boats, and they lived in a large house
On February 1942, President Roosevelt issued an executive order, which was 9066 stating that Japanese Americans to evacuate their homes and live in an internment camp. This autobiographical called, “Farewell to Manzanar” by Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston and James D. Houston. Jeanne wanted to write this book to give details on her experience during World War II internment camps. “It is a story, or a web of stories my own, my father’s, my family’s -- tracing a few paths that led up to and away from the experience of the internment” (pg XI). Mrs. Houston had other books beside this particular book, some of the others were called, “Don't Cry, It’s Only Thunder” and “The Legend of Fire Horse Woman”. One of Jeanne Houston quotes is, “ The reason I want
The major driving force, in Kinzer’s view, is the extreme nationalism and ignorance that dominated US policies for many decades. American Exceptionalism is the belief that America is superb and by consequence should take on a responsibility role in the world. Moreover, that the US intentions are inherently good and any consequences of said actions whether disastrous or negative should be disregarded. America's actions in the Middle East are explored. In the case of Iraq, the disposal of Saddam Hussein and the manner in which the US inserted itself in the affair was uncoordinated and brash- the results being only greater discord in the nation. What Kinzer does not explore in Overthrow is some of the positive and noteworthy consequences of US intervention. In Iraq itself, the US made the protection of the ethnic group of native Kurdish people a primary concern; a group who was facing widespread oppression and genocide by the hand of Saddam Hussein. The same policies that devastated some countries also prevented air bombings and orchestrated facilitated evacuations for the Kurds. Perhaps the US’s intentions were misguided- but to reduce complex situations and history to such a black and white summary seems
Kinzer tells us that the Iranians celebrated their nationalism in taking control of their oil, but their success was a shock to the British multinational companies in Iran. They did not like the idea of Iran nationalization, so they plan a coup to overthrow the Prime Minister Mossadegh. But this plan failed and the British were disarmed and sent back to their country closing down their embassy in Iran. The British tried to present their case to the United State in a way that the United State would intervene. So they presented a case that Mossaghe is not only nationalizing the Iranians oil, he is also leading Iran into communism. This case stirred the American action and they feared if they assassinate Mossaghe, his seat will be open and communist ...
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 did. By discussing the history of Iran, the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and Document NSC-68 I will try to prove once and for all that going through with the coup in Iran was a terrible mistake made by the United States.
Before the revolution when Dumas and her family first moved to Whittier, California, a mother and her daughter kindly helped Firoozeh and her mother find their way home, inattentive to the fact they were Iranian. “This kind stranger agreed to take us back to our house” (Dumas, 7). On the other hand, after eradicating the Shah, Iranian terrorists had a substantial motive to capture American hostages, and the country began to develop hostility towards all Iranians. Dumas recalls, “During our stay in Newport Beach, the Iranian Revolution took place and a group of Americans were taken hostage in the American embassy in Tehran. Overnight, Iranians living in America became, to say the least, very unpopular. For some reason, many Americans began to think that all Iranians, despite outward appearances to the contrary, could at any given moment get angry and take prisoners” (Dumas, ). Ignorance and xenophobia became the prime factors that led to this intense discrimination. The author describes the injustice her father experienced while searching for a job, “At the sight of the Iranian passport, the lawyer turned pale, ‘I am so sorry, but the government of Saudi Arabia does not accept Iranians at this time.’” (Dumas, 120). Contradicting with what Dumas’s father assumed America would provide for him, a job, he was turned down by many of them by the
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders. The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
The book, Farewell to Manzanar was the story of a young Japanese girl coming of age in the interment camp located in Owens Valley, California. Less than two months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed an Executive Order, which stated that the War Department had the right to declare which people were a threat to the country, and move them wherever they so pleased. Since the West Coast had a large number of Japanese immigrants at the time, the Executive Order was basically an act that authorized the government to remove Japanese residing on the West Coast away from their homes and put them in these interment camps. As harsh as it may sound, the interment camps were nothing like the infamous Nazi interment camps of World War II. Manzanar residents enjoyed relatively comfortable living conditions, and lived fairly comfortable lives as compared to those of German interment camps. However, it was still rough, as many families were separated and emotional scars lingered long after the experience. Farewell to Manzanar is the story of one girl making the difficult transition to womanhood, at a difficult time, and at a difficult location. Two of the main life lessons that Jeannie learned during her stay at Manzanar dealt with the issues of her identity as an American against her Japanese heritage, and also with her treatment in school.
America and Iran had tricked the Soviets which left them very angry, and this inevitably led to the Cold War. But less than a decade later, America had done something which caused Iran to change their opinion of them. In 1951, Iran had recently elected a prime minister by the name, Mohammed Mosaddeq, which he nationalized the countryś petroleum industry, long the domain of the British-dominated AIOC. This move, however, pitted the two governments against each other in a bitter political fight. The Truman administration had tried to work between both sides, but Dwight Eisenhower had quickly concluded that Mosaddeq represented the problem rather than the solution to the crisis. They decided that they wanted him out and later he was kicked out and Mohammad Reza Shah took his place for the next twenty-five years. Shah not only gained access to sophisticated American weaponry, but also obtained tacit White House permission to forgo any serious effort at reform. Over the years, the internal resentment against the Shahś political and economic policies was building to a peak, but the depth of the problem escaped the notice of American
A true war story blurs the line between fact and fiction, where it is neither true nor false at the same time. What is true and what is not depends on how much you believe it to be. In the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story” from the novel “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien, the author provides various definitions to how the validity of a war story can be judged. The entire chapter is a collection of definitions that describe the various truths to what a true war story is. Unlike O’Brien, who is a novelist and storyteller, David Finkel, the author of “The Good Soldiers”, is a journalist whose job is to report the facts. Yet in the selection that we read, chapter nine, Finkel uses the convention of storytelling, which relies heavily on the stories the combat troops tell each other or him personally. Finkel attempts to give an unbiased view of the Iraq war through the stories of the soldiers but in doing so, Finkel forfeits the use of his own experiences and his own opinions. From O’Brien’s views on what a true war story is combined with my own definitions, I believe that Finkel provides a certain truth to his war stories but not the entire truth.
Throughout the 20th century, the United States tried to control Iran to ensure the exportation of oil to America. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941 and became allies with the United States. However in the 1950s, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh began to gain political power. Unlike the Shah, he was extremely against western influence in Iran. Mossadegh won national elections and he demanded more power. In order to retain influence in Iran, the CIA helped overthrow Mossadegh and bring Pahlavi back to power....
Over the course of the last century, the Islamic Republic of Iran (formerly known as Persia) has seen colonialism, the end of a dynasty, the installation of a government by a foreign power, and just over three decades ago, the popular uprising and a cleric-led revolution. These events preceded what could be considered the world’s first Islamic state, as politics and fundamentalist religion are inextricably linked in contemporary Iran. Looking at Iran from the mid 1940’s until the present day, one can trace the path that led to the rise of fundamental Islam in Iran in three distinct periods. The first is that which began with the rise of secular nationalism and the decline of Islam. In the second, the secular, western-friendly government eventually gave way to the Islamic revival in the form of a government takeover by hard-line clerics and disillusioned, fundamentalist youth; both motivated and led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Rule of Iran by these fundamentalist clerics then led to the formation of the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy that governs present-day Iran. The current government has some democratic appearances, but all real power is in the hands of the supreme leader, an Ayatollah who is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a group of clerics chosen by the Guardian Council. With the Iranian Revolution, political Islam was born, with the fundamentalists holding the reins of power in Iran to the present day.
In the 1970’s Iran, under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a very centralized military state that maintained a close relationship with the USA. The Shah was notoriously out of touch with working class Iranians as he implemented many controversial economic policies against small business owners that he suspected involved profiteering. Also unrestricted economic expansions in Iran lead to huge government expenditure that became a serious problem when oil prices dropped in the mid 1970’s. This caused many huge government construction projects to halt and the economy to stall after many years of massive profit. Following this was high rates of inflation that affected Iranians buying power and living standards. (Afary, 2012) Under the Shah, political participation was not widely available for all Iranians and it was common for political opposition to be met with harassment, illegal detention, and even torture. These measures were implemented by the Iranian secret police knows as ‘SAVAK’. This totalitarian regime combined with the increasing modernisation of the country paved the way for revolution.
Although the Iranian Revolution was both a political and religious movement in that it resulted in major shifts in government structure from an autocracy to a republic and that Islamic beliefs were fought to be preserved, it was more a religious movement in that the primary goal of the people was to preserve traditional ideology and in that the government became a theocracy intertwined with religious laws and desires of the people. Although the Iranian Revolution was caused by combination of political and religious motivations and ideas, the desires of the people supporting the movement were more dominantly religious ideas that were wished to be imposed in society and in a new government. The Shah, or king, of Iran at the time was Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who had developed relations with nations in the “western” world, specifically with the United States. The United States supported the White Revolution, which was a series of social reformations the Shah made to remove Islamic values, law and tradition from the government to boost the country’s economy (White Revolution, 2010).... ...
Arranged marriages promote and reinforce family bonds and values. In the Dravidian speaking southern regions of India, families tend to seek and arrange marriage bonds between blood relatives (Marriage). They do so to literally bring the family closer together, as well as strengthen existing kin ties. In the south marriage consists of multiple daughters being exchanged between few select families. This ensures that the couples marrying and their relatives will be blood kin (Marriage).