Should the US have reinstated the Shah in 1954?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Absolutely not. That was the single stupidest thing the US has ever done since WWII, except for getting involved in Vietnam. It's also the reason for all the problems with Iran today.

Had it not have been for that, Iran would be a secular westernized country today, similar to Turkey.

[Joe Republic]

Interestingly, if it weren't for our support of the Shah, we most likely wouldn't be discussing Iran's nuclear program today.  Just like when we furnished Saddam with weapons in the 80's, we also provided the Shah with a nuclear reactor and weapons-grade uranium.  It's funny how helpful gestures tend to come back to bite you in the ass.

Link

[Colin]

Absolutely not. That was the single stupidest thing the US has ever done since WWII, except for getting involved in Vietnam. It's also the reason for all the problems with Iran today.

Had it not have been for that, Iran would be a secular westernized country today, similar to Turkey.

In hindsight I have to completely agree with you BRTD. It was one of the worst foreign policy decisions we have ever made. Mossadegh probably could have turned into a Persian Ataturk or he could have been another failed state dictator. Either option would have been better than the Islamic Republic and the rise of Islamic political fundamentalism.

[Jake]

Yes, ditto for 1980.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, ditto for 1980.

There is no way that could've been done.

[WalterMitty]

yes, absolutely. 

[minionofmidas]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

[Storebought]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

Now where did I place that eye-rolling icon ...

... oh, yes ...



To answer the question: Absolutely, with full hindsight. There was no way the US could have allowed the installation of a Soviet client (Mossadegh was a socialist in a way Ataturk never was, so you set up a false analogy) just south of its Caspian Sea border in 1953.

Futhermore, the Shah (or his collateral relatives) should have been given reassurance throughout the 1970s that they wouldn't be abandoned for a robed terrorist living in France -- a large source of the instability against the kingdom arose when those assurances ceased by 1978.

[freedomburns]

Absolutely not. That was the single stupidest thing the US has ever done since WWII, except for getting involved in Vietnam. It's also the reason for all the problems with Iran today.

Had it not have been for that, Iran would be a secular westernized country today, similar to Turkey.

Absolutely not, BRTD.  That was a collosal blunder on our part.  The Iranians have hated us for fifty years because of it.  It is still a source of huge tension.  Iranian President Ahmadinejad refers to it at length in his recent letter to President Bush.

"The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating in their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter. "

The Letter of May 2006 from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush
http://www.serendipity.li/bush/ahmadinejad_letter_to_bush.htm

The interview with Der Spiegel is also interesting:
http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/spiegel_interview.htm

William Blum's perspective on how the letter will be received:
Why the Iranians will be Rebuffed
Appealing to the United States is Not Very Appealing
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum05152006.html

An interesting opinion from Mr. Blum on how to stop terrorism:
Bin Laden's Reference to Book Rogue State
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/blum01.htm

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize — very publicly and very sincerely — to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions — including the awful bombings — have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but — oddly enough — a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

fb

[??????????]

I concur with Storebought.

[dazzleman]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

John Foster Dulles didn't hold power.  He was appointed by Dwight Eisenhower.  Eisenhower held power, and Dulles did nothing of which Eisenhower did not approve.

In any case, that's an absurd statement.

[dazzleman]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

Now where did I place that eye-rolling icon ...

... oh, yes ...



To answer the question: Absolutely, with full hindsight. There was no way the US could have allowed the installation of a Soviet client (Mossadegh was a socialist in a way Ataturk never was, so you set up a false analogy) just south of its Caspian Sea border in 1953.

Futhermore, the Shah (or his collateral relatives) should have been given reassurance throughout the 1970s that they wouldn't be abandoned for a robed terrorist living in France -- a large source of the instability against the kingdom arose when those assurances ceased by 1978.

^^^^^^^^

[freedomburns]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

I quite agree with your assessment of Mr. Dulles.  He was at the nexus of a lot of very bad things that happened last century.  He was almost certainly involved in the assassination and cover up of President Kenedy as an example of a "bad thing".

[minionofmidas]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

John Foster Dulles didn't hold power.  He was appointed by Dwight Eisenhower.  Eisenhower held power, and Dulles did nothing of which Eisenhower did not approve.

In any case, that's an absurd statement.

How dangerous a madman is depends largely on much on how much power he has at his disposal. That Dulles was completely nuts is hard to avoid.
What Eisenhower's real views on foreign policy were is hard to say, but of course he bears political responsibility for Dulles' Iranian, Central American and Vietnamese messes.

[dazzleman]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

I quite agree with your assessment of Mr. Dulles.  He was at the nexus of a lot of very bad things that happened last century.  He was almost certainly involved in the assassination and cover up of President Kenedy as an example of a "bad thing".

That's a brilliant statement, considering that John Foster Dulles died in 1959.  Keep going.....

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

Now where did I place that eye-rolling icon ...

... oh, yes ...



To answer the question: Absolutely, with full hindsight. There was no way the US could have allowed the installation of a Soviet client (Mossadegh was a socialist in a way Ataturk never was, so you set up a false analogy) just south of its Caspian Sea border in 1953.

Futhermore, the Shah (or his collateral relatives) should have been given reassurance throughout the 1970s that they wouldn't be abandoned for a robed terrorist living in France -- a large source of the instability against the kingdom arose when those assurances ceased by 1978.

^^^^^^^^

So you aren't a fan of democracy in other words, since you support replacing a democratically elected government with a brutal dictatorship.

[freedomburns]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

I quite agree with your assessment of Mr. Dulles.  He was at the nexus of a lot of very bad things that happened last century.  He was almost certainly involved in the assassination and cover up of President Kenedy as an example of a "bad thing".

That's a brilliant statement, considering that John Foster Dulles died in 1959.  Keep going.....

Oops, good catch.  I am confusing him with someone else here.  I still think rabbit has the right idea about this powerful wing-nut..