Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

And that's not even mentioning the CIA/MI5 coup that ousted a democratically elected government and installed the Shah in the first place.

In other words, our lawful self defense against Iranian crimes and aggression.

I take it you aren't aware of politics & economics behind the CIA instigated coup against Iran's President, Mossadegh?

Have a read of All the Shah's Men, and also CIA Legacy of Ashes (which is written from CIA records, as well as interviews with former operatives) on this subject. The last won a pulitzer prize, and is quite detailed and cogent in it's history of the CIA.

The reality is, this event follows similar patterns to it's previous actions, and it's latter actions, such as the events leading up to the founding of Al Qeida.

Well, maybe the US didn't instigate the coup, but they carried it out. We cannot know if the situation would have unfolded as it did without the US involvement. And, the role of outsiders wasn't minimal.

If the USA didn't instigate the coup, the British did. They wanted Iranian oil, and Mosaddeq threatened their control of the oil fields.

The same clerics who rule Iran today vehemently opposed foreign control in the country, so even if they disagreed with Mossadeq's position on religion in the state, they supported him for other reasons.

A lot of the clerics who turned on Mosaddeq at the time of the coup were influenced by the CIA, including the Shah and Kashani, who went on to mentor Khomeini.

It's not like the clerics were acting and thinking independently of the foreigners who had interests in the area. They did communicate.

We don't know what would have happened if the US or outsiders in general hadn't been involved considering their involvement was hardly minimal.

Document 6: CIA, memo from Kermit Roosevelt to [Excised], July 15, 1953

Source: CIA Freedom of Information Act release

Responding to the resignation of Mosaddeq supporters from the Majles, Kermit Roosevelt fires off a plan to ensure that other Majles members keep the parliament functioning, the eventual goal being to engineer a no-confidence in Mosaddeq. The memo provides an interesting clue on the subject of whether CIA operatives ever bought votes in the Majles, about which other CIA sources are vague. Roosevelt urges that as many deputies as possible be "persuaded" to take bast in the parliament. "Recognize [it] will be necessary [to] expend money [to fulfill] this purpose and determine precisely who does what." At the conclusion of the document he appears to tie this scheme into the previously elaborated — but clearly evolving — coup plan.

In other words, our lawful self defense against Iranian crimes and aggression.

Sources? There's plenty of material that supports my position.

You are arguing with a fact-free entity,

An intellectual coward,

a fellow who the fable Pinocchio was written about.

Oralloy is a stranger to reason. The only 'facts' he accepts are the ones he makes up, you'll get no sense from him.

oralloy wrote:

In other words, our lawful self defense against Iranian crimes and aggression.

Typical oralloy "logic". It gets more and more logical to him the more times he repeats it.

In no small measure, the American understanding of the event derives from a 1979 memoir published by Kermit Roosevelt Jr., Theodore’s grandson. Roosevelt, a CIA operative, had indeed slipped across the border and spent considerable sums on black propaganda intended to inflict mortal wounds against Mossadegh. But Roosevelt’s memoir inflated his own and, in turn, America’s centrality to the coup. He tells the story with the relish of a John le Carré knock-off. Although declassified CIA documents would later confirm many details of his account, his version is exceptionally self-serving. Despite having little knowledge of Iranian society and speaking no Persian, he describes launching an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Eisenhower, for one, considered reports like this to be the stuff of “dime novels.”

None of this is to defend America’s role in the coup. But it was hardly the only or even the decisive factor in his fall. Indeed, in the most obvious instance of its meddling in Iranian history, the United States actually meddled on the side of the very religious establishment that now complains so bitterly about the Great Satan.

The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

That article, while very interesting, does not provide any new evidence to suggest the Americans played no significant role in the coup.

It's simply an interpretation of events,

and I'd argue a misinterpretation.

This guy, Milani, for whatever reasons is siding with Americans and apologizing for their involvement but much of what he says does not add up.

Since I brought up the memo from Roosevelt, I'm going to start with what Malani says about him. I will admit he probably did stretch the truth and fabricated some of his experiences in Iran in his memoir, but that doesn't discredit his role in the coup as shown by the memo I linked.

Quote:

In no small measure, the American understanding of the event derives from a 1979 memoir published by Kermit Roosevelt Jr., Theodore’s grandson. Roosevelt, a CIA operative, had indeed slipped across the border and spent considerable sums on black propaganda intended to inflict mortal wounds against Mossadegh. But Roosevelt’s memoir inflated his own and, in turn, America’s centrality to the coup. He tells the story with the relish of a John le Carré knock-off. Although declassified CIA documents would later confirm many details of his account, his version is exceptionally self-serving. Despite having little knowledge of Iranian society and speaking no Persian, he describes launching an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Eisenhower, for one, considered reports like this to be the stuff of “dime novels.”

Malani even admits the CIA documents confirmed not few, but MANY details of his account.

The guy cannot even deny that Roosevelt "spent considerable sums on black propaganda intended to inflict mortal wounds against Mossadeq,"

yet he spends considerable time discrediting the man for the sole purpose of playing him up to be someone who needs to be discredited when he isn't.

Few Americans have even heard of Roosevelt, let alone have read his memoir. I wonder if anyone on here has even read it so I hardly think it colored the American understanding of the coup.

Besides, Roosevelt's account is one of many that have been published and are readily available to those who wish to learn about the subject.

And of course Eisenhower would consider Roosevelt's report cheap and fantastical. He died in 1969. Why would he ever admit to American dealings in a COVERT operation.

I looked on goodreads and the book has 4 reviews and 27 ratings, whereas All the Shah's Men has 553 reviews and nearly 5000 ratings, yet somehow it's Roosevelt's memoir that has an "enduring legacy." I don't think so.

This essay honestly baffles me. Malani is both trying to discredit the clerics and Mossadeq to prove that America is good, sending the message that if these bad people are wrong, then America must be right. WRONG.

Malani even suggests that because corrupt clerics share the narrative that America imposed itself where it didn't belong the narrative must be wrong.

His point that the US didn't play a crucial role in the coup is absurd. The coup would not have happened when it did and as it did without American-backing. That's a fact. Take a look at all the primary sources if you want to see how it's true.

As much as Malani tries to frame the Americans in Iran as good people caught in a bad situation, you cannot deny despite their "great" intentions the only thing they succeeded in doing was deposing a democratically elected leader, propping up a despot who Malani as a young man actively critcized,

and facilitating the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini who needs no description.

Quote:

None of this is to defend America’s role in the coup. But it was hardly the only or even the decisive factor in his fall. Indeed, in the most obvious instance of its meddling in Iranian history, the United States actually meddled on the side of the very religious establishment that now complains so bitterly about the Great Satan.

Malani even admits the US meddled on Khomeini's side. Malani said this as a defense for American actions in Iran, but if anything it shows their involvement should absolutely not be defended.

Again, it should be noted that we do not know what Iran would like if not for the American- and British-backed coup.