Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (89132)	4/2/2003 10:53:35 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

the documents state that the US got involved in this for three reasons - Mossadeq was not willing to equitably settle on oil issues, Mossadeq was destabilizing Iran and the Shah, and he was dealing with an Iranian communist party (Tudeh) and there was a fear that Iran would ally with the Soviets. My understanding is that the Shah was persuaded, or believed, that getting rid of Mossadeq was a good thing. Yes I am aware of that. For the record, the top reason which is stated here as "Mossadeq was not willing to equitably settle on oil issues" is another way of saying he was not giving it away for pennies on the dollar. Studying the politics of oil is one of the crucial aspects of understanding today's middle east. The short answer is that the British had a monopoly on the oil. They were both the producers and the buyers of it. So what kind of deal do you think they were cutting themselves? While the demand for oil increased tremendously, the price of oil did not move a cent in 20 years. How reasonable and "equitable" does that sound to you? Mossadeq simply said Iranians have had enough and kicked the Brits out. They responded by blockading the Iranian ports and imposing trade sanction on every thing including food. In short they committed an act of war and wanted to starve the Iranians out (not practical since Iran had some sustaining power). This along with Brit's instigation, led to some riots in the country. As for the Tudeh party, you really cannot have a democracy and not allow opposition. Furthermore, it is not so much that Mossadeq gave too much power to Tudeh, than it is that Tudeh's opposition left the field. However, even to the very end and despite all economic and political pressures, Mossadeq did not call on Soviet Union for support. He was an independent nationalist, not a communist. In short, the argument about stability and communism boils down to "the country was unstable under his leadership because we were trying to overthrow him so to have stability we had to overthrow him". And the argument for "equitably settle on oil issues" is just like saying your freedom to breath is impeding my freedom to choke the life out of you. > My impression is that you are too young to remember the Cold War first hand. Not as young as you may think. My father was on a mission in Tehran during the Cuban Missile crisis. You think people had it bad in US, but over there they were wall to wall with he soviets. It is not that I don't understand the dangers of cold war. I do. It is that I also see how the cold war was used to go way beyond and above the call of duty <g>. We'd make moves to contain the soviet threat, and while we were at it, why not go the extra yard and install puppet instead of one who is just anti-communist. > I've read plenty of arguments that Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, were all lovers of freedom and democracy More accurately, they were all nationalists. They wanted their countries to be great. If they believed that America would have respected the sovereignty, they would have never slept in bed with the Russians. Transformation of Castro is perhaps the best illustration of this. What many people don't seem to get is that we did not just fight communism. Our actions necessitated that many who were not really communists would align themselves with the soviets. Sun Tzu