Operation Ajax And Other Inconvenient Truths Lost In The Dustbin Of History
I, like many others I would imagine, have been waiting to read Robert Fisk’s take on the Iran crisis. As usual, his piece in yesterday’s Independent did not disappoint. While Fisk makes numerous points about the situation, probably the most important is his reflection on Iranian history with regards to Western complicity, such as the removal of the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953, Dr. Mohammed Mossadeg, in a joint CIA-MI6 operation known as Operation Ajax because of Mossadeq’s views on nationalizing the Iranian oil industry. Mossadeq’s removal saw the return of the Shah, of decades of human rights abuses, and the complete diversion of Iran away from the democratic process. Of course, the West justified their actions by painting Mossadeq a Communist, a popular avenue taken during the Cold War. And so Fisk writes…
“The Iranians, you see, understand the West. And they understand it much better than we understand - or bother to understand - Iran.
We have forgotten the years of Allied occupation in the Second World War, the deposition of the pro-German Shah and then, humiliation of humiliations, the overthrow of the democratic Prime Minister, Mohamed Mossadeq, engineered by the CIA’s Allen Dulles and an eccentric British scholar of Greek, an ex-Special Operations Executive operative - “Monty” Woodhouse by name - with a few guns and a pile of dollars. And the Iranians remember well, how back came the Shah of Iran, our “policeman” in the Gulf, the King of Kings, Light of the Aryans, descendant of Cyrus the Great, to stretch out the young Iranian men and women of the resistance on the toasting racks of their Savak torturers.â€?
I would also refer you to Antiwar.com for some of the latest reports regarding this matter, such as the sudden freeing of an Iranian diplomat that has been held in Iraq for the last two months.
I would also like to condemn the position taken by Peter McKay in this matter for simply falling in line with British and the United States, especially given the Canadian government’s complicity in the Maher Arar affair and what was done to Arar at the hands of the RCMP, the CIA, and ultimately the Syrian jailors that held and tortured him for the better part of a year compared to the treatment of the 15 British sailors and marines being held in Iran.
As the Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders pointed out yesterday…
“…U.S. officials have been even less amenable to the British approach. John Bolton, who until recently was Mr. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, has appeared on British TV describing the British approach as “pathetic.â€?
Mr. Bush stressed that the United States would not turn over Iranian officials it had arrested in Iraq earlier this year on accusations that they were supporting insurgents, saying he supported Prime Minister Tony Blair’s view that “there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages. They’re innocent, they were doing nothing, and they were summarily plucked out of water.â€?
But British officials say that a prisoner exchange has never been offered or suggested by Iran, and that Mr. Bush’s words could cause harm by putting the Iranians in a position from which they cannot back down if it becomes a major confrontation with their long-time enemy, the United States.â€?
If the British government chooses to employ bilateralism to resolve this affair, then how can that be, in any way, seen as a failure? One only need scan a variety of websites and online communities to gauge the utter idiocy being employed by many that remain far removed from the awful reality that a situation such as this could produce (not to mention the awful reality that exists in Iraq). Last night, while reading today’s early editions of European dailies, as I do most nights around midnight, I was shocked to come across statements being made on discussion forums that promoted the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and that the loss of civilian life because of it would put the Iranians in their place. I was further shocked to see that the author was not alone in their thinking.
As an aside, this might be of interest to some of you.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
“statements being made on discussion forums that promoted the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and that the loss of civilian life because of it would put the Iranians in their place. I was further shocked to see that the author was not alone in their thinking.”
People need to realize that stripping people of their humanity and of their rights is not the best way to get them to do what you want. It doesn’t work on any level in society be it interpersonal relationships, the criminal justice system, or situations such as this involving international relations. Put Iran in their place? I doubt it. For that matter what exactly is Iran’s place? Statements like those make it seem as though Iran ought to be beneath the Western world, and I think that is the major problem underlying all of these issues. The capturing of the 15 soldiers wasn’t a good move but that move alone doesn’t hail in comparison to the transgressions of the United States. I just keep hoping that this will be resolved diplomatically and peacefully.
(*Not that it matters but you spelt Mossadeq’s name wrong the first time there, you put a “g” instead of a “q”…I feel like a prick for pointing out spelling.)
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
While on the topic of Operation Ajax, I thought I might add a couple of interesting tidbits for everyone.
First, Kermit Roosevelt (a cousin of FDR), head of the CIA operation to topple Mossadeq’s government, wrote extensively about the whole affair in his book “Countercoup”. He described how the first coup attempt actually failed because some of Mossadeq’s followers interfered. Their second attempt obviously worked and he notes how him and some of his British counterparts were drinking and celebrating in the garden of their base of operations (which was really just a townhome) as bribed Iranians marched through the streets of Tehran.
Second, Roosevelt later visited Winston Churchill in London to tell him about the operation. He describes Churchill as (and aptly names that chapter of the book) “purring like a giant cat” as he heard about what they had done and how easily they did it. Churchill then told him that he would have been honoured to have participated in such a magnificent operation.
And to the previous commentor, it doesn’t really matter how you spell Mossadeq’s name. It is an English adaptation. “Mossadegh” is another common spelling.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Ah, ok. Well that just shows how little I know. Sorry!
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
hahaha, no worries at all.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
There is a great book that i just bought called the Prize, which deals with, at least my source who recommended it to me has claimed as i have not gotten a chance yet, this information.
What strikes me the most, is that this information is there to be seen and read by the public. While the US goes around claiming that the ME hates their way of life, its not that at all. What the ME hates is that the US took away the way of life that they could have had.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I saw that WP article on PopUrls and had bookmarked it to read. Insanity.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“I was shocked to come across statements being made on discussion forums that promoted the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and that the loss of civilian life because of it would put the Iranians in their place. I was further shocked to see that the author was not alone in their thinking.”
That’s disturbing that people can just think like that. Do they not consider the possible consequences of using nuclear weapons? It’s not exactly something to be taken lightly… AY
They may not ‘remain far removed from the awful reality’in the long run…which is not to say that I would wish harm on anyone but there’s always someone out there who may, in retaliation. Perhaps they’ll succeed in creating more terrorists to justify their war on terror efforts & the like…the possibilites are endlesss
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Both unsuprising and horrifying… I find it really disturbing how much I don’t know that I should. I’ve always had severe doubts over the quality and responsibility of mainstream media, but to never have mentioned something so clearly central and key is just apalling. I’m just glad that we still have independent media outlets (like your good self) and a hardcore of responsible journalists who will talk about this kind of thing. I hate to think what might happen if we didn’t.
How people can possibly argue that we have any kind of right to place ourselves above nations whose progress toward liberty and justice we’ve played with for our own gain is a mystery. How people could possibly have done such things also baffles me. I suppose, on a certain scale, you start to see individuals not as people but as numbers, and then you can count them in whatever ways suit you. *shudder*. Yet another good example of the concept of enlightened best interest’s inherent flaws when it comes to making foreign policy decisions.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
The proposal to ‘nuke’ Iran for capturing the 15 Naval Personel is not as unpopular as you’d like to think.
Opinion here in Britain is mixed but if you go by the opinions of the majority (and by that I mean the average Sun reader) then it would seem that people really want to go at it with Iran, like you say Matt it is the people who are far removed from the situation who feel it necessary to call for the nuclear destruction of civilians on the pretext that it’ll save face for the UK or some other form of utter rubbish.
I came across a particularly telling comment on a message board which stated that as the ‘The British’ we are worth 10 of ‘them’[Iranians] I think this says a lot about the complete lack of understanding, empathy and simple intelligence which allows situations like this to escalate.
and as for John Bolton and his schoolboy attempts to antagonize the situation don’t get me started.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:52 am
from the Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm
April 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
It’s just amazing how history only goes back just as far as is convenient. I wonder how many N. Americans know of this history. I’d be willing to wager it’s far less than 5%. How many Iranians are privy? Probably 95%.
And we sit and wonder why they are angry, why they hate us.
A world view without context is a dangerous thing.