[cryptome] Re: Fw: "The Battle for Iran," 1953: Re-Release of CIA Internal History Spotlights New Details about anti-Mosaddeq Coup

  • From: Neal Lamb <nl1816a@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:55:23 -0700


When the NSA tested Thin Thread, the program immediately identified 
targets for investigation and encrypted the identities of US callers.
"And then you know what happened?" Drake asked during the meeting at GAP.
"They shut it down."
There was silence in the room.
"But why?" asked NGO lawyer X.
The three NSA whistleblowers looked at one another. Finally, Drake cocked 
his head, and a pained expression crossed his face. "Too many careers 
and contracts were tied to a different program."
Given the fact 
that 9/11 happened less than one year after the NSA shut down Thin 
Thread, there was nothing more to say. For his part, Binney was 
extremely disturbed about the NSA's failure to deploy the program. Thin 
Thread was ready to go months before 9/11, and he planned to apply it in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan, where it would be most effective: he was (and is) 
convinced that if the NSA had put Thin Thread online when it was 
ready, 9/11 would not have happened.
Documents Edward Snowden 
began to disclose in June 2013 tell the whole sorry saga of the NSA and 
its corporate partners in the years after 9/11. Both what they have and 
have not done.

pilots for 911 truth

On Friday, June 27, 2014 6:44 PM, John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Footnote to the  CIA Battle for Iran re-release.

In 2000 NY Times published a longer account of the Mossedeq
overthow which was amply redacted, but redacted by a means which
could be easily reversed, which we discovered by accident. We
the redactions and published the report despite NY Times' plea
to not do it (we informed the paper beforehand).


Later the Times redid the redactions by a more secure means
and that is the version still offered by the paper. National
Archive has brief mention of this event but does not name Cryptome,
merely says it was done by the "Web,"  nor point to our
instead points to the NY Times'.

So like the Snowden releases, the USG still considers Ed's
classified and they may not be cited in official documents. Though
officials read them avidly to complain about harm to the nation.

Kind of like Doug's report on BBC monitoring: layers of 
access for the privileged, the least access by those who
pay for the official secrecy done to protect the foolish
but not protect from officials and their craven cohorts.

At 06:18 PM 6/27/2014, you wrote:

Hi Neal,
>Tx for the information. 
>On 27/06/14 20:21, Neal Lamb wrote:
>>On Friday, June 27, 2014 2:06 PM, National Security Archive <archive@xxxxxxx> 
>>"The Battle for Iran," 1953: Re-Release of CIA Internal History
Spotlights New Details about anti-Mosaddeq Coup
>>U.S. Ambassador Loy Henderson and Some CIA Officials Initially Disagreed
with Certain Premises of Coup Planners
>>Declassified History Implies British Ties to the Operation, Criticizes
London's Policies in Period Leading up to the Overthrow
>>National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 476
>>Posted on June 27, 2014
>>Edited by Malcolm Byrne
>>For more information contact:
>>202 / 994-7043 or nsarchiv@xxxxxxx
>>Washington, D.C., June 27, 2014 -- During early planning for the 1953
Iran coup, U.S. Ambassador Loy Henderson warned not only that the Shah
would not support the United States' chosen replacement for Prime
Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq but that the Army would not play its hoped-for
leading role without the Shah's active cooperation, according to a newly
released version of an internal CIA history of the operation posted today
by the National Security Archive.
>>The Archive, based at The George Washington University, obtained the
latest release of this history -- "The Battle for Iran,"
written in the mid-1970s -- in response to a Mandatory Declassification
Review request.  (Today's posting includes all previously released
versions of the document as well, for purposes of comparison.)
>>The document goes on to say that members of the CIA's station in Tehran
and certain officials at agency headquarters sided with Henderson against
some of the assumptions of American coup planners, who were working under
"closely held" conditions in Washington during Spring and
Summer 1953.
>>Mainly through interviews with coup participants, scholars have known
generally that disagreements existed (and eventually Henderson went along
with Mosaddeq's overthrow), but freshly declassified portions of the
document posted today provide a few more specifics about the nature of
the differences and who held to which views.
>>The history also offers the most explicit declassified references to-date
to British participation in the operation.  London's role --
undoubtedly the worst-kept secret in Britain's relationship with Iran
over the past 60 years -- has never been formally acknowledged by either
British or U.S. authorities.
>>"The Battle for Iran" is one of three agency histories of the
coup that are known to exist.  All three have been posted at various
times on the National Security Archive's Web site.
>>Check out today's posting at the National Security Archive's website - 
>>Find us on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/NSArchive
>>Unredacted, the Archive blog - http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/
>>THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research
institute and library located at The George Washington University in
Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified
documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A
tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government
funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations
from foundations and individuals.
>>PRIVACY NOTICE The National Security Archive does not and will never
share the names or e-mail addresses of its subscribers with any other
organization. Once a year, we will write you and ask for your financial
support. We may also ask you for your ideas for Freedom of Information
requests, documentation projects, or other issues that the Archive should
take on. We would welcome your input, and any information you care to
share with us about your special interests. But we do not sell or rent
any information about subscribers to any other party.

Other related posts: