[cryptome] Re: Fw: "The Battle for Iran," 1953: Re-Release of CIA Internal History Spotlights New Details about anti-Mosaddeq Coup
- From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:46:49 +1200
My understanding of this from reading the events of the time when it came to
Shah of Iran II was that around this time with Mossadeq getting thrown out, the
Shah had asked for help or advice from both the British and the Americans and
they apparently said that they wanted the Shah to stay in power and so the
Sevak were introduced to keep the Shah in power. As, the Shah became more and
more insecure then he used the Sevak to crack down more and more.
One thing to note about the area of the world was that before Shah I Ahmad Shah
Qajar (a young guy who had deposed his apparently deposed his father) was
deposed by a British bloodless Coup. Previous to that the support was Russian
support to the weak Iranian/Persian rule in the country. They asked from
British empire support as it was the power of the day. Reza Shah was installed
in 1925 and booted in 1941 and his son was installed in his place.
There was an interesting corrolation between the change of Turkey under Kamil
Attaturk and that of the country we know of today as Iran under Shah I was they
were both doing there own bit of modernising of the country, removing the
religious system and the feudal land structure as well as tribal system and
placing a more western style of government. This l believe as far as Iran was
concerned was the background eventually that led to the down fall of Shah II.
Also a factor was was the oil and gas redistribution to the lower levels of
society who felt they were not getting their fair share. They also felt very
disenfranchised with the redistribution of land and the rapid westernisation of
their country.
When one considers these underlying issues is it hardly suprising why the
Iranians dont trust either the British or the Americans?
Jeremy
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:55:23 -0700
From: nl1816a@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Fw: "The Battle for Iran," 1953: Re-Release of CIA
Internal History Spotlights New Details about anti-Mosaddeq Coup
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.alternet.org/print/books/why-you-should-care-government-can-know-everything-about-youWhen
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."What?""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.
rethink911.orgpilots 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
removed
the redactions and published the report despite NY Times' plea
to not do it (we informed the paper beforehand).
http://cryptome.org/cia-iran.htm
Later the Times redid the redactions by a more secure means
and that is the version still offered by the paper. National
Security
Archive has brief mention of this event but does not name Cryptome,
merely says it was done by the "Web," nor point to our
version,
instead points to the NY Times'.
So like the Snowden releases, the USG still considers Ed's
disclosures
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.
ATB
Dougie.
On 27/06/14 20:21, Neal Lamb wrote:
On Friday, June 27, 2014 2:06 PM, National Security Archive
<archive@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"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 -
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB476/
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:
