[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: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:19:44 -0700


On Saturday, June 28, 2014 5:50 AM, doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Jeremy,
Tx for your contribution and background information..."every
      little helps" as they say at Tescos. (the slogan of a large
      supermarket chain here in the UK...henceforth renamed Tescoland,
      to the uninitiated).  And you are right of course regarding the
      Iranians not trusting the British or the Americans.  The problem
      with trust is who does one trust, or what does one trust.  I don't
      even trust meself at times...And just think, if we lived in one of
      those worlds where everyone trusted one another...life would be
      boring and there would be nuffink for us to write about.

I used to feel the same way about communism...as some people felt
      about fascism or religious extremism...Can you imagine even a
      thousand year reich of Hitler salutes and goosestepping troops, or
      a millenium of sticking up the right fist, marching by the million
      past the Kremlin and hailing Uncle Jo Stalin...or bowing and
      scraping to some heirarchical religious organisation...far less an
      infinite one...perish the thocht...but some people believe in
      it...good luck to em.  Someone once said to me that the only
      difference between conservatism and communism was the colour of
      the gold inlaid carpets which led up to their head office front
      door...an observation which has stuck with me ever since.

On 28/06/14 04:46, Jeremy Compton wrote:

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

Other related posts: