All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
by
4.24 · Rating details · 6,082 ratings · 662 reviews
An American Coup & the Roots of Middle East Terror
Half a century ago, the United States overthrew a Middle Eastern government for the first time. The victim was Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran. Although the coup seemed a success at first, today it serves as a chilling lesson about the dangers of foreign intervention.In this book, veteran New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer gives the first full account of this fateful operation. His account is centered around an hour-by-hour reconstruction of the events of August 1953, and concludes with an assessment of the coup's "haunting and terrible legacy."Operation Ajax, as the plot was code-named, reshaped the history of Iran, the Middle East, and the world. It restored Mohammad Reza Shah to the Peacock Throne, allowing him to impose a tyranny that ultimately sparked the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The Islamic Revolution, in turn, inspired fundamentalists throughout the Muslim world, including the Taliban and terrorists who thrived under its protection."It is not far-fetched," Kinzer asserts in this book, "to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York."Drawing on research in the United States and Iran, and using material from a long-secret CIA report, Kinzer explains the background of the coup and tells how it was carried out. It is a cloak-and-dagger story of spies, saboteurs, and secret agents. There are accounts of bribes, staged riots, suitcases full of cash, and midnight meetings between the Shah and CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, who was smuggled in and out of the royal palace under a blanket in the back seat of a car. Roosevelt,the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, was a real-life James Bond in an era when CIA agents operated mainly by their wits. After his first coup attempt failed, he organized a second attempt that succeeded three days later.The colorful cast of characters includes the terrified young Shah, who fled his country at the first sign of trouble; General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, father of the Gulf War commander and the radio voice of "Gang Busters," who flew to Tehran on a secret mission that helped set the coup in motion; and the fiery Prime Minister Mossadegh, who outraged the West by nationalizing the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The British, outraged by the seizure of their oil company, persuaded President Dwight Eisenhower that Mossadegh was leading Iran toward Communism. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britain became the coup's main sponsors.Brimming with insights into Middle Eastern history and American foreign policy, this book is an eye-opening look at an event whose unintended consequences--Islamic revolution and violent anti-Americanism--have shaped the modern world. As the United States assumes an ever-widening role in the Middle East, it is essential reading. (less)
Half a century ago, the United States overthrew a Middle Eastern government for the first time. The victim was Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran. Although the coup seemed a success at first, today it serves as a chilling lesson about the dangers of foreign intervention.In this book, veteran New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer gives the first full account of this fateful operation. His account is centered around an hour-by-hour reconstruction of the events of August 1953, and concludes with an assessment of the coup's "haunting and terrible legacy."Operation Ajax, as the plot was code-named, reshaped the history of Iran, the Middle East, and the world. It restored Mohammad Reza Shah to the Peacock Throne, allowing him to impose a tyranny that ultimately sparked the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The Islamic Revolution, in turn, inspired fundamentalists throughout the Muslim world, including the Taliban and terrorists who thrived under its protection."It is not far-fetched," Kinzer asserts in this book, "to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York."Drawing on research in the United States and Iran, and using material from a long-secret CIA report, Kinzer explains the background of the coup and tells how it was carried out. It is a cloak-and-dagger story of spies, saboteurs, and secret agents. There are accounts of bribes, staged riots, suitcases full of cash, and midnight meetings between the Shah and CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, who was smuggled in and out of the royal palace under a blanket in the back seat of a car. Roosevelt,the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, was a real-life James Bond in an era when CIA agents operated mainly by their wits. After his first coup attempt failed, he organized a second attempt that succeeded three days later.The colorful cast of characters includes the terrified young Shah, who fled his country at the first sign of trouble; General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, father of the Gulf War commander and the radio voice of "Gang Busters," who flew to Tehran on a secret mission that helped set the coup in motion; and the fiery Prime Minister Mossadegh, who outraged the West by nationalizing the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The British, outraged by the seizure of their oil company, persuaded President Dwight Eisenhower that Mossadegh was leading Iran toward Communism. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britain became the coup's main sponsors.Brimming with insights into Middle Eastern history and American foreign policy, this book is an eye-opening look at an event whose unintended consequences--Islamic revolution and violent anti-Americanism--have shaped the modern world. As the United States assumes an ever-widening role in the Middle East, it is essential reading. (less)
Paperback, 272 pages
Published August 1st 2004 by John Wiley & Sons (Hoboken, NJ) (first published 2003)
Original Title
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
ISBN
0471678783 (ISBN13: 9780471678786)
Edition Language
English
Ask the Goodreads community a question about All the Shah's Men
Popular Answered Questions
Showing 1-30
Jul 29, 2008Mehrsa rated it it was amazing
I just re-read this book in preparation for a book club. This book is the tragic story of a CIA operation that removed one of the only democratically elected leaders in the Middle-East. Mossadegh came into power and angered the British by nationalizing Iranian Oil and the British were determined to oust him from office. After Truman (who opposed a coup) left office and Eisenhower came to office, the Americans also signed on and actually conducted the coup. This story is so tragic (especially if you are Iranian) because although no one can say for certain what would have been, the fundamentalism that has taken over Iran and the entire middle east could have been averted with someone like Mossadegh in power. He was committed to the constitution and democracy. He was called the George Washington of Iran. His flaws were that he nationalized the oil and was not flexible in allowing the British any control of the company and he underestimated the cold war fears of the time. A lot of Anti-American hatred in Iran stems from this operation and the 1978 hostage crisis was a direct result of Iranian fears of a repeat of the 1953 CIA-led overthrow. I think the author could have done a lot more and the writing is certainly not flawless, but I give it five stars because I think everyone should read this book. Kinzer (the author) gives a truncated history of Iran and gets a lot of the psychology of the Iranian people right. I think he doesn't go far enough in saying that had Iran not fallen to Islamic fundamentalism in 1978, the entire Middle East would have been a different place today. The book, in my opinion, is not unjustifiably harsh on America. Eisenhower did not bear as much blame for this as churchill and the author places the blame mostly on two people in his cabinet who were very anxious about covert operations in many countries at the time and we certainly cannot underestimate the cold war fears that dominated the world psyche during the 1950s. But I just cannot help but feel depressed about this and just wonder what would have happened if the Iranian people were allowed to run their own country. (less)
لا جديد في هذا العالم إلا ما نجهله من التاريخ
لست من قراء التاريخ ربما لأن قراءة التاريخ تبدو ليّ سياسية إلى حد كبير حتى في ذلك الوقت الذي تقرأ به عن التاريخ الثقافي والفكري لأحد البلدان لا يمكن القراءة عنه بمعزل عن تاريخها السياسي لذا أجدني لا أفضل ذلك النوع من الكُتب لعدم تفضيلي بل ونفوري أحيانًا من السجالات السياسي، فليس هناك حقبة ما أو بلد ما تجذبني للقراءة في تاريخها، لكنني من وقت لآخر اختطف كتاب يتحدث عن فترة هامة ما بتركيز وتكثيف أشعر معه أنني حقًا عرفت كل شيء يخص تلك الحقبة وكأنني عايشت ...more
Sep 21, 2015Mohamed Shady rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
يبدو أن عليًا (كرم الله وجهه) يتجسد بين الحين والآخر في أرواح المتمردين والثوّار.
هذه قصة علي دون زيادة أو نقصان، في البداية يواجه أعداءه وفي النهاية يواجه أصدقاءه الذين انقلبوا عليه وتركوه وحيدًا.
مصّدق الذي حمل رسالة الديمقراطية فوق رأسه وكان أملًا عظيمًا وضوءًا ساطعًا وسط ظلمات من الجهل والتعصب والديكتاتورية.
الإرهاب صناعة غربية بالكامل.
هذه قصة علي دون زيادة أو نقصان، في البداية يواجه أعداءه وفي النهاية يواجه أصدقاءه الذين انقلبوا عليه وتركوه وحيدًا.
مصّدق الذي حمل رسالة الديمقراطية فوق رأسه وكان أملًا عظيمًا وضوءًا ساطعًا وسط ظلمات من الجهل والتعصب والديكتاتورية.
الإرهاب صناعة غربية بالكامل.
Mar 24, 2017C. rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: cultural, government-politics, history, islam, library-book, my-favorite-reads
Eye-opening, sad and infuriating read. Tells how the U.S. destroyed the birth of democracy in the middle east, which began in Iran, and now falsely accuses Iran as a sponsor of Mid-East terrorism, when in truth, it's the Saudis!
Always remember majority of Islamist terrorists are 'Sunni' Muslims, while Iran are Shia Muslims!
Always remember majority of Islamist terrorists are 'Sunni' Muslims, while Iran are Shia Muslims!
Nov 19, 2018Tom LA rated it really liked it
Wow, such a great book. I had read Kinzer’s “The brothers” a few years ago, about the Dulles brothers, and found it just as engaging, well-written, and well researched.
Kinzer has a real gift to write history that is deep, accurate and, at the same time, as gripping as a novel.
I’ve often found that many history books that are very engaging lack a certain depth or seriousness. “All the Shah’s men” does not — it’s both a gripping tale, almost a page turner, and a really good history book.
The only slightly negative thing I have to say about “All the Shah’s men” is the same that I had for “The brothers”: Kinzer is a passionate author, which is wonderful, but his political leanings tend to show - especially towards the end.
So when I think about this book I wonder: is it really offering an impartial account of history, by focusing so much on blaming the US for everything?
For example: how did it happen that the history of a country plundered mercilessly by British and Russian colonialists became the history of a country whose future has been “ruined by the US”?
When Kinzer traces a direct line from the 1953 coup to 9/11, it seems to me that he is drawing over-simplified lines through history. When he says that Islamic terrorism has its roots in 1953, he is visualizing “roots” that might be a bit short.
But again, this is a fabulous read, that I would absolutely recommend to anyone who is curious about this fascinating period of history.
Also - since Herodotus’ times, history gets much more interesting if you insert a bit of bias and subjective narrative.... without that, it easily becomes a very dry collection of facts and sources.
And what a towering historic figure Mohammad Mossadeq was. Although, to be precise, his historic persona is towering, since he’s been romanticized into something like a movie star. However, the real man, as it clearly transpires from even just this book, was an uncompromising, deceitful and obsessive guy who with his rigidity put the people of his country at serious risk various times. That is not what a good politician does.
Kinzer, however, in his interviews, loves to buy into the “hero of the people” narrative.
Personally, I think heroes exist only in “popular history”, which is typically a fictionalization of reality.
If Iranians today have theater plays where Mossadegh is celebrated for being the greatest man of the 20th century, that is very good for their national spirit, but maybe not so good for truth.
(Same goes for Che Guevara, Simon Bolivar and everyone else whom popular history loves to celebrate as demi-gods. They are all human beings. Erm ... actually, worse: they were all men, and extremely dominating ones).
Not only the reality of politics has no heroes - it also has no good guys and bad guys.
But this book seems to have its good guys and bad guys: the story goes that the magnificent "reforming" "democratic" leader of Iran Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown solely by the evil CIA in the 1950s and put in place the "evil" "autocratic" and "unpopular" Shah who was overthrown in 1979 by the masses of Iran yearning to be free.
Yes of course the CIA plotted with the U.K. to support a regime change. But regardless of anything the United States did or did not do, the question is: what would have happened otherwise? There were many serious risks to global stability. Mosaddeq’s government was already in a deep crisis : he was bound to fall because of his strategic mistakes, and no one knows what could have happened after that - perhaps the shah was going to retain his throne and expand his power, or perhaps communist groups in Iran would have been backed by Russia.
Yet the narrative of exclusive American culpability has become so entrenched that it now shapes how many Americans understand the history of U.S.-Iranian relations and influences how American leaders think about Iran. Including Obama.
For example, it is hard to see how Eisenhower could take advantage of Mossadeq’s mishaps when he was informed by his intelligence services that the “CIA presently has no group which would be effective in spreading anti-Mossadeq mass propaganda” and the “CIA has no group in Iran which could effectively promote riots demonstrating against Mossadeq.” (from recently declassified CIA documents)
In the fabled history of the coup, from such incapacity the CIA developed a resilient network that easily toppled a popular leader a few months later.
The truth might be in the middle: they absolutely did that, but probably not on the scale that is sometimes reported, and thanks to the help of many other powerful groups.
For example, the idea of a coup was also strongly promoted by aggrieved Iranian politicians who believed that Mossadeq’s disastrous course was ill-serving their country. General Fazlullah confirmed the embassy’s view that a nascent anti-Mossadeq coalition already existed and could gain power with very limited American support.
Also, documentary evidence reveals that, far from acting as puppet masters, CIA operatives and U.S. embassy staffers in Tehran were surprised at the size and diversity of the 1953 crowds. The protesters who took to the streets were not merely thugs hired by the CIA; in fact, they represented a cross section of Iranian society. Mosaddeq’s defiance of the shah had outraged them and, in the words of one contemporaneous CIA assessment, had “galvanized the people into an irate pro-Shah force.”
So, many people were on the side of the Shah already.
In addition, Iranian military officers had their own reasons for plotting against Mosaddeq, and they required neither instigation nor instruction from Roosevelt. Under the shah, and during the rule of his father before him, the military and the monarchy were indivisible. The army was an essential pillar of the shah’s rule. That is why Mosaddeq -- who wanted to weaken the shah -- continuously purged the army’s officer ranks, cut the military’s budget, and hollowed out its institutions.
Of course the UK and the US supported the coup, no one will ever deny that, and of course you can and should make a moral argument against that, because a country can maybe legitimately put pressure on foreign governments, but not participate in overthrowing them.
So there is really no “excuse” for that decision on Eisenhower’s part. His own belief was that he wanted to avoid actual war (in any foreign policy scenario) by any possible mean, plus he was deeply entrenched in the Cold War against communism, and that explains his penchant for covert operations. But if one wants his government to have always behaved like an angel, well the 1953 overthrow (and others) are certainly not a clean business.
If you want to read a good review to balance off Kinzer’s book, check out Foreign Affairs’ article here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fore...
Also, if you have Amazon prime, I would recommend the documentary “An American coup”, where you can see Kinzer himself being interviewed and presenting many chapters of this book. (less)
Kinzer has a real gift to write history that is deep, accurate and, at the same time, as gripping as a novel.
I’ve often found that many history books that are very engaging lack a certain depth or seriousness. “All the Shah’s men” does not — it’s both a gripping tale, almost a page turner, and a really good history book.
The only slightly negative thing I have to say about “All the Shah’s men” is the same that I had for “The brothers”: Kinzer is a passionate author, which is wonderful, but his political leanings tend to show - especially towards the end.
So when I think about this book I wonder: is it really offering an impartial account of history, by focusing so much on blaming the US for everything?
For example: how did it happen that the history of a country plundered mercilessly by British and Russian colonialists became the history of a country whose future has been “ruined by the US”?
When Kinzer traces a direct line from the 1953 coup to 9/11, it seems to me that he is drawing over-simplified lines through history. When he says that Islamic terrorism has its roots in 1953, he is visualizing “roots” that might be a bit short.
But again, this is a fabulous read, that I would absolutely recommend to anyone who is curious about this fascinating period of history.
Also - since Herodotus’ times, history gets much more interesting if you insert a bit of bias and subjective narrative.... without that, it easily becomes a very dry collection of facts and sources.
And what a towering historic figure Mohammad Mossadeq was. Although, to be precise, his historic persona is towering, since he’s been romanticized into something like a movie star. However, the real man, as it clearly transpires from even just this book, was an uncompromising, deceitful and obsessive guy who with his rigidity put the people of his country at serious risk various times. That is not what a good politician does.
Kinzer, however, in his interviews, loves to buy into the “hero of the people” narrative.
Personally, I think heroes exist only in “popular history”, which is typically a fictionalization of reality.
If Iranians today have theater plays where Mossadegh is celebrated for being the greatest man of the 20th century, that is very good for their national spirit, but maybe not so good for truth.
(Same goes for Che Guevara, Simon Bolivar and everyone else whom popular history loves to celebrate as demi-gods. They are all human beings. Erm ... actually, worse: they were all men, and extremely dominating ones).
Not only the reality of politics has no heroes - it also has no good guys and bad guys.
But this book seems to have its good guys and bad guys: the story goes that the magnificent "reforming" "democratic" leader of Iran Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown solely by the evil CIA in the 1950s and put in place the "evil" "autocratic" and "unpopular" Shah who was overthrown in 1979 by the masses of Iran yearning to be free.
Yes of course the CIA plotted with the U.K. to support a regime change. But regardless of anything the United States did or did not do, the question is: what would have happened otherwise? There were many serious risks to global stability. Mosaddeq’s government was already in a deep crisis : he was bound to fall because of his strategic mistakes, and no one knows what could have happened after that - perhaps the shah was going to retain his throne and expand his power, or perhaps communist groups in Iran would have been backed by Russia.
Yet the narrative of exclusive American culpability has become so entrenched that it now shapes how many Americans understand the history of U.S.-Iranian relations and influences how American leaders think about Iran. Including Obama.
For example, it is hard to see how Eisenhower could take advantage of Mossadeq’s mishaps when he was informed by his intelligence services that the “CIA presently has no group which would be effective in spreading anti-Mossadeq mass propaganda” and the “CIA has no group in Iran which could effectively promote riots demonstrating against Mossadeq.” (from recently declassified CIA documents)
In the fabled history of the coup, from such incapacity the CIA developed a resilient network that easily toppled a popular leader a few months later.
The truth might be in the middle: they absolutely did that, but probably not on the scale that is sometimes reported, and thanks to the help of many other powerful groups.
For example, the idea of a coup was also strongly promoted by aggrieved Iranian politicians who believed that Mossadeq’s disastrous course was ill-serving their country. General Fazlullah confirmed the embassy’s view that a nascent anti-Mossadeq coalition already existed and could gain power with very limited American support.
Also, documentary evidence reveals that, far from acting as puppet masters, CIA operatives and U.S. embassy staffers in Tehran were surprised at the size and diversity of the 1953 crowds. The protesters who took to the streets were not merely thugs hired by the CIA; in fact, they represented a cross section of Iranian society. Mosaddeq’s defiance of the shah had outraged them and, in the words of one contemporaneous CIA assessment, had “galvanized the people into an irate pro-Shah force.”
So, many people were on the side of the Shah already.
In addition, Iranian military officers had their own reasons for plotting against Mosaddeq, and they required neither instigation nor instruction from Roosevelt. Under the shah, and during the rule of his father before him, the military and the monarchy were indivisible. The army was an essential pillar of the shah’s rule. That is why Mosaddeq -- who wanted to weaken the shah -- continuously purged the army’s officer ranks, cut the military’s budget, and hollowed out its institutions.
Of course the UK and the US supported the coup, no one will ever deny that, and of course you can and should make a moral argument against that, because a country can maybe legitimately put pressure on foreign governments, but not participate in overthrowing them.
So there is really no “excuse” for that decision on Eisenhower’s part. His own belief was that he wanted to avoid actual war (in any foreign policy scenario) by any possible mean, plus he was deeply entrenched in the Cold War against communism, and that explains his penchant for covert operations. But if one wants his government to have always behaved like an angel, well the 1953 overthrow (and others) are certainly not a clean business.
If you want to read a good review to balance off Kinzer’s book, check out Foreign Affairs’ article here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fore...
Also, if you have Amazon prime, I would recommend the documentary “An American coup”, where you can see Kinzer himself being interviewed and presenting many chapters of this book. (less)
Nov 25, 2017Amr Mohamed rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: أمريكا, owned-books, سياسة-اعلام-اقتصاد, favorite
بالرغم من معرفتي بنجاح عملية أجاكس التي قامت بها المخابرات الأمريكية للانقلاب على مصدق رئيس وزراء ايران ولكن عندما بدأ الكتاب بذكر أول محاولة للانقلاب والتي فشلت انتابني فرحة لأنتصار مؤقت و التغلب على أمريكا وبريطانيا وعملائهم وديكتاتورية الشاه
ملخص الانقلاب على مصدق هو ما يتم منذ سنوات فى جميع بلادنا وبلاد اخري , فموارد البلد وحتي الشعب نفسه مجرد وسيلة لحصول القوي العظمي على جميع خيرات البلد ومن يحاول فقط ان يقول هذا من حقنا يقتلوه او ينقلبوا عليه
مصدق رجل كان يحاول فقط ان يجعل نفط (البترول) إيرا ...more
ملخص الانقلاب على مصدق هو ما يتم منذ سنوات فى جميع بلادنا وبلاد اخري , فموارد البلد وحتي الشعب نفسه مجرد وسيلة لحصول القوي العظمي على جميع خيرات البلد ومن يحاول فقط ان يقول هذا من حقنا يقتلوه او ينقلبوا عليه
مصدق رجل كان يحاول فقط ان يجعل نفط (البترول) إيرا ...more
May 02, 2010Steve Kettmann rated it really liked it
My S.F. Chronicle review from 2003:
Nearly two years after the shock of Sept. 11, 2001, it's fair to start poking through the legacy of U.S. foreign policy and raise troubling questions about the extent to which our own past misdeeds ultimately boomeranged on us. Few readers of "All the Shah's Men," by longtime New York Times foreign correspondent Stephen Kinzer, can come away without grave suspicions that Sept.
11 was in many ways a self-inflicted wound.
What American crime could explain so sens ...more
Nearly two years after the shock of Sept. 11, 2001, it's fair to start poking through the legacy of U.S. foreign policy and raise troubling questions about the extent to which our own past misdeeds ultimately boomeranged on us. Few readers of "All the Shah's Men," by longtime New York Times foreign correspondent Stephen Kinzer, can come away without grave suspicions that Sept.
11 was in many ways a self-inflicted wound.
What American crime could explain so sens ...more
Aug 20, 2017Mahdi Lotfi added it · review of another edition
همه مردان شاه (به انگلیسی: All the Shah's Men) عنوان کتابی از خبرنگار امریکایی استیون کینزر است. این کتاب کودتای ۲۸ مرداد را در قالب روایتی داستانی و رمانگونه مورد بررسی قرار میدهد.
مقدمه نگارنده
روزی به ضیافت معرفی کتاب یک خانم مسن ایرانی که خاطراتش را منتشر کرده بود، دعوت شدم. وی یک ساعت دربارهی زندگی پرماجرایش صحبت کرد و اگرچه هیچ سخنی دربارهی سیاست به میان نیاورد، به طور گذرا اشاره کرد که با محمّد مصدق، نخستوزیر سالهای ۱۳۳۰ ـ ۱۳۳۲ که سازمان اطلاعاتی مرکزی آمریکا (سیا) سرنگونش کرد، فامیل است.
پس ...more
مقدمه نگارنده
روزی به ضیافت معرفی کتاب یک خانم مسن ایرانی که خاطراتش را منتشر کرده بود، دعوت شدم. وی یک ساعت دربارهی زندگی پرماجرایش صحبت کرد و اگرچه هیچ سخنی دربارهی سیاست به میان نیاورد، به طور گذرا اشاره کرد که با محمّد مصدق، نخستوزیر سالهای ۱۳۳۰ ـ ۱۳۳۲ که سازمان اطلاعاتی مرکزی آمریکا (سیا) سرنگونش کرد، فامیل است.
پس ...more
Iran has a long and distinct history. Beginning in the 6th century BC with Cyrus, followed by Xerxes and Darius and on to the present, Iran’s people have had a common identity. The adoption of Shiism in the 7th century AD imparted a common set of values. Since then Arabs, Mongols and Turks ruled Iran. In the 19th century the decadent Qajar rulers exploited Iran to support their opulent lifestyle. In 1925 they were overthrown by a British engineered coup conducted to thwart Russia. The British placed Reza Shah on the Peacock Throne. A brutal dictator, he worked to modernize Iran antagonizing the mullahs. Reza declared neutrality in WWII. The British responded by invading in 1941. They forced Reza out and put his 21 year old son Mohammad Reza in as the new Shah.
In 1908 the British discovered a huge oil deposit and founded the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Henceforth oil would dictate British policy and fuel Iranian nationalism culminating in the ascendancy in 1951 of Mohammad Mossadegh. The Swiss educated Mossadegh spent his life struggling for Iranian democracy and against the British and their puppets, the two Shahs. The British took practically all of the oil profit leaving a small amount to buy off the Shah. This one sided deal brought popular resentment against the British and the Shah as did the Brits condescending attitude towards the Iranians and their abysmal treatment of Iranian workers. Most important in this land proud of its history and religion was that of control. Iranians were furious that the British were running their country through the Shah. They would not accept subservience to this foreign power, particularly with respect to the oil that they felt was theirs. Inept and unrealistic British foreign policy ended in Mossadegh becoming Iranian Prime Minister. He quickly nationalized the oil fields.
The communist takeover of China and the Korean War changed the way America viewed Iran. Foreign policy was now cast in terms of the Cold War. Still President Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson remained anti-colonial. They refused to support Britain’s hardline stand and proposals for direct intervention in Iran. Acheson sent his assistant secretary George McGhee to Iran then followed up with the experienced Averill Harriman to try to negotiate a peaceful resolution. Despite the persistent effort of both men the British and Iranians remained intransigent. Iran took over the oilfields but had no capacity to run them. The British had never trained the Iranian workers who lived in abject poverty. Britain pulled out all its management and technicians and production stopped.
Britain asked the United Nations to support its position and Mossadegh came to New York to respond. He was the first leader of a developing country to plead his case against a colonial power before the Security Council. Afterwards Truman invited him to Washington where Acheson, Harriman and McGhee spent fruitless hours trying to convince Mossadgh to compromise. Mossadegh then traveled to Egypt where nationalism would lead to the Suez crisis in a few years. He received a tumultuous hero’s welcome. Mossadegh had also achieved popularity in the US and graced the cover of Time Magazine as its 1951 “Man of the Year” beating out Eisenhower, MacArthur and Acheson.
Attempts at compromise stopped when Winston Churchill replaced Clement Attlee as Prime Minister. Churchill chided Attlee for pulling out of Iran when the British military could have easily settled the issue. The British began orchestrating a coup which was discovered and Mossadegh broke relations with Britain expelling all of its diplomats. The British however had a new hope, the election of Eisenhower who was running on a strong anti-communist platform. The British quickly brought CIA chief Allen Dulles and his brother, soon to be Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, into the fold. Foster and Allie immediately began plotting. Two months after Eisenhower’s inauguration in March of 1953 Ike signed off on their planned coup.
The plan required considerable coordination. Select a new leader to be Prime Minister, get the backing of the Shah, spread bribe money around, buy off the press, legislators, mullahs and the military; enlist street gangs and key army units, create riots and dissonance, blame it on Mossadegh, have him arrested and install their puppet. The CIA’s lead operative for the Middle East, Kermit Roosevelt, TR’s grandson, had been selected to craft and execute the plan. It almost worked, but as often happens, a few missteps in timing tipped off Mossadegh’s allies and he was spirited away to safety. However, Kermit had a lot of TR’s grittiness in him. Despite orders to leave the country he decided to try again. This time in August 1953 it worked. The Shah, who had fled Iran and checked into the Excelsior Hotel in Rome when the first coup failed, returned. Kermit had it all set up for him. The Shah thanked Roosevelt as did Churchill and Eisenhower who gave him the National Security Medal. Emboldened, the brothers, Foster and Allie, next went after Guatemala to overthrow another elected nationalist leader and replace him with a dictator. Kermit refused the Guatemala job and left the CIA a few years later, but always maintained the Iranian coup was justified.
The Shah became increasingly oppressive and after 26 years Iranians finally had enough, overthrowing him in 1979. The US government was clueless, unaware of how much the Shah and his main benefactor the US were hated. The Iranians never forgot who was behind the coup. The next big mistake was to invite the Shah to the US. This played right into the hands of Iranian extremists. Since the US had engineered one coup to put the Shah in power, the idea that the US was planning the same thing again had compelling logic to the Iranians. The takeover of the US embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis were the immediate result. A regime that supported terrorists and destabilized the entire Middle East was the longer term result.
The 1953 US engineered coup in Iran profoundly changed history. Despite Mossadegh’s worldwide 1951 fame, few Americans today would likely know who he was or how America took him down. Yet in Iran he is remembered by all as a hero. Thus most Americans cannot understand how Iranians see the US and the world. In 2015 we are still bearing the repercussions of colonialism exacerbated by Cold War tunnel vision. Kinzer offers up an apt quote from Harry Truman,” There is nothing new in the world except the history you don’t know.”
Eisenhower and the brothers saw the world only in terms of global communism. Unlike Truman and Acheson, they did not believe that befriending nationalist leaders in countries confronting Western imperialism was a viable strategy. They were on the wrong side of history. Ike, Allie and Foster wreaked havoc in Iran, Guatemala, Viet Nam, the Congo and Cuba. For much more on this topic, Kinzer’s The Brothers is an excellent resource. Both books show how arrogance and superficial understanding led to short sighted interventionist policies that made the world less stable and less safe. Unfortunately this pattern has persisted well beyond Eisenhower and the brothers.(less)
In 1908 the British discovered a huge oil deposit and founded the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Henceforth oil would dictate British policy and fuel Iranian nationalism culminating in the ascendancy in 1951 of Mohammad Mossadegh. The Swiss educated Mossadegh spent his life struggling for Iranian democracy and against the British and their puppets, the two Shahs. The British took practically all of the oil profit leaving a small amount to buy off the Shah. This one sided deal brought popular resentment against the British and the Shah as did the Brits condescending attitude towards the Iranians and their abysmal treatment of Iranian workers. Most important in this land proud of its history and religion was that of control. Iranians were furious that the British were running their country through the Shah. They would not accept subservience to this foreign power, particularly with respect to the oil that they felt was theirs. Inept and unrealistic British foreign policy ended in Mossadegh becoming Iranian Prime Minister. He quickly nationalized the oil fields.
The communist takeover of China and the Korean War changed the way America viewed Iran. Foreign policy was now cast in terms of the Cold War. Still President Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson remained anti-colonial. They refused to support Britain’s hardline stand and proposals for direct intervention in Iran. Acheson sent his assistant secretary George McGhee to Iran then followed up with the experienced Averill Harriman to try to negotiate a peaceful resolution. Despite the persistent effort of both men the British and Iranians remained intransigent. Iran took over the oilfields but had no capacity to run them. The British had never trained the Iranian workers who lived in abject poverty. Britain pulled out all its management and technicians and production stopped.
Britain asked the United Nations to support its position and Mossadegh came to New York to respond. He was the first leader of a developing country to plead his case against a colonial power before the Security Council. Afterwards Truman invited him to Washington where Acheson, Harriman and McGhee spent fruitless hours trying to convince Mossadgh to compromise. Mossadegh then traveled to Egypt where nationalism would lead to the Suez crisis in a few years. He received a tumultuous hero’s welcome. Mossadegh had also achieved popularity in the US and graced the cover of Time Magazine as its 1951 “Man of the Year” beating out Eisenhower, MacArthur and Acheson.
Attempts at compromise stopped when Winston Churchill replaced Clement Attlee as Prime Minister. Churchill chided Attlee for pulling out of Iran when the British military could have easily settled the issue. The British began orchestrating a coup which was discovered and Mossadegh broke relations with Britain expelling all of its diplomats. The British however had a new hope, the election of Eisenhower who was running on a strong anti-communist platform. The British quickly brought CIA chief Allen Dulles and his brother, soon to be Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, into the fold. Foster and Allie immediately began plotting. Two months after Eisenhower’s inauguration in March of 1953 Ike signed off on their planned coup.
The plan required considerable coordination. Select a new leader to be Prime Minister, get the backing of the Shah, spread bribe money around, buy off the press, legislators, mullahs and the military; enlist street gangs and key army units, create riots and dissonance, blame it on Mossadegh, have him arrested and install their puppet. The CIA’s lead operative for the Middle East, Kermit Roosevelt, TR’s grandson, had been selected to craft and execute the plan. It almost worked, but as often happens, a few missteps in timing tipped off Mossadegh’s allies and he was spirited away to safety. However, Kermit had a lot of TR’s grittiness in him. Despite orders to leave the country he decided to try again. This time in August 1953 it worked. The Shah, who had fled Iran and checked into the Excelsior Hotel in Rome when the first coup failed, returned. Kermit had it all set up for him. The Shah thanked Roosevelt as did Churchill and Eisenhower who gave him the National Security Medal. Emboldened, the brothers, Foster and Allie, next went after Guatemala to overthrow another elected nationalist leader and replace him with a dictator. Kermit refused the Guatemala job and left the CIA a few years later, but always maintained the Iranian coup was justified.
The Shah became increasingly oppressive and after 26 years Iranians finally had enough, overthrowing him in 1979. The US government was clueless, unaware of how much the Shah and his main benefactor the US were hated. The Iranians never forgot who was behind the coup. The next big mistake was to invite the Shah to the US. This played right into the hands of Iranian extremists. Since the US had engineered one coup to put the Shah in power, the idea that the US was planning the same thing again had compelling logic to the Iranians. The takeover of the US embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis were the immediate result. A regime that supported terrorists and destabilized the entire Middle East was the longer term result.
The 1953 US engineered coup in Iran profoundly changed history. Despite Mossadegh’s worldwide 1951 fame, few Americans today would likely know who he was or how America took him down. Yet in Iran he is remembered by all as a hero. Thus most Americans cannot understand how Iranians see the US and the world. In 2015 we are still bearing the repercussions of colonialism exacerbated by Cold War tunnel vision. Kinzer offers up an apt quote from Harry Truman,” There is nothing new in the world except the history you don’t know.”
Eisenhower and the brothers saw the world only in terms of global communism. Unlike Truman and Acheson, they did not believe that befriending nationalist leaders in countries confronting Western imperialism was a viable strategy. They were on the wrong side of history. Ike, Allie and Foster wreaked havoc in Iran, Guatemala, Viet Nam, the Congo and Cuba. For much more on this topic, Kinzer’s The Brothers is an excellent resource. Both books show how arrogance and superficial understanding led to short sighted interventionist policies that made the world less stable and less safe. Unfortunately this pattern has persisted well beyond Eisenhower and the brothers.(less)
Oct 07, 2016Jon(athan) Nakapalau rated it it was amazing
Shelves: biography, cultural-studies, favorites, history, politics
The overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh is one of the little known events that lead to Mohammad Reza Shah coming to power in Iran. This book looks at the tragic aftermath - and the continuing strife - that was a direct result of this act.
Aug 05, 2010Erik Graff rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: Americans
Recommended to Erik by: Einar Graff
Shelves: history
Although over ninety, Dad is unusually active. He is a docent at the Dundee Historical Society and, thanks to the influence of his Danish wife, Lene, takes courses as a non-degree-seeking student at the Roosevelt University campus out in dreary Schaumburg, Illinois. He tends towards history and political science, having said at one time that he enjoys ganging up with the liberal teachers against his mostly right-wing, fellow suburban students. (Dad always was a pinkish Democrat.) This book was recommended by him after he'd taken some course which used it. He had asked it I'd read it and, having read Kinzer's other book about the overthrow of the Guatemalan government by the C.I.A. and having enjoyed that one, his recommendation was enough for me to obtain the thing. I wasn't disappointed.
The C.I.A. was set up under the Truman administration as an information collection agency of government responsible to the president. Later, when Allen Dulles, brother of Secretary of State Foster Dulles, came to head the agency, it became almost as much a disinformation and destruction agency devoted to its own aggrandizement and the supposed interests of the U.S.A. These interests were, then as now, not the long-term interests of people, but the short-term political interests of politicians representing the American ruling class and corporations. We overthrew the popular governments of Guatemala and of Iran in the interests of the United Fruit Corporation (for which one of the Dulles brothers had worked and in which the other was heavily invested) and of big oil, respectively. The consequences were years of dictatorship and, in the case of Iran, serious and well-founded suspicion towards the United States--as well as a shot in the arm boost for the least savory aspects of the C.I.A. from the Eisenhower period until the present day. (less)
The C.I.A. was set up under the Truman administration as an information collection agency of government responsible to the president. Later, when Allen Dulles, brother of Secretary of State Foster Dulles, came to head the agency, it became almost as much a disinformation and destruction agency devoted to its own aggrandizement and the supposed interests of the U.S.A. These interests were, then as now, not the long-term interests of people, but the short-term political interests of politicians representing the American ruling class and corporations. We overthrew the popular governments of Guatemala and of Iran in the interests of the United Fruit Corporation (for which one of the Dulles brothers had worked and in which the other was heavily invested) and of big oil, respectively. The consequences were years of dictatorship and, in the case of Iran, serious and well-founded suspicion towards the United States--as well as a shot in the arm boost for the least savory aspects of the C.I.A. from the Eisenhower period until the present day. (less)
May 25, 2017Hesam.Ef rated it really liked it · review of another edition
تفو بر تو ای چرخ گردون تفو.
از لحاظ نوشتاری کتاب بسیار خوش خوانی هست. عناوین هر فصل از جملات کلیدی داخل فصل انتخاب شدند که بسیار هنرمندانه و زیبا انتخاب شدند. ایده ی اصلی جناب کینزر اینه که پا گرفتن دیکتاتوری محمدرضا شاه، انقلاب اسلامی و نفرتی که ایرانیان از آمریکایی ها نشون دادند همگی حاصل کودتای 28 مرداد بودند که برای همیشه دیدگاه جهان سوم رو نسبت به آمریکا عوض کرد. انقلاب ایران الهام بخش بنیادگرایان اسلامی شد و 11 سپتامبر رو ایجاد کرد. اوایل خوندن فکر می کردم کتاب برام تکرار مکررات باشه چون خ ...more
از لحاظ نوشتاری کتاب بسیار خوش خوانی هست. عناوین هر فصل از جملات کلیدی داخل فصل انتخاب شدند که بسیار هنرمندانه و زیبا انتخاب شدند. ایده ی اصلی جناب کینزر اینه که پا گرفتن دیکتاتوری محمدرضا شاه، انقلاب اسلامی و نفرتی که ایرانیان از آمریکایی ها نشون دادند همگی حاصل کودتای 28 مرداد بودند که برای همیشه دیدگاه جهان سوم رو نسبت به آمریکا عوض کرد. انقلاب ایران الهام بخش بنیادگرایان اسلامی شد و 11 سپتامبر رو ایجاد کرد. اوایل خوندن فکر می کردم کتاب برام تکرار مکررات باشه چون خ ...more
An alternate title of this book could be "United States: Strangler of Infant Democracies". It is pretty well known among scholars and international relations experts that anti-American Mideast terrorism has its roots in the US coup that overthrew Iran's first-ever democratically elected prime minister in 1953. This book explains the history of Iran, its governments, its oppression at the hands of colonialists, its exploitation by the British oil industry, and how Britain talked the United States ...more
Nov 06, 2016Dr Osama rated it really liked it · review of another edition
كتاب أتباع الشاه، انقلاب أمريكي وجذور الإرهاب في الشرق الأوسط للكاتب ستيفن كينرز وترجمة سهى الشامي. يتألف الكتاب من إثنا عشر فصلا تتناول موضوعا هاما في تاريخ إيران الحديث وهو تدخل الاستخبارات الأمريكية لخلع رئيس وزراء الأيراني محمد مصدق في العام 1953 وإعادة الشاه محمد رضا بهلوي بعد هروبه. يطرح الكاتب فكرة جوهرية مفادها بأن تدخل أمريكا لخلع مصدق كان سببا في توقف المد الديموقراطي في إيران وما أعقبه من تقوية نظام الشاه وما أنتجه من تفجر الثورة في نهاية السبعينات. يدافع الكاتب عن رأي مفاده بأن ما نعانيه اليوم من تطرف وكوارث سياسية يرتبط في جذوره بتدخل الولايات المتحدة في الانقلاب على ديموقراطية وليدة في الشرق الأوسط لتحقيق مكاسب إقتصادية مع الشريك الاستعماري البريطاني.
الكتاب يقدم صورة مفصلة للفترة التاريخية التي حاول فيها مصدق وحكومته مقاومة السيطرة البريطانية على آبار النفط ومعامل التكرير والسعي نحو تأميمها ورغم عدم نجاحه في تحقيق ذلك ورغم خسارته الفادحة بقضاء عشر سنوات تحت الإقامة الجبرية بعد الإطاحة به إلا أن محمد مصدق ترك بصمة طيبة في التاريخ لا تزال باقية إلى يومنا هذا.
الترجمة ممتازة واللغة واضحة وسلسة. أشكر مؤسسة هنداوي على تقديم هذا الكتاب المتميز للقارئ العربي. (less)
الكتاب يقدم صورة مفصلة للفترة التاريخية التي حاول فيها مصدق وحكومته مقاومة السيطرة البريطانية على آبار النفط ومعامل التكرير والسعي نحو تأميمها ورغم عدم نجاحه في تحقيق ذلك ورغم خسارته الفادحة بقضاء عشر سنوات تحت الإقامة الجبرية بعد الإطاحة به إلا أن محمد مصدق ترك بصمة طيبة في التاريخ لا تزال باقية إلى يومنا هذا.
الترجمة ممتازة واللغة واضحة وسلسة. أشكر مؤسسة هنداوي على تقديم هذا الكتاب المتميز للقارئ العربي. (less)
Apr 21, 2016Aya Youssef rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: non-fiction, translated, history, politics
إيران دولة أجدها شيقة ومثيرة للاهتمام ودائمًا ما أجد شيء يجذبني للقراءة عن تاريخها وهذا الكتاب الممتع كان مدخلًا لمعرفة شيء عن طبيعة تاريخ إيران ما قبل الثورة الإسلامية وتفاصيل الإنقلاب الذي دبره الإنجليز والأمريكان ضد حكومة مصدق التي كانت تدافع عن حق الإيرانيين في النفط وكانت تحمل بذور وقيم الديمقراطية .
يسرد الكتاب تفاصيل العملية (أياكس) ثم يحلل مدى ضرورة وتأثير هذا الإنقلاب على المدى البعيد وما ترتب عليه من آثار مثلت جذورًا للإرهاب وغيرت وجه تاريخ إيران والشرق الأوسط والعالم بأكمله.
كتاب جيد وم ...more
Apr 13, 2014Quo rated it it was amazing
Part of what makes All The Shah's Men: An American Coup & the Roots of Middle East Terror so fascinating is Stephen Kinzer's ability to put all of the details into historical context and still formulate his story in a way that causes it to read like a spy novel at times. I initially read this book on the American involvement in Iran when I was awaiting an Iranian visa to visit a country that was officially listed as part of the "Axis of Evil". While being very curious about the erstwhile Persia, most of the available media-supplied images of Iran were couched in extreme anti-American rhetoric, nary a hint about why the people of that land might be so antagonistic. Kinzer fills in the gaps & does so in an almost politically neutral manner. As the saying has it, "the devil is in the details" and the way the story of the CIA-led overthrow of an elected Iranian government unfolds, seems almost comic at times, with anti-Mossadegh protestors being somewhat randomly hired by the CIA, at times reminding one of an early scene from the recent film Argo. What happened hardly represnts a distinguished moment in American diplomatic history.
The historical backdrop on both Iran and America's dealings with that country, going as far back as President Woodrow Wilson seems to indicate that the U.S. sought to view Iran very differently than did our colonial British friends, so much so that in the mid-1920s an American envoy in Tehran reported that "Persians of all classes have unbounded confidence in America". And with a view to better understanding Iran, Steve Kinzer deftly manages to inform his reader on the rich cultural backdrop within the country, including these words from Rumi:
Obviously, this dose of Sufi metaphysics does not explain the storming of the U.S. embassy in 1979 but it serves to humanize Iran for the outsider perhaps more than any listing of the historical achievements of Cyrus the Great or Darius in ancient Persia. Iran has a very rich & complex history & Kinzer builds on that history so that a casual reader can begin to fathom the happenings in 1979 & what led up to that moment in history.
The author gives high marks to Dean Acheson, President Truman's secretary of state & together they reckoned in 1952 that an elected leader named Mossedegh, while perhaps imperfect, was still a step towards democracy & should be supported. However, that fall represented an election year change in the U.S. and with the installation of President Eisenhower & the Dulles brothers as secretary of state and head of the CIA and with ample prodding by Great Britain, America's stance on Iran took an abrupt shift. Kinzer paints a very clear picture about some of the reasons for this change, including the situation in Korea in 1953 and as always during this era, the fear of global Communism, making Iran yet again part of the "Great Game" of international diplomacy. These were indeed dangerous times & the issue of "Containment" was a dominant approach to political reality around the globe. Quickly, Dean Acheson was perceived as weak in a situation that demanded American strength, even without a great deal of forethought.
Enter, Kermit Roosevelt as CIA bureau chief in Iran and you have a chapter of history that now seems almost improbable in the recounting of many of its elements but which led to the overthrow of a elected government in Iran and the installation of the Shah, guaranteeing a friendly face & cheap oil but ultimately coming home to haunt the United States some 25 years later. As was later said in justifying the regime's radicalism by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was seen as much more humane following Ayatollah Khomeini, "We are not liberals like Allende & Mossedegh, whom the CIA can snuff out".
All the Shah's Men is a comprehensive, thoughtful & exceedingly enjoyable attempt at rendering a very complicated event in American-Iranian relations and I highly recommend this & other books by Stephen Kinzer. And if you are feeling intrepid, I also recommend a visit to Iran, with the Iranian people among the most hospitable I have ever experienced. (less)
The historical backdrop on both Iran and America's dealings with that country, going as far back as President Woodrow Wilson seems to indicate that the U.S. sought to view Iran very differently than did our colonial British friends, so much so that in the mid-1920s an American envoy in Tehran reported that "Persians of all classes have unbounded confidence in America". And with a view to better understanding Iran, Steve Kinzer deftly manages to inform his reader on the rich cultural backdrop within the country, including these words from Rumi:
I hold no religion or creed; am neither Eastern nor Western; Muslim or infidel; Zoroastrian, Christian, Jew or Gentile; I come from neither land nor sea; am not related to those above or below; was not born near or far away; do not live either in Paradise or on this Earth; claim descent not from Adam & eve or the Angels above. I transcend body & soul. My home is beyond place & name. It is with the beloved, in a space beyond space. I embrace all & am part of all.
Obviously, this dose of Sufi metaphysics does not explain the storming of the U.S. embassy in 1979 but it serves to humanize Iran for the outsider perhaps more than any listing of the historical achievements of Cyrus the Great or Darius in ancient Persia. Iran has a very rich & complex history & Kinzer builds on that history so that a casual reader can begin to fathom the happenings in 1979 & what led up to that moment in history.
The author gives high marks to Dean Acheson, President Truman's secretary of state & together they reckoned in 1952 that an elected leader named Mossedegh, while perhaps imperfect, was still a step towards democracy & should be supported. However, that fall represented an election year change in the U.S. and with the installation of President Eisenhower & the Dulles brothers as secretary of state and head of the CIA and with ample prodding by Great Britain, America's stance on Iran took an abrupt shift. Kinzer paints a very clear picture about some of the reasons for this change, including the situation in Korea in 1953 and as always during this era, the fear of global Communism, making Iran yet again part of the "Great Game" of international diplomacy. These were indeed dangerous times & the issue of "Containment" was a dominant approach to political reality around the globe. Quickly, Dean Acheson was perceived as weak in a situation that demanded American strength, even without a great deal of forethought.
Enter, Kermit Roosevelt as CIA bureau chief in Iran and you have a chapter of history that now seems almost improbable in the recounting of many of its elements but which led to the overthrow of a elected government in Iran and the installation of the Shah, guaranteeing a friendly face & cheap oil but ultimately coming home to haunt the United States some 25 years later. As was later said in justifying the regime's radicalism by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was seen as much more humane following Ayatollah Khomeini, "We are not liberals like Allende & Mossedegh, whom the CIA can snuff out".
All the Shah's Men is a comprehensive, thoughtful & exceedingly enjoyable attempt at rendering a very complicated event in American-Iranian relations and I highly recommend this & other books by Stephen Kinzer. And if you are feeling intrepid, I also recommend a visit to Iran, with the Iranian people among the most hospitable I have ever experienced. (less)
Feb 03, 2009Jessie rated it liked it
I wish more people read books like this. I think it is important for every citizen of the US to understand why people from other countries feel the way they do about us, particulary in the Middle East. I think most Americans are simply unaware of what our government does under the broad and vague umbrella of what is deemed "classified" information. As we are supposed to be a government "of the people" and our government therefore, in effect, represents us and our interests, I think Americans should be deeply disturbed by some of the things our government and other Western governments (particularly European) have done to other peoples around the world for the sake of money or power or politics. (less)
Feb 24, 2013Maggie rated it really liked it
Anyone interested in U.S.-Iran relations or the 1953 Coup d'etat in Iran will find "All the Shah's Men" to be an interesting read. Kinzer's language is quite simple, and I can see how this might frustrate more intellectual readers. However, for a student or young person interested in learning more about the history of the coup, Kinzer's simple language is an asset; his book is probably the easiest way to quickly learn about the coup.
The reader should bear in mind that even sixty years after the event, there are still many secrets regarding motives behind the coup; Kinzer's account cannot be taken as a totally comprehensive account of the events. I took issue with two things in Kinzer's book: first, Kinzer presents a great deal of facts, but plays up the ones he deems as of greater importance and de-emphasizes those that he does not completely agree with. It is important to note that Kinzer's personal opinion on what exactly the American motives for backing the coup were are quite clear in the book; if you do not want to read a slightly biased version of events, "All the Shah's Men" is sure to frustrate you.
Second, Kinzer attempts to draw a line directly from the 1953 coup to the events of 9/11. While undoubtedly it was the coup that really ignited the anti-American sentiment in Iran, to presume that a line can be drawn directly from the coup to 9/11 is a gross oversimplification of a nearly fifty-year period chock-full of antagonization and conflict between Iran and America. There is no question that there is a correlation between the coup and 9/11, but Kinzer presents mere speculations in a manner that makes them seem far more factual than they are.
Overall, his book had a little too much left-leaning bias for my liking. That being said, I still think that it deserves four stars, as Kinzer does a great job of fleshing out the coup in a simple way, and I found "All the Shah's Men" to be a truly fascinating read. (less)
The reader should bear in mind that even sixty years after the event, there are still many secrets regarding motives behind the coup; Kinzer's account cannot be taken as a totally comprehensive account of the events. I took issue with two things in Kinzer's book: first, Kinzer presents a great deal of facts, but plays up the ones he deems as of greater importance and de-emphasizes those that he does not completely agree with. It is important to note that Kinzer's personal opinion on what exactly the American motives for backing the coup were are quite clear in the book; if you do not want to read a slightly biased version of events, "All the Shah's Men" is sure to frustrate you.
Second, Kinzer attempts to draw a line directly from the 1953 coup to the events of 9/11. While undoubtedly it was the coup that really ignited the anti-American sentiment in Iran, to presume that a line can be drawn directly from the coup to 9/11 is a gross oversimplification of a nearly fifty-year period chock-full of antagonization and conflict between Iran and America. There is no question that there is a correlation between the coup and 9/11, but Kinzer presents mere speculations in a manner that makes them seem far more factual than they are.
Overall, his book had a little too much left-leaning bias for my liking. That being said, I still think that it deserves four stars, as Kinzer does a great job of fleshing out the coup in a simple way, and I found "All the Shah's Men" to be a truly fascinating read. (less)
The book is fabulously researched, thought-provoking, and Kinzer really knows his stuff. It also helps that the writing style flows. This is a truly powerful read.
Jul 27, 2014Shirin Abdel Rahman rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: favourite-books
يقول لنا التاريخ ان الملك فاروق عندما علم ان عامه المصريين لا يريدونه حاكما للبلاد فانه وقع على وثيقه التنازل عن العرش في هدوء تام ثم نراه يخطو نحو الباخره المحروسه في خطوات ثابته متجها الى منفاه إيطاليا ليموت هناك كمدا!
الا ان التاريخ أيضا يروى لنا ان في بداية الخمسينات تلك الفترة التي انتشرت فيها حركات الاستقلال كانت ايران تموج برياح الغضب و يتزعم تلك الحركة رجلا يعرف باسم محمد مصدق(زى الشارع اللى في الدقي)
الا ان محمد رضا بهلوي قرر ان يأخذ مسار مخالف لصهره الملك فاروق ( محمد بهلوي كان متزوج من ...more
الا ان التاريخ أيضا يروى لنا ان في بداية الخمسينات تلك الفترة التي انتشرت فيها حركات الاستقلال كانت ايران تموج برياح الغضب و يتزعم تلك الحركة رجلا يعرف باسم محمد مصدق(زى الشارع اللى في الدقي)
الا ان محمد رضا بهلوي قرر ان يأخذ مسار مخالف لصهره الملك فاروق ( محمد بهلوي كان متزوج من ...more
Jun 23, 2010Thomas rated it it was amazing
Shelves: central-asia, cold-war, espionage, politics, read-in-2010, iran-persia, all-time-favorites
Exhaustive account of the 1953 coup that deposed nationalist Iranian Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was anti-British but mildly pro-American, in order to install the oppressive regime more directly controlled by Shah Reza Mohammed Pahlavi, whom this book portrays as about the most gutless dictator ever born. A direct path is drawn between the pro-American attitude of the Iranian people, and Mosaddeq in particular, before the British were expelled for what Mosaddeq called "meddling" in Iranian politics by trying to reverse the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and, when that failed, planning a coup. One the British were expelled, we Yanks became British stooges -- or, if you want to take the Kermit Roosevelt-Allan Dulles view, we planned a coup to depose the secular Nationalist Mossadeq so that our planning a coup wouldn't make him ask the Soviets for protection. Kind of mind-bending logic, there. The result? Twenty-five years later, we got Ayatollah Khomeni, the Hostage Crisis, and the most rabidly anti-American government on the planet. Thanks, Kermit.
The book should be read by anyone who wants to understand the roots of anti-American Islamic fundamentalism, oil politics, British decolonization, Iran, or why setting up pro-American puppet governments directly in opposition to the will of 98% of the population is a shit-stupid idea -- and tends to lead to the codification of far more extreme ideologies that are far more anti-American. (less)
The book should be read by anyone who wants to understand the roots of anti-American Islamic fundamentalism, oil politics, British decolonization, Iran, or why setting up pro-American puppet governments directly in opposition to the will of 98% of the population is a shit-stupid idea -- and tends to lead to the codification of far more extreme ideologies that are far more anti-American. (less)
Feb 03, 2009Jack D. Riner rated it liked it
**Spoiler Alert**
This is going to shock a lot of people. Several years ago there was a Republican administration that completely failed to understand a foreign nation and its people. However, they didn't let such a small detail stop them from inducing a regime change favorable to Western big business interests at that moment.
While the need for immediate gratification was fulfilled, the Eisenhower Administration stole Iran’s future away from its people and planted the seeds of Islamic fundamentalism. If allowed to determine its own future, modern Iran would be considerably different.
Conservative Version (assessment may not be related to content): The Eisenhower Administration bravely intervened in Iranian politics to ensure a freedom loving super patriot like the Shah could lead his people against the deadly ideological cancer of Communism. The Shah’s leadership was only disrupted by the incompetence of the liberal Carter Administration which was completely responsible for the 1978 Revolution. This book details the brilliance of the Eisenhower Administration in action. (less)
This is going to shock a lot of people. Several years ago there was a Republican administration that completely failed to understand a foreign nation and its people. However, they didn't let such a small detail stop them from inducing a regime change favorable to Western big business interests at that moment.
While the need for immediate gratification was fulfilled, the Eisenhower Administration stole Iran’s future away from its people and planted the seeds of Islamic fundamentalism. If allowed to determine its own future, modern Iran would be considerably different.
Conservative Version (assessment may not be related to content): The Eisenhower Administration bravely intervened in Iranian politics to ensure a freedom loving super patriot like the Shah could lead his people against the deadly ideological cancer of Communism. The Shah’s leadership was only disrupted by the incompetence of the liberal Carter Administration which was completely responsible for the 1978 Revolution. This book details the brilliance of the Eisenhower Administration in action. (less)
Dec 28, 2008Pamela rated it really liked it · review of another edition
In 1953, the CIA, aided by the British, engineered a coup to overthrow the secular, democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, as Mossadegh had committed the "crime" of nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now British Petroleum). Before then, Americans had been regarded favorably in Iran and much of the Middle East, and veteran journalist Kinzer makes a strong case that this coup led directly to the hatred and distrust of the U.S. in this part of the world, various militant movements (among them Hizbullah and Hamas), and the current Islamic Republic of Iran. (less)
A must-read for anyone who wants to be able to put current events into perspective (4.5 stars)
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror was a terrific book - a detailed and well-balanced historical non-fiction that at times reads like a spy thriller and throughout made me unbelievably angry and sad. Stephen Kinzer does a wonderful job of taking you behind the scenes of Mossadegh's overthrow and includes information from all the key players. He provides an enlightening brief history of Iran and a well-written explanation of what led up to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's problems, Mossadegh's rise to power, his nationalization of the oil industry, and the subsequent problems that eventually resulted in the end of his political career and his public life.
The arrogance of these men who thought they could play with a people and a nation as if they were playing a game of Risk ... it's seriously abhorrent. To think of what has happened as a result of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's greed (a company now known as BP), the British Empire's inability to let go of colonialism, and the US's obsession with stopping the spread of Communism at all cost - it boggles the mind. The covert institutions of these two countries literally played with the Iranian people and the country's future as if it was just a child's board game, disregarding not only the longterm implications of their actions, but also the unbelievable immorality of them.
So many times - so many times! - the Iranian people and democracy won out despite manipulations, backhand deals, palm-greasing, propaganda, and outright lies. After all that shady work by the US and Britain, the CIA's first attempt to overthrow Mossadegh on August 15, 1953 didn't even work!! And if Mossadegh hadn't been such a scrupulously honest and moral person and so devoted to the idea of democracy, freedom, and keeping his word, their second attempt on August 19 would also have failed. But it didn't, and we are all the worse off for it.
As Kinzer and other historians point out, one can trace a line from the CIA and MI6's overthrow of Mossadegh to the attacks against Americans and US institutions in Iran in the 70s, the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the embassy hostage crisis, the current (deplorable) state of democracy in the Middle East, and the emergence and strength of extremist and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.
In the last chapter of All the Shah's Men, Kinzer writes: "It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax [the name of the operation to overthrow Mossadegh:] through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York. The world has paid a heavy price for the lack of democracy in most of the Middle East. Operation Ajax taught tyrants and aspiring tyrants there that the world's most powerful governments were willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as oppressive regimes were friendly to the West and to Western oil companies. That helped tilt the political balance in a vast region away from freedom and toward dictatorship" (p203-204).
How does the saying go? ... Oh right: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana, 1905). I fear that the lessons from Mossadegh's overthrow aren't ones we've forgotten, but ones we unfortunately never learned to begin with.
OTHER BOOKS BY STEPHEN KINZER
Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, Revised and Expanded(1982)
Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds (2001)
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (2006)
Blood of Brothers: Life and War in Nicaragua), co-author Merilee S. Grindle (2007)
A Thousand Hills: Rwanda's Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It (2008)
Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future (2010) (less)
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror was a terrific book - a detailed and well-balanced historical non-fiction that at times reads like a spy thriller and throughout made me unbelievably angry and sad. Stephen Kinzer does a wonderful job of taking you behind the scenes of Mossadegh's overthrow and includes information from all the key players. He provides an enlightening brief history of Iran and a well-written explanation of what led up to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's problems, Mossadegh's rise to power, his nationalization of the oil industry, and the subsequent problems that eventually resulted in the end of his political career and his public life.
The arrogance of these men who thought they could play with a people and a nation as if they were playing a game of Risk ... it's seriously abhorrent. To think of what has happened as a result of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's greed (a company now known as BP), the British Empire's inability to let go of colonialism, and the US's obsession with stopping the spread of Communism at all cost - it boggles the mind. The covert institutions of these two countries literally played with the Iranian people and the country's future as if it was just a child's board game, disregarding not only the longterm implications of their actions, but also the unbelievable immorality of them.
So many times - so many times! - the Iranian people and democracy won out despite manipulations, backhand deals, palm-greasing, propaganda, and outright lies. After all that shady work by the US and Britain, the CIA's first attempt to overthrow Mossadegh on August 15, 1953 didn't even work!! And if Mossadegh hadn't been such a scrupulously honest and moral person and so devoted to the idea of democracy, freedom, and keeping his word, their second attempt on August 19 would also have failed. But it didn't, and we are all the worse off for it.
As Kinzer and other historians point out, one can trace a line from the CIA and MI6's overthrow of Mossadegh to the attacks against Americans and US institutions in Iran in the 70s, the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the embassy hostage crisis, the current (deplorable) state of democracy in the Middle East, and the emergence and strength of extremist and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.
In the last chapter of All the Shah's Men, Kinzer writes: "It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax [the name of the operation to overthrow Mossadegh:] through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York. The world has paid a heavy price for the lack of democracy in most of the Middle East. Operation Ajax taught tyrants and aspiring tyrants there that the world's most powerful governments were willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as oppressive regimes were friendly to the West and to Western oil companies. That helped tilt the political balance in a vast region away from freedom and toward dictatorship" (p203-204).
How does the saying go? ... Oh right: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana, 1905). I fear that the lessons from Mossadegh's overthrow aren't ones we've forgotten, but ones we unfortunately never learned to begin with.
OTHER BOOKS BY STEPHEN KINZER
Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, Revised and Expanded(1982)
Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds (2001)
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (2006)
Blood of Brothers: Life and War in Nicaragua), co-author Merilee S. Grindle (2007)
A Thousand Hills: Rwanda's Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It (2008)
Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future (2010) (less)
All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer
5 Stars and a heart
In 1979, Iranian students stormed the American Embassy and held fifty-two Americans hostage for 444 days. Americans were shocked because, in their minds, the U.S. and Iranians still held the mutual affinity shared pre-1953. Prior to 1953, “Americans were regarded with nearly universal admiration and affection.” Iranians saw Americans as allies, supporters of their fragile democracy, and remembered martyrs such as Howard Baskerville, the “American Lafayette,” who was killed in 1909 fighting with Iranians in the Constitutional Revolution. However, in August of 1953, President Eisenhower, pressured by Winston Churchill, agreed to execute Operation Ajax under Kermit Roosevelt, who was Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson. It was the first time the United States participated in overthrowing a foreign government, and it wouldn’t be its last. “It set a pattern for years to come and shaped the way millions of people view the United States.” (pg. 89)
At less than 300 pages, this book really packs a punch, and it should be required reading for everyone running for office. Reading this book results in an epiphany for understanding why relations between the U.S. and Iran are in such a dismal state. Further, Kinzer provides context for how Iran acts and reacts going back to ancient times under the rule of Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes and weaving the history through to the country’s history with Zoroastrian tradition and, finally, its Shiite leanings.
Finally, some of the dots have been connected for me. I have known for some time that the U.S. was involved in a coup in 1953, but I had a difficult time understanding the motivation behind those actions. Kinzer adeptly articulates the fears Eisenhower had over Iran becoming a “second China” and falling under the control of Russia. I was surprised to learn that the ultimate goal of the coup was Prime Minister Mossadegh who is portrayed as a compassionate man who clung to democratic principle and believed strongly in free speech. Mossadegh comes across as a fascinating figure as, “Iran’s first genuinely popular leader,” and was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1951.
I commend Clinton for making attempts to reconcile with Iran on the point that the U.S. was wrong in its actions in 1953, and it magnifies how fatal Carter’s decision to allow the Shah into the U.S. really was. I now believe that Iran and Yugoslavia are the two most tragic victims of politics missteps by the U.S. foreign policy.
Finally, I really loved this quote - “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.” Harry Truman
5 Stars and a heart
In 1979, Iranian students stormed the American Embassy and held fifty-two Americans hostage for 444 days. Americans were shocked because, in their minds, the U.S. and Iranians still held the mutual affinity shared pre-1953. Prior to 1953, “Americans were regarded with nearly universal admiration and affection.” Iranians saw Americans as allies, supporters of their fragile democracy, and remembered martyrs such as Howard Baskerville, the “American Lafayette,” who was killed in 1909 fighting with Iranians in the Constitutional Revolution. However, in August of 1953, President Eisenhower, pressured by Winston Churchill, agreed to execute Operation Ajax under Kermit Roosevelt, who was Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson. It was the first time the United States participated in overthrowing a foreign government, and it wouldn’t be its last. “It set a pattern for years to come and shaped the way millions of people view the United States.” (pg. 89)
At less than 300 pages, this book really packs a punch, and it should be required reading for everyone running for office. Reading this book results in an epiphany for understanding why relations between the U.S. and Iran are in such a dismal state. Further, Kinzer provides context for how Iran acts and reacts going back to ancient times under the rule of Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes and weaving the history through to the country’s history with Zoroastrian tradition and, finally, its Shiite leanings.
Finally, some of the dots have been connected for me. I have known for some time that the U.S. was involved in a coup in 1953, but I had a difficult time understanding the motivation behind those actions. Kinzer adeptly articulates the fears Eisenhower had over Iran becoming a “second China” and falling under the control of Russia. I was surprised to learn that the ultimate goal of the coup was Prime Minister Mossadegh who is portrayed as a compassionate man who clung to democratic principle and believed strongly in free speech. Mossadegh comes across as a fascinating figure as, “Iran’s first genuinely popular leader,” and was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1951.
I commend Clinton for making attempts to reconcile with Iran on the point that the U.S. was wrong in its actions in 1953, and it magnifies how fatal Carter’s decision to allow the Shah into the U.S. really was. I now believe that Iran and Yugoslavia are the two most tragic victims of politics missteps by the U.S. foreign policy.
Finally, I really loved this quote - “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.” Harry Truman
No comments:
Post a Comment