The subject of this book is a coup aimed at overthrowing Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. The author delves into the details of the coup and explores its ramifications that continue to be felt to this day. D]rawing conclusions about causes and effects is always dangerous.” But he has evidently ignored his own warning in writing his narrative. But again, this is a fabulous read, that I would recommend to anyone who is curious about this fascinating period of history. After the Mongol conquest of 1220 the Safavid dynasty in 1501 established Iran as the center of Shia Islam. At the turn of the 17th century Abbas Shah combined modernization with tyranny, creating artistic marvels in Isfahan. In the mid-18th century Nadir Shah looted Delhi and lands around. The dissolute Qajars ascended to power during the 19th century selling off natural resources. Movements toward reform were delayed by a British-Russian partition in 1907.

Reza Shah, a strongman from northern Iran, overthrew the Qajars in 1926 collaborating with Britain as the Bolsheviks renounced claims on Iran. An admirer of Ataturk, Reza built roads, rails and banks, banned foreign property sales and constrained religion by authoritarian fiat. A fan of Mussolini and Hitler he ran afoul of the west in WWII, abdicating in 1941. Postwar profits from the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. soared as protests proliferated, leading to the rise of nationalists. In the penultimate chapter, we finally get to the second stage of the coup. This section, like the first chapter, is again drawn from the memoirs of Kermit Roosevelt. Like the first chapter, the absence of detail cripples this chapter and I’m not convinced that the coup succeeded because of Roosevelt and CIA agents. If he had not alienated himself from almost every segment of Iranian society, and if he had kept a cadre of wise advisers around him instead of systematically exiling or murdering them, he might have been able to resist. Instead he found himself alone, his dreams shattered by his own narrow-mindedness, corruption, and boundless egotism.”

Conclusion

Conveniently enough, the secretary of state could ask his brother to do the dirty work. Allen Dulles was then running the newly founded C.I.A., which had grown out of the wartime Office of Strategic Services. The C.I.A.'s man in Tehran was Kermit Roosevelt, an affable young O.S.S. veteran who had inherited his grandfather Theodore's taste for adventure. After masterminding the 1953 coup, Roosevelt began his victory speech by crowing, ''Friends, Persians, countrymen, lend me your ears!'' When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. Mossadegh′s Iran faced formidable foes: British oil executives, the C.I.A. and the brothers Dulles, all of whom come off wretchedly here. The least sympathetic of all are Iran′s erstwhile British rulers, who continued to gouge Iran via the Anglo–Iranian Oil Company. When the Truman administration prodded it to share the wealth with Iran, its chairman sniffed, "One penny more and the company goes broke." In 1951, to London′s fury, Mossadegh led a successful campaign to nationalize the oil company, drove the British to close their vital oil refinery at Abadan and became prime minister. The British began drafting invasion plans, but Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson warned them that gunboat diplomacy would hurt the West in its struggle with Moscow.

Iran had been ruled by a monarch, the Shah (or "king"), for centuries. In the mid-1800s, the Qajar Dynasty under Nasir al-Din Shah began to sell concessions (ie. access) to Iran's natural resources to support a lavish lifestyle instead of benefitting his people. There were no terms of parity as Iran essentially became a cog in Great Britain's industrial empire. Perpetuating his father's practices, Muzzafir al-Din Shah had sold in 1901 the most pivotal concession in his country's history -- access to Iran's natural gas and petroleum for 60 years. And what a towering historic figure Mohammad Mossadeq was. Although, to be precise, his “historic persona” is what 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 “great politician” does. Throughout the crisis, the British obstinately refused to see that world opinion was moving away from support for the colonial system, and consistently misjudged Iranian passion on this topic. Numerous opportunities for compromise presented themselves to the British, each of which they haughtily rejected.Finally all efforts to find a compromise failed and the Eisenhower administration gradually relented to British pressure for ousting Mosaddeq. To some extent it can be said that the Eisenhower administration did so in the interest of safeguarding its alliance with Britain; not because of a real threat of communist takeover but because the United States needed British support in the international scene and knew that a failure to support them in this case will undoubtedly alienate the British government and will weaken their unified stance against the Soviet Union and China. Roger Goiran, the CIA chief in Tehran, vehemently opposed the coup and given the fact that he was responsible for dealing with the communist threat, it only strengthens the argument that the danger of a communist takeover was mostly a fabrication. All The Shah's Men is a popular work that many students have to write book reports on. It talks about how justice triumphed in the middle east amidst a period of extreme turmoil and aggression. See the following sample book report to read a comprehensive review and analysis of the work. Economic and Ideological Goals: All The Shah’s Men 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? In its words, America tried to convince the world that its values – of freedom, openness, and self-determination – were demonstrably better than the tyranny, oppression, and censorship animating the Soviet Union. In its actions, though, the United States showed no trust in its system, and resorted to undermining popular will and supporting oppressive leaders in the misguided belief that any means justified the ends. The Cold War could have been a contest of ideas. Instead it was a race to the bottom, with the rulebook thrown aside.

Yet another example of American foreign intrigues gone badly wrong: well-argued—but stomach-turning. However, the events are relevant in terms of a booming United States economy in the post WWII era. As the oil reserves and industry of the middle-east was both lucrative and profitable, it was a rational move in terms of economics. Great Britain clearly held personal interest in the whole affair because they had been effectively monopolizing the oil industry through their oil company, eventually renamed British Petroleum (BP). This was why the Iranians labeled the British as acting in an imperialist nature towards them. Nonetheless, the US gained economically from the whole ordeal. After gaining 40% ownership of the company among five different United States corporations, domestic economic goals were accomplished, albeit they may have been utterly unintended. This accurately reflects the US legacy of capitalism and free markets. Just as the open door policy in China opened up trade across the Pacific, this was yet another way for the US to develop its international economy as well. Therefore, the content of the book related to and supported the class material we studied relating to US superiority, both economically and diplomatically. Finally, US initiatives surrounding military intervention to stop the potential spread of communism abroad also coincided with our class material. aIran |0https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79039880 |xRelations |0https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh00007590 |zUnited States. |0https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n78095330-781 The press played the showdown like a prize fight, "the tremulous, crotchety Premier versus Britain′s super–suave representative, Sir Gladwyn Jebb," in Newsweek′s account. The Daily News groused, "Whether Mossy is a phony or a genuine tear–jerker, he better put everything he′s got into his show if he goes on television here." Time magazine had made him its Man of the Year. Now came "the decisive act in the dramatic, tragic and sometimes ridiculous drama that began when Iran nationalized the Anglo–American Oil Co. five months ago." It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs the World Trade Center in New York.

The United States Intervenes

His critical stance towards U.S. foreign policy throughout the past decades shows that he sees the hand of the United States in almost any development throughout the world and this book is not an exception. While it might have a certain charm for some that Kinzer takes an almost activist-like stance against U.S policies, it does no good for objective historical writing. His recent remarks about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and blaming it on NATO expansion further reveals his penchant for isolating the effects of U.S. policies and criticizing them out of context.) They stormed the American embassy in Tehran and held fifty-two American diplomats hostage for more than fourteen months." In writing All the Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer takes the reader through a historical outline of the 1953 Iranian coup d'état in which the CIA aided British forces in overtaking Mohammed Mossadegh’s regime. Throughout his analysis, the themes of political ideology, economics and international diplomacy are recurrent. Kinzer offers different levels of analysis from a domestic Iranian point of view all the way to what was going on in Washington. The inherent struggle for military commitment from the US on behalf of Great Britain was ultimately rooted in the oil industry that Mossadegh was nationalizing. Ultimately, the US caved into international pressure from Great Britain and aided in Operation Ajax to overthrow the Iranian leader and re-install the Shah as its rightful leader. In his final analysis, Kinzer argued that while it is inconclusive whether the threat of communism was a realistic threat for intervention, the whole ordeal resulted in tensions and negative diplomatic relations amongst the US, Great Britain and Iran. With breezy storytelling and diligent research, Kinzer has reconstructed the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, who was wildly popular at home for having nationalized his country's oil industry. The coup ushered in the long and brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah, widely seen as a U.S. puppet and himself overthrown by the Islamic revolution of 1979. At its best this work reads like a spy novel, with code names and informants, midnight meetings with the monarch and a last-minute plot twist when the CIA's plan, called Operation Ajax, nearly goes awry. A veteran New York Times

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.Kashani was not the leader of Fada'iyan, a fundamentalist malcontent named Navvab Safavi was the man at the helm. Navvab saw himself big enough to condemn “apostates” to death and authorized assassinations in the hope of purging the land of corruption. The clerical establishment didn’t endorse him and even banned him and his fanatics from Qom.)