CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup - (only 60 years later)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/18/cia_admits_it_was_behind_irans_coup



"Sixty years ago this Monday, on August 19, 1953, modern Iranian history took a critical turn when a U.S.- and British-backed coup overthrew the country's prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The event's reverberations have haunted its orchestrators over the years, contributing to the anti-Americanism that accompanied the Shah's ouster in early 1979, and even influencing the Iranians who seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran later that year.

But it has taken almost six decades for the U.S. intelligence community to acknowledge openly that it was behind the controversial overthrow. Published here today -- and on the website of the National Security Archive, which obtained the document through the Freedom of Information Act -- is a brief excerpt from The Battle for Iran, an internal report prepared in the mid-1970s by an in-house CIA historian.

The document was first released in 1981, but with most of it excised, including all of Section III, entitled "Covert Action" -- the part that describes the coup itself. Most of that section remains under wraps, but this new version does formally make public, for the first time that we know of, the fact of the agency's participation: "[T]he military coup that overthrew Mosadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy," the history reads. The risk of leaving Iran "open to Soviet aggression," it adds, "compelled the United States ... in planning and executing TPAJAX."

TPAJAX was the CIA's codename for the overthrow plot, which relied on local collaborators at every stage. It consisted of several steps: using propaganda to undermine Mossadegh politically, inducing the Shah to cooperate, bribing members of parliament, organizing the security forces, and ginning up public demonstrations. The initial attempt actually failed, but after a mad scramble the coup forces pulled themselves together and came through on their second try, on August 19.....

--------------------

(read more)

CIA/MOSSAD is behind everything...E V I L...

Fast-forward to Jimmy Carter's presidency, when he was convinced to provide safe haven and medical treatment for the Shah, who was installed to protect US interests in the region.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_01-03/dauherty_shah/dauherty_shah.html

The author brings unique qualifications to this study. Now a political science professor, in 1979 he was assigned to the U. S. embassy in Tehran and was taken captive when Iranian militants, reacting to the news that the shah had been admitted to the United States, overran the embassy. He and his colleagues then spent 444 days as a hostages.—Ed.


Jimmy Carter and the 1979 Decision to Admit the Shah into the United States


INTRODUCTION
When the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran, opened for business the morning of 22 October 1979, there was a cable waiting in the Central Intelligence Agency station from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The cable advised that President Carter had decided the previous day to admit the former Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, into the United States for life-saving medical treatment. From the perspective of the embassy staff, it was absolutely the worst thing that could happen, on two fronts: the decision would undo the progress, however slight, in improving United States-Iranian relations; and it would jeopardize the safety and security of all Americans in Iran. The embassy staff was utterly astonished, for not only had they warned Washington over the previous summer of the various dangers associated with such a decision, but some had even been told that by Washington seniors that the consequences of the shah’s admission to the United States were so obvious that no one would be "dumb enough" to allow it. Yet, with U.S.-Iranian relations still lacking real stability, and with an intense and growing distrust of the United States permeating the new Iranian "revolutionary" government, President Carter — unbelievably, from the embassy’s optic—had decided to allow the shah to enter the United States..."

(suggest you read the whole entry)

And then came the exploitation of the situation for political gain, also involving the "pro-Bush faction of the CIA":

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/1earth2.html

Figures bush would come up... LOL. If you didn't know something decades ago in that "CIA Admission" you've been in a coma.

Or are you just celebrating the anniversary?

Floridatexan wrote:
And then came the exploitation of the situation for political gain, also involving the "pro-Bush faction of the CIA":

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/1earth2.html

REALLY desperate to shift the focus from the chaos and decline taking place TODAY from the economy to ObamaCare to foreign relations to the increase in terrorism.

If you hadn't noticed, Iran's been big news over the past few months, partly because of the continuing sanctions against them, partly because of their ties to Syria and the war there...and their desire to produce nuclear weapons, which has not been proven.

Should we trust Iran? The better question is "should Iran trust us?"

Floridatexan wrote:If you hadn't noticed, Iran's been big news over the past few months, partly because of the continuing sanctions against them, partly because of their ties to Syria and the war there...and their desire to produce nuclear weapons, which has not been proven.  

Should we trust Iran?  The better question is "should Iran trust us?"  

That's what was said about North Korea too wasn't it?

No one trusts the US and rightfully so. President Barack Hussein Obama has reneged on even his own promises. It is hard for the world to trust a leader who prides himself on leading from...behind.

Floridatexan wrote:If you hadn't noticed, Iran's been big news over the past few months, partly because of the continuing sanctions against them, partly because of their ties to Syria and the war there...and their desire to produce nuclear weapons, which has not been proven.

Should we trust Iran? The better question is "should Iran trust us?"

Oh... it's an indictment of us?