Talk:Fazlollah Zahedi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
[edit] Top
Over-simplistic portrayals of the events of 1953 and Hollywood style fervor do not alter historic facts, however much zealots and pundits indulge in the admittedly attracting myths of intelligence agencies, toppled rulers and ruthless politicians. People tend to jump to conclusions and unreflected evaluations, driven by emotions and simplistic fantasies. Sober analysis as well as the testimony of witnesses who had 50 years to arrive at untainted objective views, will draw a far less spectacular picture.
Technically speaking, a Prime Minister (Mossadegh) had gained powers and used these to the best intent, introducing far-reaching political change (nationalization/expropriation of Foreign built Oil industry). A ruler (the Shah) encouraged by leading figures did not approve, as the country was facing enormous international pressure, and made use of his constitutional rights to dismiss the Prime Minister. A strongman (Zahedi) was needed to replace the acting Prime Minister. The acting Premier, dismissing Parliament and adopting dictatorial powers, resists his dismissal and remains in power with military and police support. This constitutes, in technical terms, a "coup d'Etat". The ensuing effort to wrest power from him constitutes factually a "counter coup".
Naturally were the attempts to stage such a counter coup readily supported by the foreign powers, who did not want to lose through nationalization, which from their perspective was bold expropriation.
Zahedi was no newcomer: he had been approached before, when the Qajars were to be driven from power (1920s), to stage a coup. The British were enthusiastic to see the young general take over. Zahedi declined however, citing his young age and lack of relevant experience. He was a fierce nationalist and not at all friendly disposed toward the foreign powers meddling in Iran's affairs. Claims that he accepted instructions or money from foreign agents must be viewed as farfetched. He came from a very wealthy background and a family dating back more than 700 years in Iranian history.
Claims by Kermit Roosevelt, e. g., that he communicated with General Zahedi in GERMAN (Zahedi was portrayed as a friend of Germany during World War II) are fictious, as Zahedi spoke merely Russian and Turkish beside his native Persian. Another claim that the shah supposedly thanked Roosevelt for his alleged part in the counter coup with the words " I owe my throne to God, my people and you" can be safely dismissed as self-congratulatory phantasy, on Roosevelt's part. The shah is known to have been far too conceited and standoffish to make an intimate gesture of the sort. Shy of ensuing controversy, Roosevelt published his memoirs shortly after the shah's death, in 1980. Ever since, countless pundits and "wannabes" keep repeating his assertions, not without adding their own zest. Most do not have a clue of what has really happened, never having seriously considered facts, witnesses' accounts or rational (see also TALK on "Operation Ajax")
[edit] Statements concerning coup grossly at odds with accepted scholarship
Portions of this article are simply inaccurate and deserve to be corrected. Foreign involvement in the internal affairs of Iran was far more pervasive than the article is willing to acknowledge. Most scholars of modern Iranian history accept the view that the coup ousting the National Front from power would not have come to pass were it not for the involvement of the CIA and Mi6. For one, the Shah was extremely reluctant to directly challenge Mossadeq, who enjoyed widespread support. In fact, the coup plans were drawn up by the CIA.
The article seems ill-informed. Its statements contradict formerly classified documents readily available online and through the National Security Archive.
[edit] "Counter coup" changed to more accurate "coup"
The author of the original article abandoned scholarly conventions by consistently describing the 1953 coup in Iran as a "countercoup," arguing that Mossadeq had seized dictatorial powers and was himself responsible for instigating a coup d'etat. In fact, the term "countercoup" suggests a restoration of the previous system of government; the coup in August 1953 did not restore the previous system of government that existed prior to Mossadeq's ascension to power. It vastly increased the Shah's power. Consequently, all historians of modern Iranian history (that I know of) characterize the events of August 1953 as a "coup." (Roosevelt chose to describe the events as a "Countercoup" in his book; however, internal CIA documents, now readily available, describe the Shah's seizure of power as a "coup.")
I've read thousands of CIA documents related to the coup in Iran and subsequent US policy. This article is BAD.
[edit] Fancyful "scholarly" contemplations, at odds with reality
Is historical "accuracy" fair game for fanciful contemplations?
The remarks made by user 12.216.252.196, above, would appear to reflect deeply rooted personal convictions. Personal convictions do, however, not necessarily warrant arrival at factual results. Background- and insider knowledge is the most valuable source from which any sensible information can be derived. The mere pondering of third party data on the subject matter, however scholarly, cannot substitute for the basic, first hand knowledge of indisputable facts.
The voiced lack of confidence in the capacity of the author of the article, in addition to user 12.216.252.196's leaning to interpret the events of 1953 from a personal point of view, very much in line with the mainstream of numerous modern day opinion voicers on this subject, apparently leave no room for scientifically indisputable premises.
From the aspect of political science, the carefully chosen terms "coup" and "counter coup", in this article cannot possibly be negated. These are historical facts, dictated by sober analysis. An attempt to see this in a different light would betray the involvement of personal sentiments. As lined out in the TALK section of the article, Dr. Mossadegh, by securing himself supreme powers, had factually instigated a coup. These powers were wrested from him again through a counter coup by forces loyal to the monarchy. Fanciful personal contemplations on the qualities of the regimes, prior and subsequent to the coups, are irrelevant. Opposition met equally harsh conditions under Prime Minister Mossadegh and General Zahedi following him in this post, a fact often disregarded by pundits debating the subject, but in vivid memory of countless victimes and witnesses.
Another point frequently subject of "oversight" is the fact that Zahedi had been detained and briefly imprisoned by Mossadegh's government, in February 1953, on charges he was attempting to stage a coup. Another argument in disfavor of the theory, the CIA and MI6 were the "sole plotters".
One must bear in mind, however that a "counter coup" never the less constitutes a coup, by definition. A coup, with all the unsavory accompanying effects and consequences. The term "counter coup" is employed merely to properly identify it as a reaction, the reaction to (or countering of) a coup, instigated by a second party. Scientifically speaking, the utilization of these terms constitutes a mere technicality, helping to put the matter in a pertinently descriptive perspective.
Sincerely concerned about balanced portrayal of the events of 1953, without any leanings to one or the other side, this article actually draws from FIRST HAND insider accounts, instead of building on information from all sorts of (possibly disputable) documented sources. The CIA, whom user 12.216.252.196 has quoted as his main source, has claimed to have lost its entire documentation of the events of 1953 in a FIRE! One wonders how user 12.216.252.196 managed to read "thousands" of those documents.
The CIA has never denied its portrayed role in the events of 1953. Is this because "Victory has many Fathers, while defeat is an Orphan?"
One may argue that no one can afford to view history in a fanciful fashion, as this will invariably reflect unfavorably on the beholder.--Pantherarosa 01:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Verbose nonsense and flat lies!
Assertions in the most recent post entirely contradict documents that are available to the public. Whether Mossaddeq instigated a coup is irrelevant; the CIA's successful attempt to overthrow him did not constitute a "countercoup," nor is that the phrase chosen by the CIA, even though Kermit Rodevelt, the CIA's source No. 1 referred to it as such himself.
The following are direct quotes from the CIA's operational plan for TPAJAX, drawn up without any Iranian participants:
"A. After aggreement with Shah per above, inform Zahedi he chosen to head successor government with US-UK support.
B. Agree on specific plan for action and timetable for action. There are two ways to put Zahedi in office.
1. Quasi-legally, whereby the Shah names Zahedi Prime Minister by royal firman. 2. Military coup.
Quasi-legal method to be tried first. If successful at least part of machinery for military coup will be brought into action. If it fails, military coup will follow in a matter of hours."
CIA, "Initial Operational PLan for TPAJAX as Cabled from Nicosia to Headquarters on 1 June 1953."
The author's views sharply contradict and belie both the accepted scholarship AND the tens of thousands of publicly available documents that have been declassified. He is propably an Iranian monarchist exile, who just wants to take it out against Mossaddegh, who had tried to topple the shah.
For the CIA's history of the coup they planned, see: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html
Also, see: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/iran/iran.html
[edit] "Lost" documents
I've never heard anything about a "fire" destroying CIA documents. The CIA claimed that it purposely destroyed many of its documents concerning the coup during the 1960s, but thousands more remain. Would it be logical for the CIA to destroy the entire primary history of its first important Cold War intervention -- a collection of documents necessary for its analysts to grasp evolving US-Iran relations, as well as the dynamics of fomenting Middle Eastern coups? Obviously not.
As for the countercoup nonsense, once again, the word "countercoup" suggests a restoration of the preexisting order. Such was not the case with the 1953 intervention. Prime Minister Mossaddegh was also very disappointed about Zahedi, as he constantly plotted against him, even in his position of Minister of the Interior. The Pahlavi dynasty came to power with British support when Reza Khan, an illiterate or semi-literate Cossack colonel, seized power with other officers and gradually established himself as a dictator (after dismissing Sayyid Zia, and so on). This occurred after Britain and Czarist Russia terminated the Constitutional Revolution -- an attempt by the Iranian people to democratize their political system and reassert their sovereignty -- effectively turning Iran into a joint protectorate. Reza Khan, as we know, was forced into exile during WWII, as a result of all the crimes against his own people, and his utterly incapable son emerged as a quasi-figurehead. Not without real power, but by no means a real dictator. The Shah and others repeatedly tried to rig the Majlis elections after the Allied occupation ended... but even though the Shah despised Mossadeq and the National Front, he was reluctant to do anything about it because Mossadeq enjoyed widespread popularity. The CIA, together with the Mi6, drew up plans on their own to remove Mossadeq from power and practically had to BEG the Shah to participate -- because the Shah feared the repercussions if such a plan were to fail. But he finally went along. After the coup, the Shah had far more power than he ever had following his father's exile -- and eventually dismissed Zahedi, who had, as the CIA predicted, gained dictatorial control -- with CIA and MI6 support. He lacked true popular legitimacy, wielding power through force, as the CIA documents acknowledge. According to the CIA, "The Shah rules through his security forces." Things did not go back to being the way they were before: the Shah became an absolute dictator. And therefor it was not a countercoup. In fact Mossaddegh was the one who staged a countercoup, against the multitude of plotting forces.
[edit] Why bicker over choice of words? Kim Roosevelt coined it counter coup himself!
What sense is this discussion above supposed to make? The CIA, playing the main part in this historic drama, was represented by Kim Roosevelt locally, from whom emanated ANY intelligence recorded at head-office. Kim Roosevelt termed the coup, which he and Wilber (his boss) instigated, a COUNTER COUP. Mossadeq seems to be unjustly portrayed, on this page, as a "disappointed" weakling, constantly threatened by coups, while, in contrast, he actually succeeded in driving out the ruler. Zahedi, on the other hand is branded as the bad guy, while he proved an ally to the USA and Uk. While I could not care less, personally, about any of the villains involved in the play, why do sensible people, contributing to public knowledge through this forum, engage in a smear campaign against each other??? For heaven's sake, what difference does it make if we speak about a COUP or a counter COUP? Coup is coup!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It is NOT bickering over a choice of words, that matters here, but the introduction of personal "readjustments" of historical facts. While I would agree that a "coup is a coup", I sort of said it myself at some point, I cannot comprehend why someone would start to doubt the UNIVERSE, just because the very term used by the major co-plotter Roosevelt has been (as technically required) likewise used by the authors of the subject article. Why point a finger and at the same time proliferate "verbose nonsense", accusing others of the same. For the record: I am far from being an "Iranian" an "exile" or both! --Pantherarosa 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
You make some points that I feel are worth taking seriously. And I want to apologize for all of my unfair personal attacks. They were inappropriate, and generally made under the influence. So I apologize. I'm sure that you're a fine human being.
We can figure a way to resolve this conflict together. I'm sure of it. But we'll put our minds to it...
Just let me sober up.
[edit] We will overcome...I love you.
You make some points that I feel are worth taking seriously. And I want to apologize for all of my unfair personal attacks. They were inappropriate, and generally made under the influence. So I apologize. I'm sure that you're a fine human being.
We can figure a way to resolve this conflict together. I'm sure of it. But we'll put our minds to it...
Just let me sober up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for reaching out. I look forward to a constructive solution to our apparently minor differences of opinion. I feel we ought to releave the world from the kakophonic duett above and eventually delete it. If you go into "history" of this page you will find someone (user 84.128.48.194) has "peppered up" your posting with the most silly argumentation, literally adding insult to injury. I look forward to all of this "TALK" above making place for sensible accord. --Pantherarosa 13:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Portrayal
The story in the article is at odds with other articles on Wikipedia(eg Operation Ajax) and with accepted scholarship and key sources (eg the CIA history [1] (PDF). Rd232 talk 10:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is really bad and inaccurate. Articles like this give wikipedia a bad reputation. Most of the stuff written here is plane false and its royalist negationism at its best. The whole article should be deleted and rewritten completely. ---- Melca 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
