He is implicated in authoritarian power grabs, notably where he demanded emergency dictatorial powers in 1952, which even some of his supporters and family members viewed as a betrayal of constitutional principles.
Dad* is correct in the reference to the Referendum of 1953: To dissolve the Parliament (Majlis), Mossadegh held a national referendum that was criticized as farcical and undemocratic. It lacked a secret ballot, with "Yes" and "No" voters forced into different locations, resulting in a suspicious 99.3% victory for him.
There's a list of political betrayals: He is accused of using various groups for political gain before abandoning their causes. For example, he rejected universal suffrage for women to appease powerful clerics like Ayatollah Kashani, despite previously promising reformers his support.
And notably, his inflexibility at not being able to compromise during the oil crisis, even after receiving favorable terms, led some Western diplomats to view him as "unbalanced" or manipulative.
Busted. I did read Fariba Amini’s piece. It appeared at Juan Cole’s Informed Comment website which I have followed for over twenty years. Cole is a scrupulous, highly regarded academic specializing in Islam in the Middle East and South Asia. His 2018 book Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires is fascinating. Likewise Stephen Kinzer’s All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (2003), Ervand Abrahamian’s The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern US-Iranian Relations (2013), and Daniel Yergin’s The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (1991) are all worth reading. And while we’re at it, Rashid Khalidi’s The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017 (2020) is indispensable for understanding just how “the only democracy in the Middle East” operates.
I still need to read the Tablet article, but I thought this was well done and a fair treatment. I don't agree entirely with it and still side with Ron Paul's take on US foreign policy.
Not once is the issue of Zionism vs. Judaism raised. Yeah Fuentes is a fringe freak and blames a culture for the perils of US involvement in the Middle East, but as Cenk posted earlier, this is a problem of statecraft. Zionism ≠ Judaism and it's the former and their lobbying of our government that is a problem.
Let's say for a moment that the role of the US and CIA in Iran is overblown and not historically accurate. Even if that were the case, you still have a problem of the _perception_ of US tampering with foreign countries diminishing our world standing making us unpopular and a target for terrorism.
The US doesn't believe in or advocate for democracy. As you admitted in the video, we have tried to have peaceful relations with Israel's neighbors. But some of those countries are the most repressive governments in the world. In the case of Iran, Israel just wants it fractured so it's no longer a player in the region and they can continue their expansionists policies. While this is going on are you paying attention to their other military operations?
We are leveraging our children's futures trying to be the world's policeman and failing miserably at it. None of our regime changes have ever worked. Why should we pay for Israel's defense and wars while Americans on average enjoy a lesser standard of living than Israel?
Cenk is a lost cause when logic, reasoning, and unbiased rhetoric are the subject of discussion. Israel and the Israelites want a haven to practice their religion. So the opinions of secular Jews and the likes of Cenk are moot on this desire and debate.
As far as Spook agencies between the two countries and the perceived influence of the Mossad over American society, the relationship is based solely on cooperation. America needs Mossad's capabilities in the region to further America's interests.
You neglect to define what a successful regime change is. So until you do, where's the discussion? You allude to America's predilection for regime change, yet state we have relations with "the most regressive governments in the world." We are the only free-society champion capable of facilitating a free world.
Where exactly are we paying for Israel's defense when they foot the bill for their own munitions and armament? The U.S. generally offers higher disposable income ($45,284 vs. $24,863 in Israel), larger living spaces, and a lower cost of living. So there's your lesser standard of living. *sarc
According to Cato, only 60% of the world lives in free or partly free societies. So you would have the Champion of the free world sit back and gift the rest of our compatriots to the likes of communism and socialist dictatorships. I hope your kids enjoy that future...
I realize that the CIA shouldn't be reflexively trusted, but if they release a document saying, "Hey, we helped with that," why wouldn't you believe it?
I love your approach. I will move on from my Girard angel. I will switch to Promethean Action. I discovered them around the same time I found your podcast.
They are the former media people for Lyndon Larouche, the only American Presidential Candidate to be jailed. I think their angel works well with your approach to this talk. The one linked below is a very good analysis on Who The Globalist are.
Small edit — “imminent” not “eminent”. Substantively, I don’t think “imminence” played a role in the decision to attack Iran. No administration in recent years has recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act so presidents do not feel constrained by it. Rubio was clear that Iran was committed to its nuclear weapons program. There would come a time when its ballistic missiles would effectively prevent a future effort to bomb its nuclear weapons facilities. Events aligned — a planned Israeli attack — and a unique opportunity presented that might not be available again.
Peter Theroux’s argument has gained virtually zero traction among serious scholars and Middle East experts. It registers with guys like Dad* where this sort of revisionist history is very popular. Patriots™ and Real Americans© absolutely hate it when the actual facts of American involvement abroad doesn’t fit with their vision of a kindly, generous, freedom-living US. Iran was one of the more “successful” examples of US adventurism. Chile, Guatemala, Cuba, The Congo, Indonesia, Laos, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Afghanistan, Argentina, etc. etc. received similar treatment. Steven Kinzer, who should be read on the topic, said about this article, “I think the idea behind this is to tell Americans that we have nothing to be sorry for. We love hearing this.” Hell. Even the Mies Institute knows what happened in Iran.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/operation-ajax-1953-cias-template-and-warnings-today
So you read an article by Fariba Amini.
Mossadegh's integrity was not spotless.
He is implicated in authoritarian power grabs, notably where he demanded emergency dictatorial powers in 1952, which even some of his supporters and family members viewed as a betrayal of constitutional principles.
Dad* is correct in the reference to the Referendum of 1953: To dissolve the Parliament (Majlis), Mossadegh held a national referendum that was criticized as farcical and undemocratic. It lacked a secret ballot, with "Yes" and "No" voters forced into different locations, resulting in a suspicious 99.3% victory for him.
There's a list of political betrayals: He is accused of using various groups for political gain before abandoning their causes. For example, he rejected universal suffrage for women to appease powerful clerics like Ayatollah Kashani, despite previously promising reformers his support.
And notably, his inflexibility at not being able to compromise during the oil crisis, even after receiving favorable terms, led some Western diplomats to view him as "unbalanced" or manipulative.
Busted. I did read Fariba Amini’s piece. It appeared at Juan Cole’s Informed Comment website which I have followed for over twenty years. Cole is a scrupulous, highly regarded academic specializing in Islam in the Middle East and South Asia. His 2018 book Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires is fascinating. Likewise Stephen Kinzer’s All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (2003), Ervand Abrahamian’s The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern US-Iranian Relations (2013), and Daniel Yergin’s The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (1991) are all worth reading. And while we’re at it, Rashid Khalidi’s The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017 (2020) is indispensable for understanding just how “the only democracy in the Middle East” operates.
I still need to read the Tablet article, but I thought this was well done and a fair treatment. I don't agree entirely with it and still side with Ron Paul's take on US foreign policy.
Not once is the issue of Zionism vs. Judaism raised. Yeah Fuentes is a fringe freak and blames a culture for the perils of US involvement in the Middle East, but as Cenk posted earlier, this is a problem of statecraft. Zionism ≠ Judaism and it's the former and their lobbying of our government that is a problem.
Let's say for a moment that the role of the US and CIA in Iran is overblown and not historically accurate. Even if that were the case, you still have a problem of the _perception_ of US tampering with foreign countries diminishing our world standing making us unpopular and a target for terrorism.
The US doesn't believe in or advocate for democracy. As you admitted in the video, we have tried to have peaceful relations with Israel's neighbors. But some of those countries are the most repressive governments in the world. In the case of Iran, Israel just wants it fractured so it's no longer a player in the region and they can continue their expansionists policies. While this is going on are you paying attention to their other military operations?
We are leveraging our children's futures trying to be the world's policeman and failing miserably at it. None of our regime changes have ever worked. Why should we pay for Israel's defense and wars while Americans on average enjoy a lesser standard of living than Israel?
Cenk is a lost cause when logic, reasoning, and unbiased rhetoric are the subject of discussion. Israel and the Israelites want a haven to practice their religion. So the opinions of secular Jews and the likes of Cenk are moot on this desire and debate.
As far as Spook agencies between the two countries and the perceived influence of the Mossad over American society, the relationship is based solely on cooperation. America needs Mossad's capabilities in the region to further America's interests.
You neglect to define what a successful regime change is. So until you do, where's the discussion? You allude to America's predilection for regime change, yet state we have relations with "the most regressive governments in the world." We are the only free-society champion capable of facilitating a free world.
Where exactly are we paying for Israel's defense when they foot the bill for their own munitions and armament? The U.S. generally offers higher disposable income ($45,284 vs. $24,863 in Israel), larger living spaces, and a lower cost of living. So there's your lesser standard of living. *sarc
According to Cato, only 60% of the world lives in free or partly free societies. So you would have the Champion of the free world sit back and gift the rest of our compatriots to the likes of communism and socialist dictatorships. I hope your kids enjoy that future...
Also, there appears a lack of consensus on the Tablet article's claims:
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
I realize that the CIA shouldn't be reflexively trusted, but if they release a document saying, "Hey, we helped with that," why wouldn't you believe it?
I love your approach. I will move on from my Girard angel. I will switch to Promethean Action. I discovered them around the same time I found your podcast.
They are the former media people for Lyndon Larouche, the only American Presidential Candidate to be jailed. I think their angel works well with your approach to this talk. The one linked below is a very good analysis on Who The Globalist are.
https://youtu.be/ujMejef1qa8?si=L8U728Zu72-8leie
Small edit — “imminent” not “eminent”. Substantively, I don’t think “imminence” played a role in the decision to attack Iran. No administration in recent years has recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act so presidents do not feel constrained by it. Rubio was clear that Iran was committed to its nuclear weapons program. There would come a time when its ballistic missiles would effectively prevent a future effort to bomb its nuclear weapons facilities. Events aligned — a planned Israeli attack — and a unique opportunity presented that might not be available again.