If we did not overthrow the Iranian Government in 1953, do you think we would have the problems we have today?

Question

The CIA overthrew the democratically elected government led by Mossagegh in 1953. He was pro-American and educated in the west, but wanted to nationalize the oil fields. He was also an anti-communist as he drove out communist groups in northern Iran. The way the CIA accomplished this can be found in declassified documents (Operation Ajax) The CIA staged terror attacks and killed many ppl, and them blamed them on Mossadegh (False flag, state -sponsored terrorism) Why do we not look at the events going on today in a histoical context?

Answer 1

There would probably not be the issue now but of course hind sight is 20/20. Unfortunately the US has a habit of backing the "wrong" horse.
They did the same in Haiti-for almost twenty years (1915-1934) the country was occupied by the United States Marines, who had complete control of the country and its finances. Look at how well that country turned out.
US supported the overthrow of Carlos Prio in Cuba in 1952, another democratically elected President for Fulgencio Batista. This resulted in many human rights violations and the eventual overthrow of him for a Communist dictator, Fidelito Castro.
The attempted coup in 2002 of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who was also democratically elected.
We did it also with Chile and undermined the government of Salvador Allende. The United States previously released 7,000 records regarding its involvement leading up to the September 11, 1973, coup led by Pinochet that toppled Allende. We all know the atrocities done by Pinochet on his own people.
The same with the military coup in Argentina over 30 years ago, the list goes on and on.

Talk about a sordid track record

Answer 2

Give the Queen the points. Nice detail as well. We had no business interferring in Iranian domestic politics, but try telling that to Allan and John Foster Dulles let alone Eisenhower. If ever an empire deserved blowback, America does.
When I go abroad I tell folks I am Canadian.

Answer 3

That would have been a good start, but then we backed Saddam in his war with Iran, generally treating Iran badly since. To have a historical context you need to be informed, and most people do not believe this story, even when you give them the link, as I have done several times before:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm

Answer 4

the only shown protection against a nuclear first strike is the flexibility for a nuclear 2d strike. Mutual specific destruction has traditionally been an smart ability for deterrence. Israel in all probability has nukes. there is needed archives of this by fact the 1980's. Iran will in all probability develop nukes of their very own regardless of each and all of the sanctions, and diplomatic hand-wringing by the U.S. and Western worldwide places. If Israel bombs Iran, until eventually now they develop nukes, it truly is confusing to predict the effect on middle-East stability. actually, such assaults ought to greater effective radicalize Iran at a time whilst Islamic radicalism is perceived as unpopular in Iran, and at an important degree whilst the U.S. ought to prefer to manage a common Iran as Iraq greater effective implodes. On stability, it does no longer look efficient to the U.S. for Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike. Granting them flyover rights ought to bypass away U.S. fingerprints on an operation that it truly is to the persons' benefit to distance themselves from. Bombing with out good human intelligence is likewise fraught with peril. different than you be attentive to all of the targets with absolute fact, and ought to be certain that they are going to all be destroyed, any airstrike that may not thoroughly comprehensive will carry approximately disastrous effects.