Perspective on Iran

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't the whole thing start because of well...oil? If I remember right the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (or something like that) was some sort of joint agreement between Britain and Persia (ultimately Iran) for Britain to tap into Persia/Iran's oil reserves and in exchange citizens of Iran would get certain benefits (jobs, better schools, stronger infrastructure).

Which apparently didn't really happen (I don't know, I wasn't around in the '50s). And then some secular, democratic leader was elected in Iran who listened to the cries for nationalizing this oil company, which eventually became BP.

And the British got mad and sought the US' help. But not much really happened because President Truman had a "containment" philosophy. Yet within a few months Eisenhower became President and his "interventionist" philosophy bode well for the British and reinstated the pro-Western Shah; who was essentially a puppet. Until the Iranians had enough and overthrew him in the late 70s.

Or something like that

That's right. Democracy is all well and good but in the 1950s if you made a hint towards nationalizing American assets, the CIA was all over you like skank on Paris Hilton. At least the CIA was good at something.

The only nit I would pick is with the notion that Truman was completely against intervention. He was fine with stealing Italian elections and breaking strikes in France, and oh yeah, 100,000 Americans died in Korea (a war that Eisenhower quickly ended). His foreign policy had more to do with bourbon in the morning, bourbon in the evening than it did with any coherent philosophy.