Hate to break it to you but this was the exact desired outcome.
State capture by corporate interests is inevitable.
These incentives hold almost everywhere and not just the Middle East. That's why destabilization in Central/South America and Africa is also compelling and has been ongoing for ages.
But, the Middle East has particularly compelling geographic, social, and technological circumstances for a candidate location for endless war.
Specifically: 1. It's far from the US and closer to competition ("best defense is a strong offense") 2. Until recently the ethnic and religious make up of Middle Eastern peoples was hyper localized, making them outgroups who were easy to demonize 3. Also until recently it was not likely for media to make its way out of the Middle East where people could see just how terrible war is and how similar the people there are to people everywhere else
> Hate to break it to you but this was the exact desired outcome.
That's not actually true. It doesn't seem like it was deeply cynical and nefarious like that; it was more of an overly-simplistic moral crusade:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/books/review/to-start-a-w...:
> In “Plan of Attack,” Bob Woodward described Bush as being beset by doubt about the case for war, and suggested that Tenet’s affirmation had been “very important.” Draper disagrees. The issue wasn’t the evidence. It was the spin: “Tenet’s words were ‘important’ only because they helped remove any doubt as to whether the C.I.A. could mount a solid case.” Bush’s thinking was as clear as it was simplistic. Saddam was a monster. It would be a bad idea to leave him in power. According to Draper, Bush’s “increasingly bellicose rhetoric reflected a wartime president who was no longer tethered to anything other than his own convictions.”
> In his 2005 Inaugural Address, Bush tried to turn neoconservative ideology into official doctrine: “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” It wasn’t until the shellacking that the Republicans endured in the 2006 midterm elections that Bush began to abandon his fantasies about spreading peace, love and understanding across the Middle East. He fired Rumsfeld and shunted Cheney to the side.
Mossadeqh was a destabilizing actor, as a matter of fact. Also, this recent yet-again re-telling (adjusting) the story of the fabled '53 coup to "reinstall" the actual monarch of Iran is interesting. Many of us for years complained "why is the role of UK minimized and America vilified for this coup?". This was specially puzzling since it was the CIA and NYTimes that were screaming 'mea culpa'. Very strange.
And we now have the adjusted matter that says, "oh yea, the Brits were 'involed'". It's funny. Even now you don't have the facts, but no excuse for lack of knowledge.
You need to review Iran's political situation starting with invasion and occupation of neutral Iran by US, UK, USSR, up to the "reinstalling" of the Shah of Iran.
Pay special attention to the "stable" period featuring assassination of prime ministers by "Muslim Brotherhood" (UK "orientalist" spook outfit); attempts at 'liberating' North Western Iran by USSR; attempts on the life of the reigning (not governing) monarch; etc.
The counter-coup of '53 was a reaction by elements in Iranian society against other elements in Iranian society. The Western imperial interests of UK and 'cold war' interests of hegemon USA simply aligned with Nationalist Iranians who happened to be Royalists, or vehemently anti-Communist. That is all.
The 'National Front' of Iran needs to get over this emotional hangup over '53 and start telling the full truth. Their churlish attitude was certainly instrumental in letting the regressive Islamists hijack Iran and the "revolution" in '79. You would think they've finally learned the lesson but alas.
Maybe Mossadeqh wasn't perfect? He was elected by Parliament and appointed by the Shah. He was removed from office via royal decree dictated to the Shah by CIA reptile Donald Wilber. In the aftermath his supporters were executed by General Zahedi. This is all public knowledge now. What is your beef? Should the British get more credit? OK, let's give them credit for asking Eisenhower to do the thing, after Truman had refused them.
Assuming you're referring to Razmara or Mansur, it's interesting to learn that Fada'iyan-e Islam were run by UK "orientalist" spooks. I'm sure you could teach us lots of other interesting things, if you cared to do so.
US had no interest in a destablized Iran in 1953. Far from it, it was clearly understood that the highly organized Tudeh Party (literally "masses" and the Moscow sanctioned and directed (literally) Communist Party of Iran) would eat and chew out Mossadegh without much effort. Iran's military, for example, was also highly penetrated with Tudeh officers.
So the issue is not Dr. Mossadegh's merits as a politician, an Iranian nationalist, or even simply a human being. The issue is the strange distortion of this "history" that very clearly not only deligitimizes the Pahlavi dynasty, but also has provided the 'background story' for the song and dance of Iran vs. USA "because America destroyed our chance at democracy" nonsense. USA was quite happy to see the Shah of Iran leave in 1979. Have no doubt about that.
And we know why: Because the Trilateral Commission's plan for "arc of instability" needed to get going, and you will note that the exit stage of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran was the opening act of the next 40 years of mayham in the so-called Middle East, including by some accounts nearly a million dead Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.
[1]: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1...
The key words you want to research on are: Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Arc of Instability. On a funny aside note, these items used to be so much easier to dig up 20 years ago.
[2]: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/atlanti...
I don't know why anyone would have taken the authors of the "Atlantic Charter" at their word. If any Iranians did, they were the only "non-aligned" people who made that mistake. That's not to say there was no evolution in colonial technique, however. USA policy in Philippines, Latin America, etc. had been very focused on natural resources and agriculture. 1953 wasn't much later, and there had been several distracting events in the meantime, so we naturally deferred to British oil greed. That isn't the case anymore. Have you seen the price of oil? Even if it rises a lot (it won't anytime soon) we can just frack all we need here at home. The bombs we drop now aren't for oil or bananas or anything else we can't get from China: we drop bombs so we can buy more bombs. A burning world is just more opportunity to enrich the military-industrial-political-media complex. That's why we're taught to fear Muslims.
I concede, you're right that back then we didn't want to burn down all of little brother's fancy oil rigs. However, American decision-makers in 1953 were psychopathically confident. They didn't fear destabilization; just look at what they were doing at the time in Korea. Look also at what they were doing at Enewetak Atoll! Eventually Iran became a case study for the value of destabilization, but Southeast Asia had made the case much earlier. That work would soon start: Allen Lawrence Pope was shot down in 1958, after we had been fanning the flames in Sumatra and Sulawesi for a year.
If Brzezinski really was talking about this stuff in the mid-70s, he was a couple of decades behind the times. Anyway, he hardly benefited. The disastrous "Operation Eagle Claw" was mentioned in the first paragraph of his obituary.
Your concern for the "legitimacy of the Pahlavi dynasty" seems to hint that you're less concerned for the preferences of Iranians. The elder Pahlavi wasn't a bad sort, and if we're to believe the stories he didn't actually even want to become Shah. His son, though? Who would cry for him? This two-ruler rump dynasty was a fitting end to the whole shabby Shah tradition. Historically, the Shahs who weren't bloodthirsty and insane despots like Nader Shah were patsies for foreign tyranny. Both the Pahlavis were, and at least the previous four Qajars. Iran is a great nation. It has had great leaders such as the Arsacids. Eventually it will have a worthy government again. I don't know that Americans can have the same hope...