All the Shah's Men

1. The 1953 Iranian coup was a turning point in Middle Eastern history.

These events serve as a stark warning to the United States and to any country that ever seeks to impose its will on a foreign land.

A pivotal moment. The coup marked the first time the United States overthrew a foreign government, setting a precedent for future interventions. It fundamentally altered Iran's political trajectory, replacing a nascent democracy with a dictatorship. This intervention had far-reaching consequences, not only for Iran but for the entire Middle East.

Shifting power dynamics. The coup demonstrated the willingness of the US and Britain to use covert operations to protect their interests, even at the expense of democratic principles. It signaled a new era of foreign intervention in the region, contributing to instability and resentment. The removal of Mossadegh also solidified the Shah's power, leading to a more autocratic and pro-Western regime.

Long-term repercussions. The coup is widely seen as a major factor in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which ushered in an anti-American theocracy. The events of 1953 continue to shape Iranian-American relations, fostering mistrust and animosity. The coup serves as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of foreign intervention.

2. Oil was the central motivation for foreign intervention in Iran.

Mastery itself was the prize of the venture.

Resource control. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), later British Petroleum (BP), held a near-monopoly on Iranian oil production, generating immense profits for Britain. Iran's share of these profits was minimal, leading to widespread resentment and calls for nationalization. The British government viewed Iranian oil as vital to its economy and strategic interests.

Economic stakes. The nationalization of AIOC threatened Britain's control over a key resource and its ability to project power on the world stage. The US also had economic interests in the region, but its primary concern was preventing Soviet influence. The desire to protect Western access to Iranian oil was a major driver of the coup.

Geopolitical implications. The Cold War context amplified the importance of Iranian oil, as the US and Britain sought to prevent it from falling into Soviet hands. The fear of losing control over this strategic resource led to the decision to intervene, despite the potential consequences. The coup ensured continued Western access to Iranian oil, but at a high cost to Iran's political development.

3. Mohammad Mossadegh was a complex figure, both revered and reviled.

In his time, Mohammad Mossadegh was a titanic figure. He shook an empire and changed the world.

Nationalist icon. Mossadegh was a highly educated, aristocratic leader who championed Iranian sovereignty and independence. He was a fervent advocate for democracy and the rule of law, opposing both foreign domination and domestic autocracy. His decision to nationalize AIOC made him a national hero, admired for standing up to British imperialism.

Controversial figure. Mossadegh's critics viewed him as stubborn, inflexible, and prone to emotional outbursts. They accused him of being a demagogue who prioritized his own power over the well-being of Iran. His decision to halt elections and his increasingly authoritarian tendencies alienated some of his former supporters.

Enduring legacy. Despite his flaws, Mossadegh remains a symbol of Iranian nationalism and resistance to foreign interference. His legacy continues to inspire those who seek a more democratic and independent Iran. His image is often invoked by reformers and activists who challenge the current regime.

4. British and American interests often diverged, leading to mistrust.

The old Persia was a loose-knit pyramid resting on its base. The new Persian pyramid is almost equally loose, but resting on its apex; hence, it is much easier to overthrow.

Conflicting priorities. While both the US and Britain sought to prevent Soviet influence in Iran, they had different priorities and approaches. Britain was primarily concerned with protecting its economic interests and maintaining its imperial power. The US, while also concerned about oil, placed greater emphasis on containing communism and promoting democracy.

Divergent strategies. The US initially favored a more conciliatory approach, urging Britain to compromise with Mossadegh. Britain, however, was determined to regain control over AIOC and was willing to use force if necessary. These conflicting strategies led to mistrust and friction between the two allies.

Uneasy alliance. The coup ultimately required cooperation between the US and Britain, but their underlying differences remained. The US sought to replace British influence with its own, while Britain resented American interference in what it considered its sphere of influence. This uneasy alliance shaped the aftermath of the coup and the subsequent relationship between Iran and the West.

5. The Cold War context heavily influenced US policy toward Iran.

The assault on free institutions is worldwide now, and in the context of the present polarization of power, a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere.

Fear of communism. The Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union shaped American foreign policy during the 1950s. The US viewed any country not firmly aligned with the West as a potential target for communist subversion. The Truman administration was deeply concerned about the spread of communism in the Middle East.

Domino theory. The "domino theory" held that if one country fell to communism, neighboring countries would follow. This fear led the US to intervene in various conflicts around the world, including Iran. The US believed that Mossadegh's government was vulnerable to communist influence and that his removal was necessary to prevent a Soviet takeover.

Justification for intervention. The Cold War provided the ideological justification for the US to intervene in Iran's internal affairs. The US framed its actions as a defense of freedom and democracy against the threat of communism. This narrative obscured the economic and political motivations behind the coup.

6. The coup's success led to long-term negative consequences for Iran and the US.

Governments that sponsor coups, revolutions, or armed invasions usually act with the conviction that they will win, and often they do. Their victories, however, can come back to haunt them, sometimes in devastating and tragic ways.

Erosion of democracy. The coup undermined Iran's nascent democratic institutions and paved the way for the Shah's autocratic rule. The suppression of political dissent and the violation of human rights fueled resentment and opposition to the regime. This created a fertile ground for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Anti-American sentiment. The US role in the coup fostered deep-seated anti-American sentiment in Iran. Many Iranians viewed the US as a supporter of tyranny and an enemy of their national aspirations. This resentment contributed to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis.

Regional instability. The coup destabilized the Middle East and contributed to a cycle of violence and conflict. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the spread of terrorism can be traced, in part, to the legacy of the coup. The intervention serves as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of foreign interference.

7. Kermit Roosevelt's role was pivotal in executing the coup.

CIA agents in those days shared a profound idealism, a conviction that they were doing the vital dirty work of freedom.

Field commander. Kermit Roosevelt, a grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, was the CIA officer in charge of Operation Ajax. He was responsible for planning and executing the coup, coordinating with Iranian agents, and managing the flow of funds. His leadership was crucial to the success of the operation.

Master of deception. Roosevelt was a skilled manipulator and propagandist, adept at exploiting political divisions and shaping public opinion. He used bribery, disinformation, and intimidation to achieve his goals. His actions demonstrated the power of covert operations to influence the course of history.

Controversial figure. Roosevelt's role in the coup has been widely criticized for undermining Iranian democracy and contributing to long-term instability. He remains a controversial figure, seen by some as a defender of freedom and by others as an imperialist meddler. His actions highlight the ethical dilemmas of intelligence work.

8. The Shah's autocratic rule was a direct result of the coup.

His dictatorship produced the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which brought to power a passionately anti-American theocracy that embraced terrorism as a tool of statecraft.

Consolidation of power. The coup enabled Mohammad Reza Shah to consolidate his power and establish an autocratic regime. He suppressed political dissent, centralized authority, and relied heavily on the support of the US. His rule became increasingly repressive and out of touch with the needs of the Iranian people.

Economic dependence. The Shah's regime became heavily dependent on oil revenues and foreign aid, particularly from the US. This dependence undermined Iran's economic independence and made it vulnerable to external pressures. The Shah's close ties to the West alienated many Iranians, who saw him as a puppet of foreign powers.

Social unrest. The Shah's policies led to growing social unrest and resentment. His modernization efforts were often seen as culturally insensitive and disruptive. The gap between the rich and poor widened, fueling discontent among the masses. This created the conditions for the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

9. The coup's legacy continues to shape Iranian-American relations.

After that moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again.

Enduring mistrust. The coup fostered deep-seated mistrust between Iran and the United States. Many Iranians view the US as an untrustworthy partner that has repeatedly interfered in their internal affairs. This mistrust has been a major obstacle to improving relations between the two countries.

Historical grievances. The coup is a constant source of grievance for Iranians, who see it as a violation of their sovereignty and a betrayal of their democratic aspirations. The US refusal to apologize for the coup has further exacerbated these feelings. The legacy of the coup continues to shape Iranian perceptions of the US.

Geopolitical implications. The strained relationship between Iran and the US has had significant geopolitical implications for the Middle East and the world. It has contributed to regional instability, fueled conflicts, and complicated efforts to address issues such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation. The coup's legacy continues to cast a long shadow over the region.

10. The coup was a cautionary tale about unintended consequences.

Their victories, however, can come back to haunt them, sometimes in devastating and tragic ways.

Unforeseen outcomes. The coup, intended to secure Western interests and prevent Soviet influence, had unintended and negative consequences. It led to the rise of an autocratic regime, fueled anti-American sentiment, and contributed to regional instability. The coup serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of foreign intervention.

Complexity of history. The coup highlights the complexity of history and the difficulty of predicting the long-term effects of political actions. Even well-intentioned interventions can have unforeseen and disastrous outcomes. The coup demonstrates the importance of understanding local contexts and respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

Ethical considerations. The coup raises ethical questions about the use of covert operations and the responsibility of powerful nations to respect democratic principles. The decision to overthrow a democratically elected government, even for strategic reasons, can have profound and lasting consequences. The coup serves as a reminder of the moral complexities of foreign policy.

Last updated: March 20, 2025