From: ABlainey@aol.com
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 02:34:40 MST
In a message dated 19/02/03 08:15:09 GMT Standard Time,
seankenny@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
> or even
>
> Iran, 1953: When the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh
> nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company, the resulting sanctions on
> the country – led by Great Britain and the United States – resulted in
> economic hardship and political unrest. Fearing that such instability
> could result in a communist takeover and concerned about the precedent
> of nationalization on American oil companies elsewhere in the Middle
> East, agents of the Central Intelligence Agency organized a military
> coup in 1953, ousting the elected prime minister. The United States
> returned the exiled Shah to Iran, where he ruled with an iron fist for
> more than a quarter century. Tens of thousands of dissidents were
> tortured and murdered by his dreaded SAVAK secret police, organized and
> trained by the United States. The repression was largely successful in
> wiping out the democratic opposition. The SAVAK was less successful in
> infiltrating religious institutions, however, so when the revolution
> finally took place, toppling the Shah in 1979, the formerly secular Iran
> came under the leadership of virulently reactionary and anti-American
> Islamists. The result of the Islamic revolution was not only the end of
> one of America’s strongest economic and strategic relationships in the
> Middle East, but also the hostage crisis of 1979-81, Iranian support for
> anti-American terrorist groups, and a series of armed engagements in the
> Persian Gulf during the 1980s. Had the United States not overthrown
> Iran’s constitutional government in 1953 and replaced it with the
> dictatorial Shah, there would not have been the Islamic Revolution and
> its bloody aftermath.
>
I would have to agree that the US is simply reaping what it has sown.
After the American backed Shah's removal from power in Iran, America's
economic backing went immediately to Iraq and Saddam, Despite his violations
of human rights.
What puzzles me is that the US said prior to the invasion of Kuwait that the
US had no intention of supplying military support in the event of an
invasion. In addition to that, America only received backing from Saudi to
mobilise to the gulf by producing satellite evidence that Saddam has amassed
troops at Saudi's border.
The evidence for this amassing of troops has been called into question.
Help me out if you can on the above puzzles, because I would like to know
what the facts are.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 02:38:12 MST