The Current Military, Economic, and Political Crisis between Iran and the United States Began in 1953

"What's Past is Prologue..."

WHO WAS MOHAMMAD MOSADDEGH AND WHAT DID THE UNITED STATES DO TO HIM?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

PHOTO: Mohammad Mossadegh (1882-1967)

Mohammad Mosaddegh[a] (Persian: محمد مصدق‎; IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɢ] (About this soundlisten);[b] 16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967) was the 35th prime minister of Iran, holding office from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état orchestrated by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom's MI6.[4][5]

An author, administrator, lawyer and prominent parliamentarian, his administration introduced a range of social and political measures such as social security, land reforms and higher taxes including the introduction of taxation of the rent on land. His government's most significant policy, however, was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been built by the British on Persian lands since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC) (later British Petroleum and BP).[6]

Many Iranians regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history. Following an initial, failed coup attempt by the CIA/MI6-backed General Fazlollah Zahedi, Mosaddegh resigned four days later on 19 August 1953, with Zahedi succeeding him as prime minister.[7]

While the coup is at times referred to in the West as Operation Ajax[8] after its CIA cryptonym, in Iran it is referred to as the 28 Mordad 1332 Coup d'état, after its date on the Iranian calendar.[9] Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death and was buried in his own home so as to prevent a political furor.[10][11][12] In 2013, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup, as a part of its foreign policy initiatives.[13] 

https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/iran-coup/

This Day in History

Aug. 19, 1953: U.S. and Britain Topple Democratically Elected Government of Iran

Time Periods: Cold War: 1945 - 1960

Themes: US Foreign Policy, Wars & Related Anti-War Movements, World History/Global Studies

On Aug. 19, 1953, Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadegh was removed from power in a coup organized and financed by the British and U.S. governments. The Shah quickly returned to take power and signed over forty percent of Iran’s oil fields to U.S. companies.

Here is a description of this historic event from “50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran” on Democracy Now!,

In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.

In 1951 Prime Minister Mossadegh roused Britain’s ire when he nationalized the oil industry. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves which had been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company later became known as British Petroleum (BP).

After considering military action, Britain opted for a coup d’état. President Harry Truman rejected the idea, but when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, he ordered the CIA to embark on one of its first covert operations against a foreign government.

Iran Coup | Zinn Education Project

Report to the National Security Council on Iran. Source: National Security Archive.

The coup was led by an agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. The CIA leaned on a young, insecure Shah to issue a decree dismissing Mossadegh as prime minister. Kermit Roosevelt had help from Norman Schwarzkopf’s father: 

Norman Schwarzkopf.

The CIA and the British helped to undermine Mossadegh’s government through bribery, libel, and orchestrated riots. Agents posing as communists threatened religious leaders, while the US ambassador lied to the prime minister about alleged attacks on American nationals.

Some 300 people died in firefights in the streets of Tehran.

Mossadegh was overthrown, sentenced to three years in prison followed by house arrest for life.

The crushing of Iran’s first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy.

Listen to the full broadcast which includes an interview with Stephen Kinzer, author of All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup And The Roots of Middle East Terror, and Baruch College professor Ervand Abrahamian.

In Disguising Imperialism: How Textbooks Get the Cold War Wrong and Dupe Students, high school teacher Ursula Wolfe-Rocca writes:

American Journey says the CIA “backed” a coup in Iran; in reality that “backing” involved Kermit Roosevelt, CIA agent and grandson of Theodore, arriving in Tehran with suitcases full of cash to manufacture an opposition movement by hiring people to protest, bribing newspaper editors to print misinformation (real fake news), and creating a sham communist party to act as a straw man. American Journey says the Shah “cooperated” with the United States; it leaves out that such “cooperation” was defined by Iran’s purchase of billions of dollars of weapons from the United States as well as the CIA’s training of Savak, the Shah’s secret police force infamous for its human rights violations.

There is an excellent critique of textbook coverage of this history in Chapter 8 of the first edition of Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. 

PHOTO: Mohammad Mossadegh (1882-1967)

The Real Crisis Facing the Obama Presidency And What Must Be Done About It

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/opinion/06rich.html?emc=eta1

All,

As usual Frank Rich--by far the finest and most insightful "mainstream" political journalist in the country--gets it 100% correct. If the President doesn't seriously listen to what he and millions of others are now saying about him and his administration in the wake of one massive crisis after another in this country then he is a much bigger fool than even his most profound and incisive critics already think he is. The relative 'success' or gigantic failure of Obama's presidency (and far more importantly our collective fate as citizens in a society being systematically destroyed and ravaged by a merciless corporate capitalism) hangs in the balance. Thus the old admonition about leadership still holds more than ever in Obama's case: LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY...

Kofi


OP-ED COLUMNIST

Don’t Get Mad, Mr. President. Get Even.

By FRANK RICH
Published: June 4, 2010
New York Times

IT turns out there is something harder to find than a fix for BP’s leak: Barack Obama’s boiling point.

The frantic and fruitless nationwide search for the president’s temper is now our sole dependable comic relief from the tragedy in the gulf. Only The Onion could have imagined the White House briefing last week where a CBS News correspondent asked the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, if he had “really seen rage from the president” and to “describe it.” Gibbs came up with Obama’s “clenched jaw” and his order to “plug the damn hole.” (Thank God he hadn’t settled for “darn.”) This evidence did not persuade anyone, least of all Spike Lee, who could be found on CNN the next night begging the president, “One time, go off!”

Not going to happen. Obama will never unleash the anger of the antagonists in “Do the Right Thing” or match James Carville’s rebooted “ragin’ Cajun” shtick. That’s not who Obama is. If he tried to go off, he’d look ridiculous. But the debate over how to raise the president’s emotional thermostat is not an entirely innocuous distraction. It allows Obama to duck the more serious doubts about his leadership that have resurfaced along with BP’s oil.

Unlike his unflappable temperament, his lingering failings should and could be corrected. And they must be if his presidency is not just to rise above the 24/7 Spill-cam but to credibly seize the narrative that Americans have craved ever since he was elected during the most punishing economic downturn of our lifetime. We still want to believe that Obama is on our side, willing to fight those bad corporate actors who cut corners and gambled recklessly while regulators slept, Congress raked in contributions, and we got stuck with the wreckage and the bills. But his leadership style keeps sowing confusion about his loyalties, puncturing holes in the powerful tale he could tell.

His most conspicuous flaw is his unshakeable confidence in the collective management brilliance of the best and the brightest he selected for his White House team — “his abiding faith in the judgment of experts,” as Joshua Green of The Atlantic has put it. At his gulf-centric press conference 10 days ago, the president said he had “probably had more meetings on this issue than just about any issue since we did our Afghan review.” This was meant to be reassuring but it was not. The plugging of an uncontrollable oil leak, like the pacification of an intractable Afghanistan, may be beyond the reach of marathon brainstorming by brainiacs, even if the energy secretary is a Nobel laureate. Obama has yet to find a sensible middle course between blind faith in his own Ivy League kind and his predecessor’s go-with-the-gut bravado.

By now, he also should have learned that the best and the brightest can get it wrong — and do. His economic advisers predicted that without the stimulus the unemployment rate might reach 9 percent — a projection that was quickly exceeded even with the stimulus and that has haunted the administration ever since. Other White House geniuses persuaded the president to make his fateful claim in early April that “oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills” — a particularly specious (indeed false) plank in the argument for his spectacularly ill-timed expansion of offshore oil drilling. The Times reported last week that at the administration meetings leading to this new drilling policy the subject of the vast dysfunction at the Minerals Management Service, the agency charged with regulating the drilling, never even came up.

Obama’s excessive trust in his own heady team is all too often matched by his inherent deference to the smartest guys in the boardroom in the private sector. His default assumption seems to be that his peers are always as well-intentioned as he is. The single biggest mistake he has made in managing the gulf disaster was his failure to challenge BP’s version of events from the start. The company consistently understated the spill’s severity, overestimated the progress of the repair operation and low-balled the environmental damage. Yet the White House’s designated point man in the crisis, Adm. Thad Allen of the Coast Guard, was still publicly reaffirming his trust in the BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, as recently as two weeks ago, more than a month after the rig exploded.

This is baffling, and then some, given BP’s atrocious record prior to this catastrophe. In the last three years, according to the Center for Public Integrity, BP accounted for “97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the refining industry by government safety inspectors” — including 760 citations for “egregious, willful” violations (compared with only eight at the two oil companies that tied for second place). Hayward’s predecessor at BP, ousted in a sex-and-blackmail scandal in 2007, had placed cost-cutting (and ever more obscene profits) over safety, culminating in the BP Texas City refinery explosion that killed 15 and injured 170 in 2005. Last October The Times uncovered documents revealing that BP had still failed to address hundreds of safety hazards at that refinery in the four years after the explosion, prompting the largest fine in the history of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (The fine, $87 million, was no doubt regarded as petty cash by a company whose profit reached nearly $17 billion last year.)

No high-powered White House meetings or risk analyses were needed to discern how treacherous it was to trust BP this time. An intern could have figured it out. But the credulous attitude toward BP is no anomaly for the administration. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs was praised by the president as a “savvy” businessman two months before the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman. Well before then, there had been a flood of journalistic indicators that Goldman under Blankfein may have gamed the crash and the bailout.

It’s this misplaced trust in elites both outside the White House and within it that seems to prevent Obama from realizing the moment that history has handed to him. Americans are still seething at the bonus-grabbing titans of the bubble and at the public and private institutions that failed to police them. But rather than embrace a unifying vision that could ignite his presidency, Obama shies away from connecting the dots as forcefully and relentlessly as the facts and Americans’ anger demand.

BP’s recklessness is just the latest variation on a story we know by heart. The company’s heedless disregard of risk and lack of safeguards at Deepwater Horizon are all too reminiscent of the failures at Lehman Brothers, Citigroup and A.I.G., where the richly rewarded top executives often didn’t even understand the toxic financial products that would pollute and nearly topple the nation’s economy. BP’s reliance on bought-off politicians and lax, industry-captured regulators at the M.M.S. mirrors Wall Street’s cozy relationship with its indulgent overseers at the S.E.C., Federal Reserve and New York Fed — not to mention Massey Energy’s dependence on somnolent supervision from the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Given Toyota’s recent game of Russian roulette with Americans’ safety and Anthem Blue Cross’s unconscionable insurance-rate increases in California, Obama shouldn’t have any problem riveting the country’s attention to this sorry saga. He has the field to himself, thanks to a political opposition whose hottest new star, Rand Paul, and most beloved gulf-state governor, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, both leapt to BP’s defense right after the rig exploded. The Wall Street Journal editorial page perfectly set forth the conservative establishment’s party line on May 26: “There is zero evidence so far that this blowout resulted from lax regulation or shoddy practices.” Or as BP’s Hayward asked indignantly, “What the hell did we do to deserve this?”

If Obama is to have a truly transformative presidency, there could be no better catalyst than oil. Standard Oil jump-started Progressive Era trust-busting. Sinclair Oil’s kickback-induced leases of Wyoming’s Teapot Dome oilfields in the 1920s led to the first conviction and imprisonment of a presidential cabinet member (Harding’s interior secretary) for a crime committed while in the cabinet. The Arab oil embargo of the early 1970s and the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 sped the conservation movement and search for alternative fuels. The Enron scandal prompted accounting reforms and (short-lived) scrutiny of corporate Ponzi schemes.

This all adds up to a Teddy Roosevelt pivot-point for Obama, who shares many of that president’s moral and intellectual convictions. But Obama can’t embrace his inner T.R. as long as he’s too in thrall to the supposed wisdom of the nation’s meritocracy, too willing to settle for incremental pragmatism as a goal, and too inhibited by the fine points of Washington policy debates to embrace bold words and bold action. If he is to wield the big stick of reform against BP and the other powerful interests that have ripped us off, he will have to tell the big story with no holds barred.

That doesn’t require a temper tantrum. Nor does it require him to plug the damn hole, which he can’t do anyway. What he does have the power to fix is his presidency. Should he do so, and soon, he’ll still have a real chance to mend a broken country as well.

American Imperialism in Action: The Ongoing Role of Big Oil in Iraq

http://www.truthout.org/1114092

All,

An important article that goes to the heart of exactly why the United States government invaded and occupied Iraq in the first place after their former longtime ally and vicious tyrant Saddam Hussein (then head of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the Middle East outside of the other two major American allies in the region-- Israel and Saudi Arabia) tried to move out of his subordinate 'client-state' status with U.S. imperialism by invading Kuwait in 1990 and providing the first Bushwhacker Regime (George Dubya's notorious paterfamilia) with the dubious rationale for initiating the Persian Gulf War.

Kofi


Did Big Oil Win the War in Iraq?
Saturday 14 November 2009
by: Antonia Juhasz | AlterNet


As U.S. and British oil companies sign contracts with the Iraqi government, is it time to declare Big Oil the "victor" in the bloody venture?

Last week, ExxonMobil became the first U.S. oil company in 35 years to sign an oil-production contract with the government of Iraq.

As I write, several other contracts with the world’s largest oil companies are being finalized, and more are expected when a new negotiating round kicks off in Baghdad on Dec. 11.

Do these contracts represent a "victory" for Big Oil in Iraq? Yes, but not one as big as the companies had hoped for (at least, not yet).

Before the United States and Britain invaded Iraq in March 2003, their oil companies were shut out of oil-production contracts being negotiated by the government of Saddam Hussein. Today, more than six years of war later, Saddam is gone, and the U.S. and British oil companies are not only in on the oil contracts, they have managed to sweeten the terms.

However, organized resistance by Iraqis and people around the world has thus far succeeded in denying Big Oil its Big Prize: passage of the Iraq Oil Law, alternatively called Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, which would grant far greater control over Iraqi oil to foreign companies on terms much less favorable to Iraq than the current contracts provide.

If the negotiations proceed on their current path, foreign companies will produce the vast majority of Iraq’s oil. How much control they will exert, and who will reap the greatest benefits (and endure the steepest costs) is yet to be determined.

Before the Invasion

In January 2000, 10 days into President George W. Bush’s first term, representatives of the largest oil and energy companies joined the new administration to form the Cheney Energy Task Force. As part of its deliberations, the task force reviewed a series of lists titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" naming more than 60 companies from some 30 countries with contracts in various stages of negotiation.

None of contracts were with American nor major British companies, and none could take effect while the U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iraq remained in place. Three countries held the largest contracts: China, Russia and France -- all members of the Security Council and all in a position to advocate for the end of sanctions.

Were Saddam to remain in power and the sanctions to be removed, these contracts would take effect, and the U.S. and its closest ally would be shut out of Iraq’s great oil bonanza.

After the Invasion

The invasion of Iraq dealt handily with the problem of U.S. and British exclusion. ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and other major oil companies met with the Iraqi government on countless occasions, and the Iraqis tried to make deals.

But the oil companies, backed aggressively by the Bush administration, steadfastly insisted that contracts would only be signed after the Iraq Oil Law was passed. They nearly prevailed on several occasions, but organized resistance in and outside of Iraq has continually stymied the law’s passage.

Several forces have conspired to bring the oil companies to the negotiating table today.

Most recently and significantly, Iraq’s Parliament has refused to even consider the law until after the January 2010 elections. It is quite likely that a new government hostile to the interests of foreign (particularly U.S. and British) oil companies could come to power in those elections, making passage of the law much less likely. The deals being offered today would be the best the companies would be likely to get.

President Barack Obama and his administration have been vocal and active proponents of the law’s passage. However, this administration’s allegiance to the oil industry is not as steadfast as that of its predecessor.

The Obama administration’s push for passage of the law comes at the same time that it pursues withdrawal of all but a residual U.S. troop presence. It is hard to underestimate the added negotiating weight brought by 150,000 members of the U.S. (and until very recently British) military. Bush announced his most public declaration for passage of the Iraq Oil Law at the same time that he announced the surge of an additional 20,000 U.S. troops into Iraq. The pending loss of its most potent negotiating stick has clearly made the oil companies’ more willing to deal.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton may have best put forward the administration’s position at the U.S.-Iraq Business and Investment Conference on Oct. 20, explaining: "A comprehensive hydrocarbon law is vital for regulating the [Iraq] oil sector. Parliament has delayed this vote until after January, but steps can be taken in the interim; for example, by holding transparent, credible auctions on oil and gas fields as we are seeing ..."

In other words, 'we know you want the law, but Parliament isn’t biting, and we’re not keeping 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq indefinitely for you to get it. So, sign the d*** contracts.'

And finally, under immense pressure, the Iraqi Oil Ministry also has steadily been sweetening the deals.

The New Oil Contracts

The Iraq Oil Ministry began a bidding round in June for eight currently producing oil fields, which are among the largest in the world. Only one consortium -- BP and the Chinese National Petroleum Corp. -- agreed to the terms. The rest of the companies balked, saying the terms just simply were not generous enough. The terms have since been sweetened (and applied retroactively to BP and CNPC's deal), and the companies are now jumping on board.

Because the U.S. and British companies have, to a large degree, squeezed into pre-existing negotiations, some strange bedfellows have emerged to sign these new contracts, and more odd pairings are expected soon.

* BP and CNPC finalized the first new oil contract issued by Baghdad for the largest oil field in the country, the 17 billion barrel Rumaila field.

* ExxonMobil, with junior partner Royal Dutch Shell, won a bidding war against Russia’s Lukoil and junior partner ConocoPhillips for the 8.7 billion barrel West Qurna Phase 1 project.

* Italy's Eni SpA, with California’s Occidental Petroleum and the Korea Gas Corp., was awarded Iraq's Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of 4.4 billion barrels.

* Japan's Nippon Corp., leading a consortium of Japanese companies including Inpex Corp. and JGC Corp., is at an advanced stage in talks to win the Nassiriyah oil field.

* Shell, with partners CNPC and the Turkish Petroleum Corp., is also in discussions for the giant Kirkuk oil field, although negotiations have been delayed until after Iraq’s January elections.

The Terms

These contracts are complex and unique, representing a hybrid of existing models. They are not the best that the oil companies hoped for, which would have been production sharing agreements (PSAs). Nor are they the worst the companies might have feared; Iraq is not maintaining its nationalized system, closed to foreign oil company production participation (U.S. and other foreign oil companies sell Iraqi oil now and have done so for decades).

They are also not technical service contracts (TSCs), although this is what the Iraqi Oil Ministry has named them (likely in an attempt to thwart opposition to the contracts for offering too much to foreign oil companies). Greg Muttitt, an Iraq oil expert with Platform, told me, "TSCs generally last just a few years, they're generally for a specific job (e.g. installing pumps) rather than managing a field, and they go to service companies like Baker Hughes and Halliburton."

On the positive side for the companies, where the development production contracts (DPC) that Iraq was signing prior to the 2003 invasion offered 12-year contracts, today’s run for 20 to 25 years. And while as recently as a year ago the Iraqis offered the foreign companies a 50 percent ownership stake, today’s contracts offer them a 75 percent stake (25 percent for the Iraqi government).

On the other hand, where the PSAs sought under the Iraq Oil Law would give the companies an equity stake and the ability to book the oil in the fields as their own, these contracts provide reimbursement fees for capital and operational expenses and a fixed fee per barrel of oil produced and deny the companies the ability to book reserves.

It remains unclear whether the foreign companies or the Iraqi government ultimately has production decision-making authority. And some of the benefits included in the contracts would be annulled if the Iraq Oil Law were passed, including requirements to hire and train Iraqi workers and the transfer of needed technology.

Finally, the Iraqis apparently sweetened the deals further in the last few weeks by reducing the amount the foreign companies pay in taxes and allowing them to use private security forces to protect their facilities.

The Next Bidding Round

On Dec. 11 and 12, the second, much larger, bidding round will be launched in Baghdad. Forty-four international companies have been prequalified to bid on run for 11 groups of oil and gas fields in already producing and undiscovered fields. Negotiations will include the super giant Majnoon field, which Chevron and France’s Total have teamed up to bid for.

The contracts for these fields are expected to mirror those described above, but no "model contract" has been made publicly available.

Sunlight

The Iraq Oil Law has remained an elusive goal of the world’s most powerful industry and governments because a massive organized global resistance movement has been shining a bright spotlight on its content, its backers, and on the consequences of its passage.

We must continue to shine this spotlight on the new contract negotiations to help ensure that 1) the military occupation of Iraq will be able to conclude, and 2) that the Iraqis are not freed from a foreign military occupation only to be brought under foreign economic control.

(What these contract negotiations mean for the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq is the topic of my upcoming article for Political Research Associates.)



Antonia Juhasz is the director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange. She is author of The Tyranny of Oil: the World's Most Powerful Industry, and What We Must Do To Stop It (HarperCollins, 2008), paperback to be released on Dec. 8 with a new foreword, and The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (HarperCollins, 2006). She is the editor and lead author of The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report. She is on the National Advisory Board of Iraq Veterans Against the War, an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies, a fellow with Oil Change International, and a senior analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus.