Syrian Nuclear Aspirations?

Der Spiegel this week alleged that Syria is attempting to work towards a nuclear weapon, with varying types of assistance from Iran, Hezbollah and North Korea. If true, this would be a massive story, with significant geopolitical ramifications. Syria has denied the allegations.

Syria is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as is Iran, while North Korea is not. Under this treaty, states are prohibited from developing nuclear weapons and from helping others develop these technologies.

In 2006, the IAEA ruled that Iran is in "non-compliance" with the NPT, namely, Iran's safeguards agreement. If these new allegations are true, Iran would be in blatant violation of this treaty. Given the attempted rapprochement between Iran and the West, primarily regarding its nuclear program, a discovery of this nature would almost certainly cause irreparable damage to ongoing nuclear negotiations. Iran would also face new, harsh sanctions.

The report from Der Spiegel however, is poorly sourced, and experts have claimed that the information contained in the report is in fact, incorrect. The report cites "Western intelligence agencies" as the source for this information, and indicates that Der Spiegel has documents from these sources showing that Syria is working to build a nuclear weapon.

As is the case with any anonymous source, a proper vetting of the information is necessary, yet in this instance near impossible. It would be very difficult to have two separate sources able to confirm this information. Information regarding Iran's nuclear program is notoriously hard to come by. While there have been cases when new and valid information was revealed, there are also many instances of false and misleading information released by the same sources.

It is best to take this report with a grain of salt. It is unclear if the documents held by Der Spiegel are legitimate, or an attempt by the hawkish members of the Western coalition who wish to avoid any reconciliation between Iran and the West, to falsify documents to push their agenda.

The Mossadeq Coup: Misconceptions about the Role of the United States and the CIA

The United States government, namely the CIA, is often blamed for the August 1953 coup removing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq from power, however a careful examination of older studies, in addition to newly accessible information, reveal that common conceptions of the events and chronology are flawed, despite their prevalence. 

One reason why these misconception exist is that many files from US government sources relating to this time period, and in particular to this event, remain classified or are otherwise inaccessible (most CIA documents regarding the events have allegedly been destroyed). Under United States law, special exceptions can be made allowing documents to be classified for 50 or 75 years rather than the normal 25 years. It has now been over 60 years since the events took place. This means that on at least two occasions, the documents have been determined to be too sensitive to release. 

More documents regarding this series of events will be revealed later this year (UPDATE: the release has been delayed due to fears that it could have an effect on ongoing nuclear negotiations), when the State Department’s FRUS (Foreign Relations of the United States) Iran 1952-54 is re-released including newly declassified documents. While imperfect, these documents are the most reliable and most accessible. It is important see these documents (as well as those previously released) in context, and to correct widespread misconceptions about the coup and the parties involved.

These misconceptions are problematic because of how they have engrained themselves into our understanding of the events. The preeminent scholar of Iran, Richard Cottam—who himself lived in Iran for many years and was an employee of the CIA as well as the State Department—wrote in the 1960s edition of ‘Nationalism in Iran” (also included in the 2nd edition published in 1979) that "The distortions of the Mossadeq era, both in the press and in academic studies, border on the grotesque.”

Since this time there have been many new accounts, ranging from Kermit Roosevelt’s fundamentally flawed yet influential memoir ‘Countercoup’, to the scholarly work of Mark Gasiorowski, to Stephen Kinzer’s highly popular “All the Shah’s Men” and the most recent revisionist histories of Dariush Bayandor and Ray Takeyh. Though the academic work is considerably more accurate than that of Roosevelt and Kinzer, there are still significant errors in both traditional and revisionist narratives, which have affected the mainstream understanding of this monumental event.

Misconception #1: The United States wanted Iran’s oil:

The United States had no oil interests in Iran (it was the British that did). The primary goal of the Americans was to prevent the spread of Communism, and to secondary was to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible (see National Security Council document NSC 136/1). This is not to say that the United States did not have a vested interest in Middle Eastern oil (e.g. Saudi Arabia), but rather that from the American side, co-opting Iran’s oil interests was not the motivation for a coup. Since at least 1943, US policy had been to develop Middle Eastern oil because North American and Caribbean oil would be easier to defend in war[i]. If anything, a quick resolution was the most important factor to the American; something clearly reflected in their efforts to reach a negotiated settlement.

Misconception #2: Mohammad Mossadeq was a democratically elected Prime Minister:
While Mossadeq was elected to the Majles (the Iranian Parliament) by democratic means (Iran at the time was not a democracy by any means, though some aspects of it were democratic in nature), the office of Prime Minister was nominated from amongst the Majles deputies by the Shah. In turn, the Majles members either voted for or against the nomination (In his initial appointment Mossadeq was approved by a tally of 79-12)[ii]. Mossadeq enjoyed massive popularity at different times during his political career, but his position as Prime Minister was never due to a nationwide poll (he was PM on two separate occasions). 

This is not to say Mossadeq’s position was not legitimate. He was chosen by his constituency to be a Majles deputy, this is indisputable. He was not however, chosen by the Iranian people to be Prime Minister. This also does not account for the fact that the Majles was mostly comprised of feudal landowners, intrinsically opposed to Mossadeq and his populism[iii]. Before Mossadeq became Prime Minister, the Iranian public was unhappy with the state of affairs in Iran; Mossadeq with his sincere populism was seen by the Shah as a clever alternative to yet another feudal landowner or military officer[iv]. This is also a key factor in Misconception #6.

Misconception #3: The Eisenhower Administration was determined to remove Mossadeq from power from Day 1:

One of the fundamental misunderstandings concerns the Eisenhower Administration’s decision to remove Mossadeq from power. A cursory reading of the documents supplied in the FRUS volume concerning Iran, reveals that the President was most concerned with the specter of Communism above anything else. Eisenhower even said in a National Security Council meeting that if he had $500,000,000.00 to spare, he would have preferred to give $100,000,000.00 to Iran so that the financial troubles brought on by British sanctions could be alleviated[v]. Eisenhower was likely influenced by the Dulles brothers (Secretary of State and Director of the CIA), but for a considerable period of time the president opposed a coup. He was afraid of destabilizing Iran and the region, which in his estimation, would inevitably lead to a communist takeover.

Misconception #4: The CIA coup was successful:

It is clear from the record that the attempted coup (codenamed TPAJAX) which was undertaken on the night of August 15th, 1953, was a dismal failure. Not only did the Iranian military officers fail in their task to arrest Mossadeq, the CIA did not have a backup plan. Even though Kermit Roosevelt claimed to have magically turned the situation around in only 3 days, the circumstances of what really happened between the failed coup of August 15/16 and the successful one of the 19th is highly contentious. How did the situation turn around so quickly, despite the early setbacks including the arrest of pivotal Iranian conspirators such as Colonel Zand-Karimi, the conduit for communicating with Tehran-based commanders? Roosevelt’s version of events is difficult to accept without reservation, not only because of the style and substance of his writing, but also because of his well-known questionable reliability. 

Misconception #5: CIA documents corroborate each other:

There is an recurrent idea that the CIA is all-powerful, and that classified documents from the CIA are inherently truthful and accurate. Again this ignores the context of the documents. This was the CIA’s first attempted coup, and especially for those involved there was a strong incentive to downplay the failures of the plan and to exaggerate any potential successes. In the various accounts declassified by or leaked from the CIA there are several inconsistencies which calls into question to accuracy of the different accounts. 

Perhaps most striking (though ignored in historiographies) are those found in the most recent CIA history ‘Zendebad Shah’, published internally in 1998 and partially released following FOIA requests from George Washington University’s National Security Archive. In this document, it is written that British Foreign Minister Eden “found the Americans much more receptive to the British viewpoint than they had been under Truman and Acheson. The collapse of the Anglo-Iranian oil negotiations had changed the American’s attitude.” These events however, are taken out of chronological order; the negotiations did not in fact collapse until days after the meeting between Eden and the Americans. On the same page the author also wrote that the US administration ‘abandoned the search for a negotiated end to the crisis.’ Without context, this implies that the US broke off negotiations, while in fact it was Mossadeq that did so.

It is unclear if this is poorly researched document, if the person responsible for it made mistakes in his writing, or if the CIA truly does not have a comprehensive understanding of what happened. Of all the declassified CIA documents on the coup, this one is the most recent (there was another document declassified after this one, but it was written decades prior). Is it unrealistic to expect the newest one to be the most accurate? 

Misconception #6: Westerners and Royalists were the only ones who wished to remove Mossadeq from power:

This is perhaps the biggest misunderstanding of all. While Mossadeq had enjoyed great popularity earlier in his term, his coalition had come under great pressure, and former allies had begun to oppose him. Chief amongst these was Ayatollah Kashani, the speaker of the Majles, and a vital influence for the next generation of politicized clerics, significantly, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. I personally find it very interesting that the US has not made an effort to publicize these connections. Given the tensions between the governments of Iran and the United States since 1979, one would think that undermining the Iranian clerical leadership through showing the links to the coup would be in the interests of the United States.

During the oil crisis, Mossadeq became very unpopular. Things were so bad that when it was clear that his now fractured party would not gain a majority, he cancelled parliamentary elections. In February 1953 there were mass demonstrations against Mossadeq (possibly arranged for or instigated by foreign agents including the CIA); demonstrations of enough severity for Mossadeq to increase security measures in Iran. 

The tendency is to blame the CIA and Americans because we know from the record that there was an attempt to overthrow Mossadeq, but this does not absolve the other participants. There are instances in both the Wilber Report and FRUS where an Iranian general and the former Prime Minister of Iran (allegedly on behalf of a group of military officers) separately contacted US officials inquiring on their interest in conducting a coup d’etat. 

Other issues:

There are two additional issues which I have not addressed as a ‘misconceptions’, because neither of them are considered a key part of the narrative. The role of Ambassador Loy Henderson, who many believe worked with the CIA beyond the scope of his office, has been generally neglected by scholars and journalists. Henderson when interviewed for the Truman Library in 1973, said things which Roosevelt contradicted 6 years later in Countercoup. During this interview Henderson also said that the record would reflect his version of events, if the telegrams were ever declassified.

The other and perhaps most curious issue is the role of the Dulles brothers. The two of them were partners with the American firm (Sullivan & Cromwell) representing the AIOC interests in the United States before their positions as head of the CIA and State Department. The Dulles brothers’s firm had done work with United Fruit Company, one of the corporations which benefited the most from the CIA’s coup in Guatemala in 1954. Both brothers were also major shareholders in United Fruit. It may be difficult to determine if the Dulles brothers used their position to benefit them and their associates financially, and the lack of a comprehensive record from either the CIA or State Department, not to mention Eisenhower’s obsession with secrecy a difficult matter to ascertain. If this is a coincidence it is a truly remarkable one. 

What this means for the new FRUS release:

While there may be new details revealed with the updated release of the FRUS documents, it is likely that the biggest gaps in the record (determining when and why Eisenhower changed his mind and decided to support a coup, as well as what happened between August 16th and 19th) will remain unfilled. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the contradictions between different versions still remain, and are likely to be even more convoluted by the pending release.

"The early accounts of various participants differed widely enough to make it impossible to follow the slender thread of truth through the dark night.”
—Donald Wilber in ‘The Wilber Report’

--

Sources:

[i] 1 December 1943, folder: ‘Petroleum Reserves Corporation Activities. 7/3/43-1/1/44’ box 1, Records of the Petroleum Division, RG 59 via Anderson, Irvine H. "The American Oil Industry and the Fifty-Fifty Agreement of 1950." Musaddiq, Iranian Nationalism, and Oil. By James A. Bill and William Roger Louis. 1988. 151

[ii] In the executive system of the time, Prime Minister was elected by the Parliament (Majles). Mossadeq was voted in by a 79-12 margin. See Foran, John. "Democratization, Separatism, Nationalization, Coup." Fragile Resistance: Social Transformation in Iran from 1500 to the Revolution., 1993. 285.

[iii] Cottam, Richard W. Nationalism in Iran. 1964. 49

[iv] Azimi, Fakhreddin. Iran: The Crisis of Democracy. New York: St. Martin's, 1989. 257

[v] Memorandum of discussion at the 135th meeting of the National Security Council, March 4, 1953, FRUS, 1953-1954, Vol. X:Iran, p. 691-701

Additional Resources:

FRUS Iran 1952-54: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?id=FRUS.FRUS195254v10

Wilber Report (Mostly unredacted): http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm

Zendebad Shah!: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran980600.pdf

More on Mossadeq by me:

Relations Between Mossadeq and the US
Mossadeq and the US: An Introduction
US Officials on Mossadeq and the British

Op-Ed for Enduring America-Worldview on 1953/2013 Parallels

More Iranian Military Posturing

The head of the Iranian Navy stated that several Iranian destroyers will be traveling to the south Indian Ocean as a show of force. While stereotypically hyperbolic, this is at least moderately feasible. Several months ago Western media outlets were in an uproar over statements that Iran was sending a fleet to the East Coast of the United States. This turned out to be an absurd exaggeration, EA Worldview has a good rundown of that story here: http://eaworldview.com/2014/04/iran-breaking-tehrans-warships-longer-heading-us-coast/.

So is this new claim something worth paying attention to? It is possible that the ships may in fact reach their destination because the location which Iran's ships are traveling is remote, and is much closer to Iran's borders than the United States. Unlike the nonsense about the Iranian ships traveling to the Eastern Seaboard, it is not an inherently bellicose move, but it again demonstrates Iran's ambition.

Though Iran has a very long way to go to catch up to the military might of the United States (or even Israel), this event is most important for a reference point in understanding the priorities of the Iranian government and military, the most relevant one being prestige.

Wikileaks and Afghanistan

Earlier this week internationally recognized news organizations suffered heavy criticism from the anti-secrecy organization Wikileaks for redacting the name of a nation surveilled by the NSA. Even Glenn Greenwald voiced his support for redacting the country’s name for fears “that doing so could lead to increased violence.” Following this, the Wikileaks Twitter account (widely assumed to be run by Julian Assange directly), engaged Mr. Greenwald with vitriolic language and slurs, culminating in the account claiming that it would release the name of the target nation in 72 hours. 

72 hours passed, and Wikileaks did not released the name. 3 hours after the deadline the account posted the following tweet:

We have moved our publication on the identity of NSA "SOMALGET" country X to another date for media cycle reasons.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) May 23, 2014

Bizarrely enough a mere hour and a half later, the handle did in fact publish the name which turned out to be Afghanistan.

STATEMENT: WikiLeaks statement on the mass recording of Afghan telephone calls by the NSA http://t.co/CYXBvjKJHj #afghanistan #nsa #snowden
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) May 23, 2014

While it is unclear if this in fact is true, it is certain that this action appears to be a desperate attempt at gaining attention. Anyone who has followed the news and has a memory beyond the last minute is probably more than aware of the strife in Afghanistan, and the widely varied sources of violence. It was only a few months ago when the Taliban, one of the most significant insurgent groups in the country attacked the United States Consulate in Herat, killing 3. Months before this, the Taliban set off a car bomb, murdering a US diplomat and four other Americans. 

The Taliban are not the only group which has attacked American and International interests in Afghanistan:

In September 2012 there were widespread riots over the film “Innocence of Muslims”, even though many of the rioters had not in fact seen the film clip. 

In February 2012 there were riots for a week over American troops dumping Korans in a garbage dump and burning them (the ones responsible were disciplined by the US Army). 

On April 1, 2011 the United Nations compound in Mazar-e Sharif, was stormed and as many as ten foreigners were murdered (some may have been decapitated) in response to the burning of a Koran a week and a half earlier by an American pastor. The riots continued throughout the country for a week following the attack on the compound. 

Earlier in 2011 thousands demonstrated in Qalat after young Afghan children alleged that foreigners had ‘disrespected the Koran’. 

What is clear from this brief catalogue of recent events is that Afghanistan remains a very tense place with unrest possible at any moment and for any reason. Something like what Wikileaks has alleged can prove to be deadly, even for innocents or civilians whose presence in the country is entirely innocent and well-intentioned. 

I do not know if Afghanistan is the country redacted by Glenn Greenwald, but if it is, the callousness of Julian Assange is horrifying. It would truly demonstrate how egomaniacal Julian Assange is and how little he values a human life that is not his own. 

Iran and the Convention on Nuclear Safety

CONVENTION ON NUCLEAR SAFETY

ARTICLE 1. OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this Convention are:

1. to achieve and maintain a high level of nuclear safety worldwide through the enhancement of national measures and international co-operation including, where appropriate, safety-related technical co-operation
2. to establish and maintain effective defences in nuclear installations against potential radiological hazards in order to protect individuals, society and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation from such installations; 
3. to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate such consequences should they occur.

After the disaster at Chernobyl in 1986, it became clear that there needed to be better international cooperation in establishing safety standards for nuclear facilities, especially power plants. A series of international treaties aimed at reducing the risk of a nuclear accident were established following this catastrophe. One of the most significant of these is the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS). The Convention on Nuclear Safety was adopted in 1994, and like many other nuclear treaties is governed by the IAEA. There are 76 parties to the convention, including Belarus, Egypt, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Unlike many other international treaties, the CNS is set up as an incentive-based program. This convention is aimed at sharing safety techniques and protocols among the international community so that the risk of a nuclear accident decreases, and in the event of an accident, the effects are mitigated by increased awareness and preparedness. This treaty has been signed or ratified by every country with a nuclear power plant (there are 34 countries with nuclear power plants), with one exception.

Iran, despite it's insistence that its nuclear program is civilian, and entirely without military capability, has not signed or ratified the CNS. Even though in early 2013 the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations indicated that his country has been working to join the treaty, this has still not happened. While Chernobyl is now a distant memory for many, the Fukushima nuclear accident is a recent reminder of the importance of proper nuclear safety standards, and international cooperation to prevent catastrophic damage to the environment and to civilization.

Iran is one of the more prominent members of the Non-Aligned Movement, and does not always fully embrace the international community, especially the Western-dominated institutions. However, with others in a similar situation being a part of the CNS (Belarus and Syria are perhaps the best examples), Iran’s absence is even more curious. If Iran is trying to make a point and not conform to Western hegemony, why have these other countries acquiesced?

Iran may be concerned with spies taking information shared through a treaty such as the CNS, especially relating to the facilities at Arak, Fordow, and Natanz (some believe that the IAEA serves Western intelligence). However, the CNS is ONLY applicable to land-based civilian nuclear power plants, which does not include enrichment facilities, or other sensitive nuclear installations. Additionally, the CNS has clauses included in the text protecting information including: “personal data; information protected by intellectual property rights or by industrial or commercial confidentiality; and information relating to national security or to the physical protection of nuclear materials or nuclear installations”. 

The only reason that I can imagine why Iran would not want to sign the Convention on Nuclear Safety has to do with Article 6, which is as follows: '…the Contracting Party shall ensure that all reasonably practicable improvements are made as a matter of urgency to upgrade the safety of the nuclear installation. If such upgrading cannot be achieved, plans should be implemented to shut down the nuclear installation as soon as practically possible. The timing of the shut-down may take into account the whole energy context and possible alternatives as well as the social, environmental and economic impact.' From this, one can see the potential problem for Iran if the plant at Bushehr would have to be shut-down (temporarily or permanently). This would be both a significant blow to the prestige of the country and its scientists, and would also severely undermine the state’s PR campaign trying to assert it’s right to peaceful nuclear technologies. 

So why exactly has Iran not signed the CNS? What possible reasons do they have for not joining this treaty? Or on the other hand, what reasons does Iran have to join the treaty? Politics is about perception, why isn’t Iran taking advantage of a situation where they could get an easy win, deflecting criticism of their nuclear program? Are they saving this as an option for later?

The reasoning behind Iran’s refusal to join the Convention on Nuclear Safety remain unclear. The simple act of joining this treaty would allay fears that Iran’s stated desire for a civilian nuclear program is not genuine. It would also increase the possibilities for Iran to reintegrate itself into the international community. There are plenty of issues to argue over in the United Nations General Assembly, disaster prevention and relief should be a given. 

Iranian military threats provide fodder for US/Israel Iran hawks

Apologies for the lengthy absence. Work has been very busy and I hope to have a more substantial post up soon, but for now this will have to do.

There have been quite a few strange stories coming involving Iran over the last few weeks. First there was the gem of a story involving Edward Snowden, Nazis, and space aliens, and now we have another pair of ridiculous bellicose statements coming from Iran. 

Evidently Supreme Leader Khamenei decided that now is as good a time as any to try and get the attention of the West and to demonstrate the power of Iran's navy by sending several ships towards the Atlantic Ocean. Iranian State TV on Friday aired a simulated video of an Iranian counterattack on Tel Aviv, Haifa and Dimona following a hypothetical strike by Israel and/or the United States. So what is to be made of these events?

Other than the typical attempts to gain regional or global attention/recognition, the timing of this is interesting as it comes just after the failed attempt by Iran hawks in the Senate to force another sanctions bill through. Khamenei and the regime are likely emboldened by this, and see an opportunity to exploit an advantageous situation. Because serious nuclear negotiations are ongoing, this provides a perfect opportunity to appease the Supreme Leader's arch-conservative base. Iran by now has realized that the United States is in fact serious about negotiations, and that this can be utilized to the regime's advantage. While in the future Iran may become a world naval power (I would bet my life on this never happening), this looks to be another meaningless gesture, not unlike the claim that Iran was about to build nuclear powered submarines. The computer simulation should be treated the same way, although the real-life capabilities of Iranian missiles and rockets are certainly much more threatening than a few ships floating around the Atlantic Ocean.

Unfortunately, hawks in both Israel and the United States are undoubtedly going to point to these instances as 'proof' that nuclear negotiations are disingenuous. On the bright side, it looks as though this is once again nothing more than a bit of clever politics by the Iranian leader. 

UPDATE: as this EA Worldview post shows, the flotilla was and continues to be a non-story 

Relations between Mossadeq and the United States

'Excerpt' from a paper I wrote. Bear with me, it is quite lengthy:

Relations Between Mossadeq and the United States

            While there are many questions about the events of and leading up to the August 19, 1953 coup of Mohammad Mossadeq, the relationship between the Prime Minister and the United States provides some of the most interesting topics of discussion. Why did the US attitude towards Mossadeq change? How strongly did the Eisenhower administration feel that they wanted Mossadeq removed from power? Were the CIA, State Department and the White House in agreement on these issues? Was there a lack of communication between them? While many of the key figures have been dead for a long time now, there remain many primary documents which can be used to gain a better understanding of the Mossadeq coup.

            First and foremost among these are the documents in the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series, published by the Office of the Historian in the United States Department of State. These archival works document the inner workings of the White House and the Department of State (including the National Security Council), and include Top Secret documents. These are typically more accurate and reliable than contemporary public accounts because they are not intended for a global audience. US Government records remain classified for a minimum of 25 years, with exceptions being made to reclassify for an additional 25 years.[i] After 50 years since the even there are only a handful of situations where the documents will stay classified and they include information regarding designs for weapons of mass destruction, identities human intelligence sources or ‘special permission’.[ii] After 75 years, special permission is required to keep documents classified.[iii] With the assurance of secrecy for the minimum of 25 years, it is unlikely that the people who are being recorded would censor themselves due to concern over contemporary public perception. The documents are, more reliable than public statements, even by individuals intimately involved in the situation. They may not always be factually accurate, but there is little incentive to purposefully provide a false record for future administrations.

            While the FRUS papers do not answer all of the questions on what exactly led the Eisenhower administration to attempt a coup of Mossadeq, they include many important documents which are indicative the thoughts and attitudes of the parties involved. The FRUS papers include; telegrams to and from the American Ambassador to Iran, Loy Henderson; telegrams to and from the American Embassy in the UK; and (NSC) National Security Council memos. A significant problem with the FRUS papers is that they are incomplete; not every telegram to and from the US Embassy in Iran is in the public domain. Officially all of the documents are available at the National Archives, but an index of these documents is only available on site. It is more than possible that many documents of significance are still classified by the State Department, but unfortunately I was unable to visit the archives myself.

            The FRUS papers on Iran for the years 1952-1954 (Volume X) released by the State Department includes an important undated memo from the staff of the NSC on the position of the United States towards Iran towards the end of the Truman administration (1951)[iv]. In this brief memo, titled “The Position of the United States With Respect to Iran”, the basic principles of containing and preventing Soviet influence from spreading are enumerated. The authors envision the Soviets as a potential threat to both geopolitical and economic interests of the United States. They believe that most dangerous scenarios include an interruption in the vital supply of petroleum products, the potential for the Soviets to build military bases even closer to the American allies' "lines of defense" and perhaps most importantly, serious harm to the global image of the United States if their sphere of influence were undermined in this manner. While the authors of these memos are clearly not the same officials as those which Mossadeq had relations with, it is important to note what is prioritized in the writings. There are mentions of freedom and liberty being important to American geopolitics, but the emphasis clearly is on countering and combating the Soviet Union in every way possible. The idea of Iranians willingly adopting communism or acquiescing to Soviet "domination" appears to be unfathomable for the authors. This gives the impression that they did not see American interference as undemocratic, even if a despotic regime were to be supported. Perhaps the most telling bit of information in this memo is section 26, where the following is stated: "In the event Iran assumes an attitude of neutrality in the "cold war", political steps by the United States and United Kingdom to restore Iranian alignment with the free world would be required." Mossadeq was probably not privy to this sentiment, as he would likely have acted differently towards the United States government with this knowledge in hand.

Another national security document, NSC 136/1 illustrates the commitment of US to prevent Iran from falling under Communist control.[v] It makes absolutely no mention of overthrowing Mossadeq, but hints at the possibility of instability in Iran, and the need for a backup-plan if the situation were to become untenable. This memorandum was written at the very end of President Truman’s term. The Truman's administration attitude towards the AIOC/Iran oil dispute can be best characterized by the following:

"While in general [the] United States does not favor nationalization, [the] US recognizes [the] right of sovereign states to nationalize provided prompt payment [of] just compensation [is] made. However, this policy [is] not publicized abroad as it might encourage [foreign] states to nationalize. [State Department is] not at present opposing AIOC nationalization because of (1), and because such opposition [would] in present circumstances jeopardize politically US and West in Iran and might result in loss of Iran to [Soviets]."[vi]

When Democrat Harry Truman was succeeded by Republican Dwight Eisenhower, the American policy towards Iran was bound to change. With a new Secretary of State coming to power, and a more conservative government in place, it was only a matter of time before this happened. Despite the fact that Eisenhower's presidency initially supported the Iranians by continuing aid and also attempted to mediate between the colonial-minded British and Prime Minister Mossadeq, within a few months it became clear that negotiations were not going well. The President and his Cabinet, in addition to US Ambassador to Iran, Loy Henderson quickly grew disillusioned with Mossadeq and his efforts to work towards a resolution in the oil dispute. Ambassador Henderson wrote to the Secretary of State about how he had prepared proposals for Mossadeq which he felt are fair, but Mossadeq continuously changed his mind about what he wanted, and spent a significant effort trying to change the language of the potential agreement. At one point in January 1953, Henderson wrote back to Washington exasperated at Mossadeq for changing his mind and the terms of the agreement.[vii] Ambassador Henderson wrote that; '[Mossadeq] has been talking for many months [regarding] international arbitration; now he says he prefers "adjudication" to "arbitration"'. What makes this more difficult for Henderson and the United States is that these are often translations from English to Persian and different words carry different connotations. The words may or may not be perfectly synonymous, and there was likely a fear from Mossadeq of his government and the Iranian people being taken advantage of in the future if the language was not precise. However, the Iranian economy was struggling at this point, and with petroleum being the major export product, any sort of agreement would have alleviated some of the financial troubles of Iran.[viii] President Eisenhower was aware of the problems facing the Iranian economy, when he stated in a March 1953 National Security Council meeting: "If I had $500,000,000 of money to spend in secret, I would get $100,00,000 of it to Iran right now."[ix]

            Compounding economic woes and the change in the American administration from liberal to conservative, the British government as well had just transitioned from liberal to conservative leadership in their own elections. Despite the change in government of both states, the record shows that the Americans at least did not immediately move towards overthrowing Mossadeq. In fact, they seem to want to keep him in power due to fears of Iran becoming unstable if Mossadeq were to fall from power. This, in their mind, would without a doubt lead to a Communist takeover of Iran, followed by a domino effect where the entire region would eventually fall to the Soviets.

            Henderson's telegrams back to Washington, indicate that he was either unfamiliar with the role of the CIA, or that the agency had less of a hand in the events of 19 August, 1953 than Kermit Roosevelt, and innumerable academics have claimed. In fact Henderson himself stated in an interview 20 years later than he had no knowledge of the second coup attempt.[x] The CIA's Wilber Report, corroborates the idea that Henderson was not intimately involved in the alleged plot for the second coup attempt, while indicating that Henderson had at least some basic knowledge of the plans.[xi] While Henderson was not directly involved in the "war room" of Roosevelt with the Zahedis, the Rashidian brothers and CIA officer George A. Carroll, he was present at the location where it took place.[xii] That night Henderson went to meet Mossadeq to discuss several concerns, including the problem of American citizens in Iran being harassed by the Tudeh.[xiii] Countercoup contends that Roosevelt coached Henderson on how to act towards Mossadeq. However, the State Department cable of this meeting bears no mention of the alleged threats, and Mossadeq is portrayed in the cable as being friendly towards Henderson, while also implying that he knew that the US had had some role in the attempted coup of August 16th.[xiv]

            As the plans for the CIA coup were apparently drawn up in the middle of March 1953, the change in perspective of the United States must have occurred in the course of the few days between the March 5th National Security Council meeting where Eisenhower expressed support for Mossadeq and the plans.[xv] Unfortunately the FRUS documents for this time period are sparse at best and bear no mention of the change. In fact, up until August of 1953, telegrams from Ambassador Henderson show evidence that there were attempts to revive the oil dispute negotiations. The shift in United States policy is unfortunately currently not evident from the FRUS documents. There may be additional cables that have yet to been declassified, but this is unclear. What is certain is that there are large gaps in what is contained within the FRUS Iran documents and what actually exists or existed. Cables are numbered sequentially and there are gaps of over 200 digits in the sequence at points in 1953. There are hundreds or even thousands of cables to and from the US Embassy in Iran which are not included in the FRUS report. These files may be available at the National Archives, but for whatever reason they are not included in the FRUS Iran collection.

            The next place to look for a change in US policy would be the CIA's documents. As the executors of the coup of August 16th, they would have been tasked with the planning aspect. Despite the secrecy involved with this organization, there are some files which have either been made available or leaked. There is also speculation that the CIA may have been acting independently from the Truman administration and the State Department,[xvi] and that this possibly could have continued in Eisenhower’s administration. The head of the CIA under President Eisenhower, Allen Dulles, along with his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, were both senior partners in the law firm which represented the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.[xvii] If anything, the connections between the CIA and the AIOC raises the possibility that there was some coordinated effort between the two organizations against Mossadeq.

            A CIA internal history written in 1998 and partially released (though heavily redacted), indicates that the breakdown of the oil negotiations was the reason for the Americans change in attitude towards Iran.[xviii] The problem with this assertion is that there is very little support within the document (due to the redaction), and many of the documents which might contradict or support this are also unavailable. According to this document, in March 1953, Foreign Minister Anthony Eden met with US State Department officials to discuss the oil crisis and:

"found the Americans much more receptive to the British viewpoint than they had been under Truman and Acheson. The collapse of the Anglo-Iranian oil negotiations had changed the Americans' attitude; Washington now considered Mossadeq a source of instability, and feared that his continued tenure invited a Tudeh coup."[xix]

The problem with this passage, is that Eden's meetings with the State Department was between the 4th and 7th of March[xx], before Mossadeq had withdrawn from oil negotiations on the 9th of March[xxi]. Why was Eden operating under the assumption that the negotiations (that he was not even involved in as they were between the US and Mossadeq) had already collapsed when in fact they officially did not collapse until Mossadeq withdrew?

            The account of the meeting from the State Department cables indicates at least nominal support from the US for Mossadeq. Secretary of State Dulles is paraphrased saying that:

“The probable consequences of the events of the last few days would be a dictatorship in Iran under Mossadegh. As long as the latter lives there was but little danger, but if he were to be assassinated or otherwise to disappear from power, a political vacuum would occur in Iran and the Communist might easily take over”[xxii]

Dulles is often blamed for pushing the US and President Eisenhower towards overthrowing Mossadeq, but from this account of the National Security Council (NSC), he does not seem interested in a coup, but rather in keeping Mossadeq in power. It is possible that Dulles was purposefully misleading the NSC, but it does seems strange that Dulles would appear to be so strongly committed to a certain belief, and then change his mind so quickly, and also inexplicably. In either case, the documentation again is contradictory.

            Another cable from Secretary Dulles to the US Embassy in the UK following his meetings with Minister Eden on the 4^th-7^th, warns that the recent events of civil unrest may lead to more influence for the Tudeh Party in Iran, Mossadeq was expected to remain in power, and that the US should attempt "to keep Mosadeq barely afloat and thus attempt [to] avoid [the] disastrous possibility of Communists replacing him".[xxiii] The failure of the oil negotiations may in fact have had the exact impact on the Americans' attitude as the CIA file claims, but the evidence given as proof, does not fit chronologically.

            According to the CIA internal history, and Eisenhower’s biographer, the President had to have given the approval for TP/AJAX, although he preferred to keep his distance as to insulate himself from any allegations of him supporting a coup attempt on a foreign leader.[xxiv] These documents also state that he did NOT discuss this with his NSC or with his Cabinet, so there would not have been a record of when exactly he gave the order, and why he decided to do so. This, coupled with the fact that many CIA documents were allegedly destroyed from this time period could explain why there is no evidence of the switch in US policy vis-a-vis Iran.

            Another important document from the CIA, the Wilber Report, was written in 1954 by Donald Wilber (and leaked in 2000 to the New York Times), a CIA officer involved in the planning and execution of TP/AJAX. This file provides a relatively frank inside look from the CIA's perspective. Because this was all classified as secret or higher, it, like the State Department cables, was intended for internal use only. It was not meant to be publicly disseminated.

            The Wilbert Report makes the assertion that in March of 1953 a General (name redacted) had contacted the CIA and requested an assessment from Ambassador Henderson "whether or not the US Government was interested in covertly supporting an Iranian military effort to oust Premier Mossadeq".[xxv] While it does not state whether the Ambassador received this request, this implies cooperation between the State Department and the CIA, or at least the CIA and Ambassador Henderson. Katouzian also implies that Henderson was working with the CIA, and that the rest of “the American government was not yet fully aware of these activities of its own departments”.[xxvi] State Department files indicate a telegram from Ambassador Henderson to the Department of State relating a similar type of request from Hossein Ala, the previous Prime Minister.[xxvii] According to this telegram, Ala asked Henderson if the United States still supported Mossadeq as there was a group of military officers who were looking to overthrow him.[xxviii] Ala then said that if Henderson believed that "there was still [a] good chance Mossadeq would be able to effect settlement [of the] oil problem, [they] might decide [to] postpone taking action." Henderson wrote that he "expressed surprised Ala would put such a question. I had already informed him several times [that] the US [was] not supporting Mossadeq or anyone else as Prime Minister.

            Hossein Ala was not a general, and though these events both occurred during the month of March 1953, it is uncertain if both documents are referring to the same instance or a different one. If Henderson had previously been contacted by the CIA or the Iranian general, wouldn't it make sense that the Ambassador would have mentioned this other request in the telegram? It may be possible that Henderson was acting outside the scope of his position and beyond the reach of the State Department and sending false or misleading information back to John Foster Dulles, but this seems illogical. If Ambassador Henderson was in the know regarding the coup the CIA and MI6 had been planning since the middle of March this request for information from Ala would likely have been troubling to him.

            The other important question on the Wilber Report is why this incident was not included. Where there two separate groups in Iran planning for Mossadeq’s overthrow? The military was more or less pro-Shah, and Ala had strong ties to the Shah as well it would seem as though these two groups would be unlikely to operate independently. Overall the Wilber Report and the FRUS documents do not go well together, and again the role of various participants is questioned. Henderson seems to be portrayed as both an active part of the coup plan, and an innocent bystander. These contradictory descriptions make it even more difficult to determine when the US position towards Iran actually changed. Was Henderson feigning innocence so the State Department was unaware of the imminent coup plans?

---

[i] The White House "Executive Order 13526." Office of the Press Secretary. December 29, 2009. Web. May 29, 2013. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information>

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Study Prepared by the Staff of the National Security Council, "The Position of the United States With Respect to Iran", (undated), FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. X:Iran, p. 11-21 (the documents before and after this one are from the middle of March 1951)

[v] Statement of Policy Proposed by the National Security Council, "NSC 136: United States Policy Regarding the Present Situation in Iran", (Washington, November 20, 1952), FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. X, p. 529-534

[vi] The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Iran, (Washington, March 17, 1951), FRUS, 1953-1954, Vol. X, p. 25

[vii] Telegram 2763, from the Ambassador in Iran (Henderson) to the Department of State, January 17, 1953, FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. X: Iran, p.634

[viii] Azimi, Fakhreddin. Iran: The Crisis of Democracy. 1989. p. 281

[ix] Memorandum of discussion at the 135th meeting of the National Security Council, March 4, 1953, FRUS, 1953-1954, Vol. X:Iran, p. 691-701

[x] Bayandor, Darioush. Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010167

[xi] Wilber, Donald (2000), Clandestine Service History: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, November 1952-August 1953.

[xii] Ibid 57

[xiii] Telegram 384, from the Ambassador in Iran (Henderson) to the Department of State, August 18, 1953, FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. X: Iran, p.748-752

[xiv] Telegram 384, from the Ambassador in Iran (Henderson) to the Department of State, August 18, 1953, FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. X: Iran, p.748-752

[xv] Memorandum of discussion at the 135th meeting of the National Security Council, March 4, 1953, FRUS, 1953-1954, Vol. X:Iran, p. 691-701

[xvi] Foran, John. "Democratization, Separatism, Nationalization, Coup." Fragile Resistance: Social Transformation in Iran from 1500 to the Revolution. Boulder [u.a.: Westview, 1993 293

[xvii] Ibid

[xviii] Koch, Scott A., "Zendebad, Shah!": The Central Intelligence Agency and the Fall of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, August 1953," Top Secret Draft History, History Staff, Central Intelligence Agency, June 1998.

[xix] Ibid 16

[xx] Memorandum of discussion at the 135th meeting of the National Security Council, March 4, 1953, FRUS, 1953-1954, Vol. X:Iran, p. 694

[xxi] Telegram 3605, from the Ambassador in Iran (Henderson) to the Department of State, March 9, 1953, FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. X: Iran, p.703

[xxii] Memorandum of discussion at the 135th meeting of the National Security Council, March 4, 1953, FRUS, 1953-1954, Vol. X:Iran, p. 693

[xxiii] Telegram 5959, from the Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom, March 7, 1953, FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. X: Iran, p.702

[xxiv] Koch 20

[xxv] Wilber 2

[xxvi] Katouzian, Homa. "Democratization, Separatism, Nationalization, Coup." Musaddiq's Memoirs. By Mohammad Mosaddeq. Trans. Homa Katouzian. London: 1988. 55

[xxvii] Telegram 3853, from the Ambassador in Iran (Henderson) to the Department of State, March 31, 1953, FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. X: Iran, p. 719-721

[xxviii] Telegram 3853, p 720