So there I was, listening to the continuous stream of leftwing fare on NPR, my barf-bag at the ready, and a historical piece was being presented by this highly regarded intellectual station- Michael Shuster’s Middle East and the West piece, part 6- the US’s foray into the Middle East.   

     So there I am listening to how the US itself is to blame for all the Middle East’s hate for the US, most of it familiar disproven drivel, when they bring up one topic I was not familiar with- a now obscure topic that not many people would know about, the kind the Left has a penchant for distorting, and which most people would believe and not bother to research. It concerned the US’s involvement in Iran in 1953.


     Now according to NPR’s interviewees, the US had overthrown a constitutional government, a popular government, and installed a puppet regime, in the name of Big Oil. Quite damning. I was ready to don my ‘Kerry the Real Deal’ t-shirt and march down Main Street, breaking a few windows, shouting anti-US slogans.


     Now! I said to myself. Here surely is a wrong the US did, It couldn’t possible be another Leftwing deception, it was so well done! The way NPR presented it, the US was guilty without a doubt of meddling in Iran in 1953 for the benefit of Big Oil. Finally, this might be something that the US was actually wrong in doing, and not just another half-baked Leftwing twisting of history! An event that would lend justification to all of the vilifying accusations our Liberal media heaps upon the US from dawn until dusk and then throughout the night! This would be a good example of the US’s greedy, human-welfare-disregarding Capitalistic, conservative-policy Big Business/CIA linked besmeared past! This would be the event that would finally push me back to the political Left, from the Right where, since 9/11, and then more since Iraq, I had been pushed.


     I would be disappointed. It was just another Left ruse. They were only presenting half the details in order to paint their anti-US/anti-West and ultimately anti-Republican/anti-Bush pictures. It was a good piece of distortion, and nothing more.


So having done enough to verify this particular claim from the Left, this bit of US damning history, I present the results of my research below, in which I present the rest of the details that ultimately expose the Left’s tendency to paint inaccurate, anti-US pictures.


PROPOSED TITLES: "US, Iran, and 1953- Another Example of the Liberal’s Anti-US Rewriting of History Movement"



Or "A response to NPR's Mike Shuster's Segment Which Sinks Into Liberal Trash: ‘Part 6: The US and the Middle East’. Particular Point: Iran, 1953"


Or “Testing the Validity of NPR's Mike Shuster's anti-US Segment”


Or “Is the US Really At Fault All the Time, as Liberals Would Have Us Believe? Let’s Investigate this Particular Case: US, Iran, and 1953”

Researched solely from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (You see, I didn't have to search very far to debunk NPR and Shuster):









"Iran was the first place where the United States acted as [a colonial power], overthrowing in this case a constitutional government, a popular government, a government that had a huge parliamentary majority", says historian Rashid Khalidi, author of Resurrecting Empire.

Right away I got the feeling I'm once again getting false, distorted, anti-US/Western-World slant, and that some research is warranted. (I should sue somebody for having to waste my time ferreting out anti-West liberal lies and distortions such as that).

"By 1944 Reza Pahlavi had abdicated, and Mossadegh was once again elected to parliament. This time he ran as a member of the National Front Party, a nationalist organization that aimed to end the foreign presence that had established itself in Iran following the Second World War, especially regarding the exploitation of Iran's rich oil resources."

As for "aiming to end foreign presence... exploiting oil resources" read "break all contracts and agreements with those very people who had invested and took the risk to develop the oil industry in the first place- in other words- steal it", which is verified by the following: "the Iran parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry, and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company." Sure, let others do all the risk taking and dirty work, and then just take it. 

"constitutional government, a popular government"

Which had turned communist dictatorial; and also which murdered leaders opposed to stealing the British industry, as in:

"Prime minister General Haji-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds.”

A good example of Liberals calling stealing 'technical grounds' to make a twisted anti-Western political point.



"Prime minister General Haji-Ali Razmara was assassinated by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam."

So even the Militant Fundamentalists weren't above breaking agreements and stealing the hard work and investments of others (the British in this case). So the Iranians wanted to steal British hard work, and our liberal author wants to make the British out to be Colonial bad-guys.

"Mossadegh was popular…"

 Sure he was popular, he was going to give the Iranians a working oil industry without having to work for it, and without any risk-taking or investing in it, by stealing it.




Let me continue for the sake of my twisted liberal friends:

"Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's (British oil investments) assets.”

 So far, I see no "exploitation" here, just British enterprise, and Iran trying to steal it.

Again read, "steal British hard work, work that while ultimately successful was an initially risky, heavily-financed entrepreneurial venture.

A good example of the Liberal’s blind opposition to Capitalism and their blind obedience to Communism.




"Responding to the latter, (*stealing British assets) the British government announced it would not allow Mossadegh's government to export any oil produced in the formerly British-controlled factories. A blockade of British ships was sent to the Persian Gulf to prevent any attempts by Iran to ship any oil out of the country. An economic stalemate thus ensued, with Mossadegh's government refusing to allow any British involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain refusing to allow any oil to leave Iran."

Sounds perfectly fair and reserved on the part of the British to me.



“Since Britain had long been Iran's primary oil-consumer, the stalemate was particularly hard on Iran. While the country had once boasted over a 100 million dollars a year in exports to Britain, after nationalization, the same oil industry began increasing Iran's debt by nearly 10 million dollars a month."

”Despite the economic hardships of his nationalization plan, Mossadegh "remained popular
(*as a thief), and in 1952 was approved by parliament for a second term. Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would request the Shah grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh casually asked the Shah to grant him full control of the military, and Ministry of War. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation.”




"Ahmed Qavam was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage.”

 Sure, they liked the idea of getting something for nothing, especially a lucrative oil industry they didn’t have to invest in or develop themselves. 



“Protestors of all stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah quickly dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously requested.”

"and re-appointed Mossadegh"-too bad for Iran's real well being. The Iranians were acting like shortsighted, greedy children.



"Taking advantage of his atmosphere of popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's radical Muslims, as well as the Iranian Communist Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained. Mossadegh quickly implemented more socialist reforms. Iran's centuries old feudal agriculture sector was abolished, and replaced with a system of collective farming and government land ownership. Mossadegh's socialist reforms and increasingly close partnership with the Iranian Communist Party also prompted fears that Iran might develop closer ties with the neighbouring Soviet Union."

Now this is what did him in during the Cold War era, instituting Communism itself, his next step being a dictator for life. This is an act which our liberal author fails to mention in his liberally obsessive-compulsive attempt to paint a distorted picture with the US and British as the bad guys and the Iranians as the poor third-world victims valiantly fighting off the yoke of Capitalist Imperialism, instead of being the thieves they were..

"both governments (US and Britain) sought to implement lucrative oil contracts"


"The governments of Britain and the United States grew increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's reforms. Publicly, they denounced his policies as harmful to the country; privately, both governments sought to implement lucrative oil contracts"

“Distressed”- justifiably, "Harmful to Country"- unarguably, unless you think Kim Jung Il's North Korea or Castro’s Cuba or Mao’s China or Stalin’s Soviet Union were/are success stories.     


“privately sought to Implement lucrative oil contracts”- now this is where the encyclopedia's author's logic and impartiality breaks down and his blind anti-Western liberalism kicks in- why would the British and US try to 'implement lucrative oil contracts' when Iran's entire oil industry was their own to begin with? It's like 'trying' implementing a lucrative contract with oneself. Illogical. More likely the British were 'trying' to be nice to the Iranians, and the Iranians got greedy, and decided to simply steal the entire British-built-and-invested-in industry.


“privately” now this is where crazy cynical anti-West liberalism shines- blind to the obvious (the “publicly denouncing his actions as harmful to the country” in this case) and inventing the conspiracy (the “privately sought to implement lucrative oil contracts” in this case).



"In October of 1952, Mossadegh declared that Britain was "an enemy," and cut all diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom."

Well, there you go, the 'piece de resistance'. The guy did himself in out of communist-induced power-glory. His next step would have been to become a murderous dictator and align with the Soviet Union. Can anybody honestly say that would have been a good thing for Iran? I think not. 








I think I've researched enough to continue despising Liberals for their obsessive-compulsive Anti-Western Pro-Bad-Guy self-destructive distortions.