Hey everyone, I just finished writing an editorial for my English class over the issue of the 1953 Coup d’état in Iran. Here is the editorial if youd like to read it! :) English III Editorial 1953 - Coup d’état of Iran What does it take for a national organization to lose its innocence throughout much of the world? The coup d’état in Iran during 1953 has been a large symbol of distrust for both the U.S. and Britain against Iran. To this day, this event has marked the annual remembrance of what happened that year, and has been singed into the Iranian society forever. This action by the American and British government has sparked strife among the current hardliners in power in the Islamic Republic, as well as ordinary citizens who live there, therefore, the countries involved in this operation need to address this issue formally, and the public must know exactly what happened in order to contribute to global economic growth and societal tolerance. Clearly, there is a solid line between politics and society - at least that’s what we would like to think. In the United States, many of the actions conducted by the secret service agencies, CIA, etc. are withheld from the public, as this may cause public outcry over foreign policy. In Iran on the other hand, the citizens are forced to abide by what the politicians say, and if they tell people that the U.S. is now a public “enemy,” the hardliners will feed the people all the negative aspects that can possibly be found about the “enemy,” that is, the 1953 coup d’état, which angered the common citizens and politicians alike. This event is an issue because it has gone unresolved and ignored by the initiators, and this kind of ignorance has given the hardliners something to taunt the west about, which should end in order to achieve world peace, or anything close to it. This doesn’t mean that Iranians hate America at all, in fact, at this time, the vast majority of Iranians practice American customs and enjoy its pop culture, whether it be in public or private due to restrictive laws. During the Islamic Revolution of 1979 however, the coup that happened just 26 years ago at that time fed the population’s anger and contributed to the anti-American sentiment then. If Britain and the United States formally address the issues of the coup d’état, there would be an opportunity for some forgiveness between both sides. The basis for the Islamic Republic’s hostility towards the U.S. and Britain stems from the fact that they overthrew a democratically elected prime minister who would secure the national oil funds for Iran. Perhaps if the prime minister was never overthrown, the road wouldn’t have been paved for the rise of the radical religious clerics, and Iran could very well be a democratic nation right now. This prime minister is known as Mohammad Mosadegh. According to The New York Times, “United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Irans elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist” (Risen, NY Times). Mosadegh, being the “ardent nationalist” that he was, was only doing what’s best for his own country, which is to spread the wealth and quantity of oil around his own citizens. If a nationalist in the United States made a point to start focusing on American industry and production here at home, would it make sense ethically to quiet that individual, or would listening to what he or she says actually benefit us as a country? The issue here is based on ethics, honesty, and morality. How can nations that claim to be the world’s peacekeepers mute the ones who are attempting to assimilate to them? Nationalism and democracy is what the west promotes, but does it really want that when it gets in the way of their own self-interests? The reason that the U.S. and Britain wanted to overthrow the nationalistic prime minister of Iran at the time was because if they can get rid of a nationalist who wants to limit oil interactions between the west and Iran and replace that individual with a leader who supports American influence and gives in to oil policies that do not benefit 99% of the Iranian population (in this case, the individual is the Shah, Reza Pahlavi), much more can be accomplished in terms of what the U.S. is looking for from Iran - cheap oil. There is so much that can be done to resolve the standoff between Iran and the U.S.. “Iranian leaders have been asking for an official apology ever since the coup. The U.S. and Iran remain at odds over Irans plans to build up its nuclear power system…” (Associated Press - Fox News). A simple, official apology and acknowledgement of the role that the U.S. really played in the 1953 coup d’état will help ease tensions between both sides. “No U.S. leader has explicitly apologized, and the White House offered no immediate comment [ on August 20th, 2013] on the new disclosures” (Fox News). Even though the U.S. government understands that what they did to the Iranian government in 1953 was wrong, they think that apologizing formally would alter their appearance on the world stage, and may make them appear “irresolute” for admitting a wrongdoing, although doing this would help everyone because it would break tensions between parties that already know who’s at fault and what happened. Some may believe that what the U.S. and Britain did in 1953 to Iran is justified by saying that this event happened during the Cold War, and Iran at the time was a Soviet ally, and that the U.S. and Britain did it to keep their self-interests safe, although this particular event was a democratic endeavor that the U.S. would otherwise promote if it weren’t for the region’s abundance in oil. It is safe to say that the personal interests of politicians from both the U.S. and Britain outweighed the morality of their actions that would keep both sides at odds for the rest of time until an acknowledgement is reached. Overall, the operation (which is also known as TPAJAX), went through because of bribery to the anti-democratic regimes that would help the CIA and The Secret Intelligence Service conduct their mission in Iran. Until a day is reached where the initiating countries of TPAJAX come to tell the public of their mistake, there will be a feeling of hostility between the hardliner sections of the government in Iran, and the U.S. administration. Without their bribery, there may have not been as much cooperation, although when it comes to protecting your unethical investments, money is just an object. Works Cited Documents Reveal New Details about CIAs Role in 1953 Coup in Iran. Fox News. FOX News Network, 20 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. Risen, James. Secrets of History The C.I.A. in Iran. The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 2000. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. .
Posted on: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:51:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015