In August 1953, a coup in Tehran removed Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadiq from power and permitted Shah Reza Pahlavi to shift from serving as a figurehead to ruling as an autocrat. Our final discussion assignment addresses a debate related to this event. It calls on students to summarize two secondary-source articles on the Iran coup, and to assess which of those articles they find more persuasive based on an analysis of relevant primary-source documents. In other words, which secondary-source interpretation is more convincing given the primary-source evidence?
Background
The overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadiq in August 1953 was a pivotal event in the history of Iran and its relations with the United States. Codenamed Operation Ajax and directed by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, the coup was born out of the conflict between Iran and the United Kingdom over which nation should control Iran’s oil industry (which Iran had nationalized in 1951. Roosevelt’s initial effort at unseating Mossadiq failed spectacularly. Apprised of the coup by informers before it began, Mossadiq moved quickly and had many of the conspirators arrested. Accepting defeat and wishing to avoid further alienating the Iranian prime minister, CIA headquarters ordered Roosevelt to cease further actions and to prepare to return home. Just four days later, however, a second coup effort succeeded in removing Mossadiq from power. The prime minister was placed under arrest, and the Shah, who had briefly fled the country, returned to Tehran in triumph.
Interpretations of the efficacy of the coup have changed over the years. In the short run, the operation appeared to be an unalloyed success. To the Eisenhower Administration, Ajax was an inexpensive operation that stabilized a key country under a friendly rule and bound it firmly to the United States. In fact, Operation Ajax became a model for future covert operations that Eisehower and subsequent presidents believed could achieve America’s foreign policy goals cheaply and effectively. Since the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, however, most observers have concluded that the coup was a disaster both for Iran and for the United States. Not only did the operation destroy a weak-but-blossoming democratic system, they argue, but it also put the autocratic Shah in power; the coup thus stoked bitter feelings among the people of Iran that were later exploited by Shia hardliners such as Ayatollah Khomeini with disastrous consequences for both Iran and the United States.
Unsurprisingly, CIA’s infamous destruction of relevant records in the 1960s, scholars and foreign policy experts continue to dispute key details of the coup. Much of the debate focuses on the question of the second, successful coup attempt. Acknowledging that the US was behind the first, unsuccessful coup, some scholars and politicians argue that a broad, popular movement of ordinary Iranians spontaneously and without American assistance initiated the second coup. In their view, in other words, the Iranian people rather than the United States removed Mossadiq from power. Other scholars vigorously dispute this interpretation. They maintain that Washington was the central actor in both the first and second coup attempts, and that the US bears responsibility for the removal of Mossadiq and for the Shah’s autocratic regime.
This structured discussion will address this debate. It calls on students to summarize two secondary-source articles on the Iran coup, and to assess which of those articles they find more persuasive based on an analysis of relevant primary-source documents. In other words, which interpretation is more convincing given the primary-source evidence?
Please note that this discussion differs in important ways from our our earlier ones.
Directions
First, review the Iran Coup Discussion Rubric.
Second, read the two secondary-source articles, “The CIA, the Ouster of Mosaddegh, and the Restoration of the Shah,” by Ray Takeyh and “Coupdunnit” by Christopher de Bellaigue. Please also read all of the Iran Coup Discussion primary-source documents.
third Your first post must be between 360-460 words!!!! in length and must 1) summarizes briefly the two articles, 2) explains which article you find more persuasive, and 3) justifies your assessment using three concrete examples from the primary-source documents. In other words, you must both summarize the articles and use the primary-source documents to determine which author’s argument is more credible.
fourth you will make a final post!!!!!!!! in which you 1) provide summaries of approximately one-hundred words for the Takeyh and de Bellaigue articles noting how they differ, 2) explain which article you find more persuasive and why, and 3) support your assessment using at least three pieces of concrete-and-well-analyzed evidence from the primary-source documents. In other words, the Concluding Post consists of your final, revised thoughts based on your critique of your classmate’s post, and calls on you to weigh the evidence to determine which of the two articles offers the more persuasive argument. Feel fee to use the primary-source evidence both to demonstrate why you find one article more convincing and to critique the one you find less persuasive. Your final post should be 560-660 words in length (feel free to go over this word limit within reason).
