The Mossadegh Library section is continuously being updated with new books. There are biographies of Mossadegh, retrospectives of the Mossadegh era by Western and Persian authors, memoirs of American statesmen who took part in the Mossadegh story, books about Mossadegh's closest associates, and Mossadegh's own autobiography. Be sure to check it for further reading. 

We recently challenged the FOX News channel to live up to its "Fair and Balanced" motto and respond to our criticism of its insulting description of the overthrow of Mossadegh in a recent broadcast [see November 27th news item below]. Not surprisingly, these punks couldn't muster the courage to face us. (Prove us wrong, FOX, prove us wrong.) 

For those who do not live in the United States, FOX News is a notoriously biased pro-GOP cable news network owned by billionaire media tycoon, tabloid trash publisher, pornographer and openly right wing ideologue Rupert Murdoch. Its icons are brash, loud mouthed pundits such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, known for bully tactics including shouting down their guests and telling them to "Shut up". Even its female contributors are pumped full of malevolence and machismo- columnist Ann Coulter, a svelte blonde, is famous for declaring her canon for American foreign policy toward Islamic countries- "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". Built from Murdoch's vast empire of sordid gossip and sensationalism, FOX is not so much a news channel but a propaganda factory for the far right- and it consistently bashes Iran with abandon. 

And so when the network dispatched London reporter Amy Kellogg to Iran for a series of reports, they were undoubtedly unhappy about her mentioning of Mossadegh and the 1953 coup. It just wasn't biased enough for FOX standards, so they altered the transcript on their web site to misrepresent the reason for the coup. 

Write to FOX: comments@foxnews.com, special@foxnews.com, askfox@foxinc.com, foxnewsonline@foxnews.com,speakout@foxnews.com, oreilly@foxnews.com, hannity@foxnews.com, brit.hume@foxnews.com, fns@foxnews.com

For the first time ever, President Bush put a number to the casualties incurred in the war. Mere seconds after his glib reply, Bush inserted a little comedy shtick; a bare display of his callous disregard for human life: Whether American or Iraqi, "casualties" are no big deal. The following outrage comes directly from the White House transcript of today's speech in Philadelphia: 

Q: Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.

THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.

(calling on the next questioner) Yes.

Q: Mr. President, thank you --

THE PRESIDENT: I'll repeat the question. If I don't like it, I'll make it up. (Laughter and applause)

It's not difficult to imagine how in the early 1950's, Iran became the victim of a coordinated propaganda campaign by the U.S. and Britain. The reason, of course, is that these powers continue to propagandize with impunity in the 21st century. 

The new radio documentary, "A Very British Coup", has taken on this very subject, examining the overt anti-Mossadegh propaganda discharged by the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) in the 1950's. The program reveals that by royal request, the BBC even broadcast a codeword used to signal the Shah of the impending British coup. 

"A Very British Coup" is an essential look at the actions and attitudes of the British foreign policy makers and the ubiquitous BBC News service, which was broadcast internationally (including Iran). The program uncovers shockingly transparent documents implicating the BBC in the Iran coup, and includes interviews with notable British and Iranian journalists and academics. 

Intriguingly, the program is produced by the BBC itself; and earlier this week, it was awarded Radio Story of the Year by the prestigious Foreign Press Association at a ceremony whose keynote address was delivered by British Secretary of State Jack Straw. The same Jack Straw who refused to be interviewed for the "A Very British Coup" documentary and apologize for the 1953 coup; and whose Foreign Office withheld the documents requested by the radio producers under the Freedom of Information Act. The same Jack Straw who helps lead an administration which has lied about Iraqi WMD, and currently insists that Iran is building nuclear weapons without proof. 

Mossadegh is cited in the new Hollywood oil thriller Syriana starring George Clooney. A clip of this, a line spoken by actor Matt Damon who plays energy analyst Bryan Woodman, has been shown promotionally on television:  

Matt Damon (as Woodman): "This guy might be able to revolutionize not just his country, but the whole region. As soon as his father keels over, this guy could be like Mossadegh in ‘52 in Iran, a real democracy rising up organically." 

Another Syriana cast member, Amanda Peet, recommended Ryszard Kapuscinski's book Shah of Shahs in the March issue of Oprah Winfrey's 'O' magazine, which she read to prepare for the film:

Stephen Gaghan, who wrote the screenplay for Traffic, asked me to read this history of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 before we started filming Syriana, which he directed. It's a completely gripping book. Kapuscinski describes Mohammad Mossadegh, who was briefly premier of Iran in the 1950s, as someone who told the truth too early. He writes that the truth needs time to mature, because otherwise it's seen as heresy. 

There's also a beautiful passage about how the shah didn't understand that destroying a man like Mossadegh wouldn't make him cease to exist: "On the contrary… he begins to exist all the more. ...The scythe swings, and at once the grass starts to grow back. Cut again and the grass grows faster than ever." 

Fariba Amini has contributed these images from her recent trip to Ahmad Abad, the home of Dr. Mossadegh.   

On Nov. 25th, Mossadegh was briefly mentioned as part of an eight part FOX News report from Tehran. After bringing up the 1979 hostage crisis, the piece cuts to Under Secretary of State Secretary Nicholas Burns, who feigns bewilderment over the fact that Iran has still not apologized for the hostage taking. Then, as the camera slowly pans over a photo of Mossadegh, reporter Amy Kellogg says, 

"And Iran has a history of resentment towards America. It predates US support of the late Shah, a strong Cold War ally whose secret police was loathed by many Iranians. The CIA was part of a coup that deposed this man, Iran's first democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, back in 1953. The Eisenhower administration thought Mossadeq was leaning toward the Soviets. Iranians are still bitter."

As usual, the event is spun to suggest that the coup was about Communism, with no mention of its true purpose [OIL]. To reinforce that point, FOX altered the actual transcript of the report on its web site, adding the text "and that was the reason for the intervention." Compare:

Original transcript: The Eisenhower administration thought Mossadeq was leaning toward the Soviets.

Altered web version: The Eisenhower administration thought Mossadeq was leaning toward the Soviets and that was the reason for the intervention."

For the first time, an examination of the medical issues of Mossadegh has been assembled. Any additional information or feedback is welcomed. 

 ----> Mossadegh: A Medical Biography

Questioning authority is becoming slightly more mainstream as many Americans rub the sleep and ignorance from their eyes and begin to recognize that the lies of their government, and the media's compliance in those lies, has left them sinking into the muddy sequel to Vietnam.

Former invertebrates in the mainstream media are now attacking the very same talking points they once so willingly recited. On MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews presented a segment "How the Nation Was Led to War".

Said Matthews in his intro, "Three years ago, the White House persuaded the media, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and a majority of the American people to accept their case for military action in Iraq."

As a representative of the media who regularly interviews the highest officials in the U.S. government, Matthews has just admitted that he and his colleagues were "persuaded" by the Bush regime's bad intelligence. Since the media is so impressionable, who will put the brakes on the next War of Choice? 

It's been an interesting week for chicken hawk watching, as British PM Tony Blair accused Iran of supplying bombs to Iraqi insurgents without any proof (just as Rumsfeld did a few weeks back), U.S. General George Casey said the Iraqi insurgency would probably take at least 9 years to defeat, and a new congressional report estimates the monthly cost of the "war on terror" at $7 billion. Still reeling from the internationally acknowledged mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, support for the President, like the Iraq war, is at a record low. Yet Bush stepped up his war rhetoric in a speech singling out Syria and Iran as terrorist "allies of convenience", one day after he was abandoned by the majority of Republicans in a 90-9 vote to ban the torture, degradation and humiliation of U.S. detainees. 

To top it all off, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, widely criticized by U.S. imperialists, the man who correctly disputed the faulty WMD case for war in Iraq, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2004, the U.S. government sought to oust ElBaradei from office for being too soft on Iran, just as he was "soft" on Iraq. In BushWorld, being correct is a sin- when it conflicts with the stated agenda.  

Are All Options Still on the Table? In BushWorld, the only option that isn't on the table is to concede error. The Bush regime will "stay the course" despite the fact that the majority of Americans now disagree with the war, and if left unchecked, it may chart an additional, unbelievably disastrous course with Iran. That's what's so worrying about the rising U.S./British/Israeli aggression toward Iran, where the risks are far higher than with the Iraq distraction. The following article by Professor Jorge Hirsch, Chemical Weapons, Nuclear War: What's at Stake in a War on Iran calculates the possible scenarios. 

----> Full article

 -----> DC Iraq War Protest Photos

Four years after the events of what is now notoriously referred to as 9/11, many Americans have strong opinions about their Middle Eastern adversaries, yet still understand little about the root causes of terrorism. That's just the way the U.S. government wants it; for it is in the interest of the imperialist powers that be, focused on the supposed mission of Spreading Democracy and Ending Tyranny, to dismiss any critical analysis of terrorism's origins. 

Although the September 11th attacks on America were perpetrated by Afghani vigilante Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network, Bush has implied that they were aided by Baghdad barbarian Saddam Hussein prior to his illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq; whilst accusing Iraq's neighbor and chief enemy, Iran, of being the world's #1 state sponsor of terror. Not only does the U.S. government seem stumped over the question of just who exactly its enemies are, but it remains positively stupefied over the reasons, justifiable or not, for its enemies grievances. Those reasons are worth examining whether or not they have any merit, or even whether they have any basis in fact. 

One cannot pretend to be able to fight an enemy it does not understand. If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and gang truly believe they will one day "win the War on Terror", then they should begin by studying the history of U.S. hegemony, imperialism, and state sponsored terrorism, and then, to paraphrase uber-diplomat Condoleezza Rice, "cut it out". If the beliefs of members of Islamic and Arab countries toward America are backward, fanatical, or hateful, then combating them still warrants exploring why those crazy bastards feel the way they do. It might be enlightening.    

Given that the decidedly unacademic George Bush has crowed about his years of being a "C" student, and confessed to his own tendency to "mangle the English language", it begs the question of whether or not George even knows about the American CIA's covert terrorist operation in Iran, now 52 years old, dubbed "Operation Ajax". It's difficult to imagine that Bush has ever even heard of Mohammad Mossadegh, among other historical facts, figures and events that he does not know. "It is not far-fetched," wrote All the Shah's Men author Stephen Kinzer, "to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York." A theory impossible to prove or disprove, but arguable nonetheless. 

Since nothing has changed about the U.S. interventionist foreign policy mindset, it makes no difference that this on the mark article The Jackals at Tehran's Gates: The Quest for Democracy in Iran Against a Century of Imperialist Terror was written over two years ago. Excerpt:

"Fifty years after the Tehran coup d'etat of 1953 the Jackals are back and menacing Iran again. The same coup runners, the same demolishers of Iranians' dreams of democracy are back, just as Iran is at a critical stage of the evolution of its democratic institutions. Having laid waste to the ancient civilized land of Iraq, having looted its resources, demolished its heritage and humiliated its proud and hospitable people, the US is now threatening to do the same in Iran using exactly the same bogus pretexts of weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda that were used against Iraq. No doubt, if it comes to a war in Iran, the learned scholars and experts of the mainstream media will continue to ignore all the clear signs that shout 'it is oil stupid' and instead will endlessly debate the merits of the bogus reasons for the intervention."

----> Full article

In an August 4th article Taking Iran to the UN: A Dangerous Game, British American Security Information Council director Ian Davis discusses the futility of referring Iran to the UN Security Council, and recommends the EU-3 and U.S. drop their demands for Iran to completely end all nuclear related activity. "First, it is the IAEA's responsibility to refer Iran to the council. But without conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons program, it is doubtful the IAEA board will support referral. Claims by the Americans that enrichment activities are "forbidden" and by Tony Blair that Iran would be in breach of its "obligations and undertakings" should it end its voluntary suspension are a legal nonsense."

"The risk of referral is that it will lead to stalemate at the UN, provoke the Iranians into blocking international nuclear inspections, and ultimately strengthen the hand of U.S. hardliners who are pushing for the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Faced with this prospect, the EU-3 should drop their UN threats at the same time as they offer their incentives, and for the time being accept some limited enrichment by Iran subject to tough IAEA inspections." 

This approach provides face saving for all sides and could prevent acceleration of this dispute to a monumentally disastrous outcome.

The discourse in the media over the Iranian nuclear program rarely extends beyond the same few talking points: Iran is building nuclear weapons, they must be stopped immediately or all is lost, etc. It's the exact same argument falsely leveled against Iraq, even by the admission of the Bush war machine.

It comes as no surprise to find that time and time again, it is the U.S. and Israel who are blindly beating the war drums on Iran. For example... 

"The Iranians have been trouble for a very long time. And it's one reason that this regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote, "engaged." - Condoleeza Rice on Fox News, August 2004

"Iran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the world's number one exporter of terror, hate and instability" - Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom to the UN General Assembly, September 23, 2004

"I believe it [Iran] is the main threat that will exist not only against the State of Israel but also against the western countries." - Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, January 26, 2005 

“Iran has made it clear they don’t like Israel, to put it bluntly. And the Israelis are concerned about whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon, as are we, as should everybody. "..in that Israel is our ally and in that we’ve made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened". - U.S. President George W. Bush, February 2005 

An August 1st Associate Press (AP) article on the subject headlined Israel Warns of Iran Nuclear Plans states in its third sentence, "Iran says its nuclear enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, but Israel and the United States believe Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons." It's a wholly unremarkable sentence, identical to what has been written for months now, but let's meditate on it: "..Israel and the United States believe Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons". Can the chief enemies of Iran be trusted for an objective and unbiased assessment?

"There's no more pungent symbol of the corrupt nature of the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq than Halliburton, the Houston, Texas-based oil services conglomerate, which has made billions from the war even in the face of charges of massive overbilling, shoddy work, official bribery and political influence-peddling." So writes Jeffrey St. Clair in his forthcoming book Grand Theft Pentagon: How War Contractors Rip Off America and Threaten the World. The book also covers the role Halliburton played in the Iranian coup of 1953, excerpted below:

  Bill Clinton on Mossadegh | Click Play to listen                       <BGSOUND SRC="bill.rm">   

While we're rehashing history, this would also be the perfect opportunity for Iranians to remind, or more likely, inform, the world of the reasons why the hostages were taken in the first place. It would be trite to say that the 1953 coup is 'just a footnote' in history according to the American media, but that would be overstating it. Indeed, the coup — the overthrow of Mossadegh — the toppling of Iran's thriving democracy - is almost never mentioned in the press, and remains a completely unknown event to most Americans. 

The 1979 hostage crisis was not some random eruption of anti-American terror; it was a direct consequence of America's former covert action in the country which forced Iranians to live under the Shah's brutal rule for a over a quarter century. America continues to whine about the 52 hostages who were taken, held for 444 days and released unharmed, but makes no mention of the time when it took Iran's democracy hostage, tortured it, and beheaded it. There is  no mention of the 100+ Iranians who were killed in the bloody coup, nor of the arrest of the noble democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, the looting of his home, and his exile under house arrest. No mention is made of the savage execution of Mossadegh's Foreign Minister Hussein Fatemi, among other officials, nor of the thousands of Iranian people who were suppressed, imprisoned, tortured or killed under the Shah's U.S. trained secret police SAVAK. Of course, none of that would be terrorism.

After decades of oppression under the U.S.-supported Shah, Iranians finally ousted the dictator in 1979. It was mostly Iranian students who captured the American embassy; the same building in which the 1953 coup was hatched, in order to secure their nation from the meddling which toppled the democracy which America claims to prize so highly in the Middle East. As CIA agent and former hostage William J. Daugherty later wrote, the embassy was held because "..this was the only action, they believed, that could foreclose any opportunity for future US interference in their revolution. Always suspicious of US motives and sincerity, Iranians during this period were constantly looking for signs of US intentions to repeat the coup of 1953."

More from former CIA operative William J. Daugherty:

"CIA involvement in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 loomed extraordinarily large in the minds of Iranians. In April 1951 the then-popular but eccentric Mossadeq, a wealthy career civil servant and uncompromising nationalist, had been appointed by the Shah as prime minister to replace his assassinated predecessor. Shortly thereafter, the Shah, under pressure from Iran's political center and left, signed an order nationalizing the British-dominated, putatively "jointly owned" Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC); Mossadeq had earlier submitted, and the Majlis (parliament) had approved, legislation mandating AIOC's nationalization. The ultranationalist Mossadeq, who had advocated remaining aloof from both the Soviets and the Americans (rather than continuing the usual strategy of embracing both in order to play one off against the other), soon came to be seen by many in the West, including Washington, as de facto pro-Soviet.

The nationalization of AIOC touched off two years of political turmoil, during which Mossadeq's popular support eroded. This period culminated in August 1953 with the Shah's flight into a brief exile, CIA's stage-management (under explicit Presidential directive) of the coup against the Prime Minister, and the Shah's return (with US Government assistance) and consolidation of his power. Subsequently the United States, driven by the inexorable forces of the Cold War, increasingly assumed the role of chief protector for Iran and the Shah, leaving many Iranians more convinced than ever that the Shah and their country were simply a dominion of the United States, administered by or through the CIA. The seeds of the Iranian revolution of 1978-79 were being sown."

Daugherty on his experience as a hostage and interaction with captors:

"After I was moved into solitary, there were guards in my room(s) 24 hours a day. I never discovered why or for what particular reason, if any, and at first I ignored them. I was angry over being held, angry at being in solitary, angry and frustrated at seeing them turn an American Embassy into graffiti-laden prison. I resented like hell having them in the same room with me, whether they spoke to me or not. I felt no impetus to make conversation, and did not. The Iranians were quiet at first, too. For almost their whole lives they had been told of how the CIA was responsible for many (or even all) of the world's problems, and especially the problems in Iran. And their perspective of the Shah's reign and their knowledge of the CIA-engineered coup in 1953 were certainly less than objective and by no means fully informed. Understandably, they approached me with some wariness, very much unsure about whether I was a real human being or the monstrous bogeyman of their imaginations."

 "..keeping me in solitary and putting my family through the agony of not knowing was nothing more than an attempt by the Iranians to punish the CIA, as an organization, for all the "bad" things that had happened to and in Iran since the 1953 coup. Because these students could not get their hands on any of the CIA personnel who had served there earlier to punish them, my COS and I served as their surrogates. It was that simple."

On this 123rd anniversary of his birth, we celebrate the eternal principles of Mohammad Mossadegh. 

The actual birth date of Dr. Mossadegh is the subject of some speculation. Our calculation leads us to Friday June 16, 1882 - click here for a detailed explanation. 

Let's get it straight, Bolty: North Korea openly admits it has nukes, while Iran strongly denies it - big difference. Would-be diplomat John Bolton, a petulant bully with all the diplomacy of a urinal cake, is as clueless about Iran as he is on his ridiculously incongruous eyebrows, hair and white mustache.

                      ----> "Bad Intelligence" - The Subject is Subjectivity 

"Today, [Mossadegh's] admirers regularly make the trek (some call it a pilgrimage) to his tomb. I went there early one Friday morning with Ali Mossadegh, the prime minister’s great-grandson. As we toured the worn, creaking house, I asked Ali, who is in his late 20s, what he considered his great-grandfather’s legacy. “He showed Iranians that they, too, deserve independence and democracy and prosperity,” he said. He then led me to an adjoining annex where Mossadegh’s tombstone rests amid a mound of Persian carpets. The walls were covered with photographs of the prime minister: making fiery speeches in Parliament; defending himself in a military court after the coup; gardening in Ahmad Abad. Ali pointed to an inscription taken from one of Mossadegh’s speeches: “If, in our home, we will not have freedom and foreigners will dominate us, then down with this existence.”

----> full article (PDF format)

To listen to audio of a speech by Mossadegh, go to the end of the Mossadegh Biography.

The people of Iran suffered the devastating destruction of their flourishing democracy when the freely elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh was violently overthrown in August 1953 by a covert operation of the United States government. This was a monumental cultural and political set back to Iran, and caused incalculable harm to America's long term interests and its prestige in the Middle East. 

Now that the U.S. government openly threatens to bomb and invade the sovereign nation of Iran and has reportedly resumed covert operations in that country, the people of Iran are once again the target of a misguided and self defeating American policy. 

We, the Iranian-Americans seek an end to incessant accusations and threats made by the U.S. government and demand an immediate resumption of dialogue leading to resolution of the outstanding issues. As Iranian-Americans, we owe it to the people of Iran, America and the world to voice our utmost opposition to American policy makers for the aggression and injustice they are posing to commit.

Says the article, "Regardless of one's political leanings, the Iranian population is united around the issue of the right to nuclear technology, as it was united then around Mossadegh for sovereign control over oil resources. The memory of that fight, which is still fresh in the minds of today's Iranians, carries a lesson with it: If you do not succeed in consolidating your sovereign right to development, then those who are trying to deny it, will move in with military-political operations, to overthrow your government."

"Iran cannot be ignored", said Kharrazi. "Its rights cannot be denied. Such a country with so much potential has to be given room to play its role." He reiterated that Iran's nuclear program is for energy only. "We want to be independent. That's why we developed our nuclear technology. It has become a matter of national pride."

"I hope we're all smarter about this, smarter than we've been," said Biden. "I hope our leadership is brighter because if it's not, it's a very dull picture for the region, and for humanity." 

----> full article

Hersh, who helped expose the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, appeared on CNN and estimated that action in Iran may begin as early as next summer. "The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess." Hersh said. "The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning... But they need the intelligence first."

So far there have been no reports that National Geographic will be referring to the Persian Gulf War as: (the Arabian Gulf War), but keep checking. DON'T SIT SILENTLY! The National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the Iranian government and Iranians worldwide have been protesting the NGS' intentions, and you can help. Refer to NIAC's Action Alert for information on how to complain to National Geographic, and see also this Dec. 30th press release updating the progress on the "historical revisionism".