Protests, CIA's Coup & $5 Million: How US Changed Regime In Iran In 1953 Explained
The 1953 Iran coup: Years after Iranian PM Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown, a declassified CIA document revealed how the agency was involved in it
In the Israel-Iran conflict, US President Donald Trump has joined hands with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has been repeatedly exerting pressure on Iran, even mentioning the possibility of ouster of Tehran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iranians, however, are not new to the United States (US) enforcing a regime change in their country.
In 1953, the US helped stage a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
Why?
Mossadegh wanted to nationalise the country's oil fields, which would hit the US and Great Britain, which were dependent on oil from the Middle East. The move gained popularity in Iran and was seen as victory for the then-USSR.
The coup was meant to support Iran's monarch Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to rule as Shah of Iran, and appoint a new prime minister – General Fazlollah Zahedi.
The independent National Security Archive research institute had published the document. The the declassification marked the CIA's first formal acknowledgment of its involvement.
The documents were declassified in 2011 and given to George Washington University research group under the Freedom of Information Act.
WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOWED
According to a CNN report, the documents showed that the CIA, along with the British Secret Intelligence Service, organised large protests against Mossadegh in 1953, which the Army eventually joined.
To offer some stability to Zahedi, the CIA made $5,000,000 available within two days of him taking power. The Shah was an ally of the US. However, unhappy with the interference, the anti-American sentiment kept growing in the country.
In the late 1970s, millions of Iranians took to the streets against his regime, which they viewed as corrupt and illegitimate.
The Shah was toppled in the 1979 Islamic revolution, which ended the country's western-backed monarchy and ushered in the start of the Islamic Republic and clerical rule.
Thus began the rule of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a Shia cleric, as the Supreme Leader, the highest authority in the new system based on Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist). After Khomeini's death, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei became the Supreme Leader of Iran on June 4, 1989.
2025: US SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL
Israel wants the US to join the conflict and use its unique military edge and weaponry, such as the GBU-57 bunker-busting bomb, to destroy the Iranian nuclear complex at Fordow, which is buried deep underground. The general opinion is that Israel can delay the programme, but only the US can destroy it.
The US has bolstered its military presence in the Middle East, deploying over 31 refueling aircraft to Europe and redirecting the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier to the region. The move is to enhance air power and ensure protection of American assets amid the intensifying conflict.
Trump has warned Tehran's residents to ' evacuate", signaling a readiness for more direct involvement if necessary.
On Monday evening, the president wrote on Truth Social that 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON". He has also clearly said that 'Iran cannot win this war".
Trump refused to sign a draft joint statement prepared by G7 leaders calling for a de-escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran. The US President, however, vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
top videos
View all
Meanwhile, in a sign that Iran did not want US involvement, it has not directly targeted US bases or personnel, nor has it widened the conflict, by going after shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
With CNN Inputs
First Published:
News explainers Protests, CIA's Coup & $5 Million: How US Changed Regime In Iran In 1953 Explained
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
US bullying spurred Green Revolution. Let tariffs give us a Business Revolution
What lessons did we learn? In the fifties, the Films Division propaganda documentaries shown in our cinema theatres did cover big dams, but greater attention was paid to steel plants. This changed in the sixties. Shastri coined the expression 'Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan'. Our fourth five-year plan was put on hold. We undertook a national 'plan holiday', and our newspapers began talking about farmers, the 'food problem', and agriculture. To her credit, Indira Gandhi built on Shastri's initiatives. It has been reported that she said she never wanted India to be so dependent on foreign food again. Herein lay the seeds of what went on to be called the Green Revolution. The incidents we should remember go back to the mid-sixties, when we were abjectly dependent on American food aid. We were literally living from 'ship to mouth' as we tried to cope with multi-year droughts and pervasive inflation. President Lyndon Johnson was upset that, instead of supporting the American position in Vietnam, India had been uppity enough to mildly criticise US actions in that unfortunate country. Johnson would deliberately delay American ships by a few days to teach us a lesson to punish us for our impertinence. An independent foreign policy on India's part then, as now, was met with disdain and hostility. In the context of the rather rude and outlandish posture toward India that US President Donald Trump has taken, we are tempted to hark back to 1971 — to Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger calling us 'bastards', sending aircraft carriers to intimidate us, and actually inciting Maoist China to attack us. I would argue that this historical reference, while valid, is not the most relevant one. Perhaps the present crisis and trauma can force our country into something resembling that special moment we found in the sixties. Perhaps we can radically alter our business environment. Also Read: Hungry India, a nawabi US President, 'Mexican blood' — The real story of Green Revolution Seeds of self-reliance Appointing C Subramanian as Minister for Agriculture in 1964 was a stroke of genius. Despite his earlier inclinations toward a soft Gandhian socialism, Subramanian had inherited a healthy, sceptical empiricism from his political guru, C Rajagopalachari. He quickly understood that the food required for urban and semi-urban India could only be provided by farmers with larger landholdings. Subsistence farmers with small plots created very little marketable surplus. Without taking the socialists in his party head-on, and defying the savants who argued against diverting scarce resources from industry to agriculture, Subramanian decided to go in for old-fashioned economic solutions focused on incentives and risk management. He offered farmers who produced foodgrain surpluses guaranteed offtake at an attractive guaranteed price. Until then, our farmers had been accused of being backward, primitive, and unsophisticated. But wonder of wonders, farmers — especially those in undivided Punjab with reasonably sized holdings — responded to the incentives and guarantees (which mitigated their risks) with rare vim and gusto. Very soon, the warehouses of the newly formed Food Corporation of India were overflowing with foodgrains. Subramanian was fortunate to have as his colleague the redoubtable MS Swaminathan, who championed new hybrid seeds, intensive fertiliser use, and focused farming techniques. Punjabi farmers responded with enthusiasm and energy. We must also acknowledge the contributions of a Rockefeller Foundation employee who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. His name was Norman Borlaug, and he developed the hybrid dwarf wheat in Mexico. This was before the Rockefeller Foundation had been transformed into its current leftist avatar. The Green Revolution has not been without its costs. In some years, we have a glut in procurement, with large quantities of wheat and rice rotting away. Every now and then, there are corruption scandals in the Food Corporation of India. Large subsidies have resulted in excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides, contaminating our soil and environment. Provision of subsidised and free electricity (incidentally, not one of Subramanian's ideas) has led to a depleting water table and salinity in the land. Admittedly, these are all undesirable consequences of the Green Revolution. But from a strategic perspective, 'food security' for a country that was once constantly caricatured as a beggar nation means something. For decades now, we have been not just self-sufficient but surplus in foodgrain production. No foreign leader can taunt us anymore by holding back shipments of food aid. In fact, on occasion we provide food aid to other countries. The national trauma of the sixties served as an impetus for a dramatic change in our country's position. And therein may lie the kernel of an idea for dealing with our current situation apropos of trade and tariffs. National business prevention act Recently, a friend of mine quite innocently asked: 'Why don't we do more business in India?' She was reverting to simple, old-fashioned economics à la Subramanian. The response to her question has to be a grim one: we are discouraged from doing business in India by thousands of different laws and regulations. Our governments employ hundreds of inspectors, tehsildars, and tax officials. There are registrars, deputy registrars, and sub-registrars. We have 'approving' authorities and officials who can 'object', and therefore may or may not provide us with the elusive 'no objection certificates'. Add to that commissioners, deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners, chief commissioners, tribunal members, and judges who can specialise in delays and injunctions. Effectively, the message is that Indian citizens should not do business. We are not merely non-incentivised to do business, we are actively disincentivised from doing so. The fact that many of us are foolhardy enough to try is a tribute to our masochistic tendencies and to our outsized optimism. My friend Gurcharan Das once told me that our ancients, like Chanakya, argued that 'shadbhaga' — one-sixth — should be the state's share of the national output. We have no such dharmic restrictions. Every official who finds a way to squeeze out more revenues is a hero of our bureaucracy. His valour is surpassed only by the official who is relentlessly obsessed with preventing loss of state revenue. It is as if the state exists to collect revenue and not to promote the welfare of citizens. Perhaps we can radically alter our business environment so that we don't have to keep giving negative answers to the innocent question posed by my friend. Also Read: It doesn't end here. India must prepare for mightier neighbours Starting the Business Revolution Here are some suggestions which I believe should be considered not just by our state, but by our society at large: Establish one GST rate for ALL goods and services. It does not matter if the rate is initially high and brought down later. Multiple rates lead to confusion, litigation, transaction costs, and people trying to game the system. Bring petroleum products, alcohol, and real estate under GST. Irrespective of which party is in power, every state government will oppose this, as these items provide states with unfettered revenues and, more importantly, ministers, officials, and inspectors with 'income'. This is where society must step in. Citizen associations and individual citizens should lobby strongly for this change because it benefits all of us and only hurts the 'vultures' who are holding us back. Pass a law or ordinance stating that the government will NOT appeal any decision it loses at the Tribunal level. Today, such losses are automatically appealed because no official wants to be accused of causing 'revenue loss' by accepting a bribe from the taxpayer. That is why fixing a monetary amount below which an appeal will not be contested is a bad idea. If we fix Rs 1 lakh as the threshold, it is almost inevitable that an envious colleague will complain against me — claiming I decided the dispute amount was Rs 80,000 by ignoring interest and penalties. And that I did this because I was bribed, thereby causing a 'loss of revenue' to the government. This approach penalises correct decisions through the threat of bribery accusations and poisons all ONE decision will not only inject adrenalin into our capital markets, but also considerably de-clog our courts, where the state is the predominant source of litigation. There will be a loud campaign that this will be hurtful to the country as Tribunal members will be corrupted. It is important to note that such objections will come from officials and lawyers who profit from the present system of endless appeals. Here again, citizen associations should step in. The state should appoint competent, honest Tribunal members and stop using this absurd excuse to pursue endless appeals to higher and higher courts. At the end of the day, if some mistakes happen, then so be it. The benefits of this change will be immense. We can afford a few mistakes. Abolish the over 26,000 provisions which criminalise a businessperson for trivial, inappropriate, and antiquated reasons just for starting or running a business. These clauses were identified in a report by Teamlease RegTech and Observer Research Foundation. Reduce the 69,233 compliance requirements it identified to 10, and the more than 6,000 filing requirements to 6. And PLEASE do not appoint a committee to 'look into' these findings. They have been meticulously researched and discussed in the public domain for some time. Let us just run with them. Again, if some mistakes arise, that is OK. We can correct them later. We should not delay further for fear of making mistakes. Let us not forget that we live in a world where tariffs on our products can go up every two weeks. We are short of time. Quickly, really quickly, amend our nuclear liability law. This is a stupid law that Dr Manmohan Singh was forced to acquiesce to by his dim-witted leftist allies and the luddites within his own party. Without this change, we will be marooned on a backward island as the rest of the world goes ahead. We should actively encourage small and medium-sized plants, both on a captive basis and with the flexibility to sell commercially. This should be in the public sector, the private sector, and in joint ventures. Let a hundred flowers bloom. We have missed many buses in the past. This is one bus we should not miss. 6. Announce a systematic year-by-year reduction in our income tax rates for individuals as well as for corporations. The goal should be to hit 16 per cent or Chanakya's shadbaga within a few years. We should plan on being a country of high incomes, high wealth, high prosperity — not a country of high taxes. Encourage the Reserve Bank to keep our currency always a tad undervalued. This is the single most effective anti-tariff measure we can think of. I have deliberately kept the list of suggestions small, but they are all radical ones. Many more can be added as we go along. It is important that we, as a country, undertake difficult tasks just as Subramanian & Co did. We can then use the current situation to create a Business Revolution to match the Green Revolution. In a few years, we can sit back and congratulate ourselves that we no longer need to reach for aspirins every time we are faced with a threat or with blackmail from abroad. We could then resemble our neighbour to the north, which until recently spent forty years making life easy for its businesspersons. Jaithirth 'Jerry' Rao is a retired entrepreneur who lives in Lonavala. He has published three books: 'Notes from an Indian Conservative', 'The Indian Conservative', and 'Economist Gandhi'. Views are personal. (Edited by Asavari Singh)
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
National Guard in Washington: TV host Rachel Maddow rips into Trump, says ‘it's not crime, he enjoys using force'
American TV host Rachel Maddow ripped into United States President Donald Trump hours after he deployed National Guard into Washington DC reportedly to curb the rate of crime, saying it is not about that but 'authoritarian takeover' of the country. Rachel Maddow said Donald Trump 'enjoys' using the US military against American citizens. Speaking on The Rachel Maddow Show on Tuesday, August 12, night, the TV host said, 'Let's be generous here. Maybe it's not really just a generic tough-on-crime thing. Maybe it's specifically because it's DC, which is the seat of the U.S. federal government. Maybe [Trump's] just really sensitive about protecting the federal government.' Rachel Maddow said the deployment of the National Guard may not be him being 'tough on crime', 'maybe he enjoys it.' 'Maybe it's what you can see with your own two eyes. Maybe it's that he really enjoys using US military force against American civilians on American soil and wants any excuse to do it anywhere he can. Watch what they do, not what they say,' she said. The American TV host pointed out that Donald Trump has remained silent on shooting at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, where an armed gunman opened fire inside the federal building. She alleged that Trump was using the military to cull protests against him and face the American citizens. Terming the deployment of the National Guard in Washington DC as 'authoritarian takeover', Rachel Maddow said, 'We clearly are now in the part of the attempted authoritarian takeover where our authoritarian leader just starts trying to turn our own military to face us, the people of this country.' Donald Trump said Monday, August 11, he's taking over Washington's police department and activating 800 members of the National Guard in the hopes of reducing crime. The National Guard deployment in Washington DC was enforced even as the national capital officials stressed that crime was already going down. Trump, flanked by his attorney general, his defense secretary and the FBI director, said he was declaring a public safety emergency and his administration would be removing homeless encampments. 'We're going to take our capital back,' Trump declared, adding he'd also be 'getting rid of the slums.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
India's trade dilemma: Shield farmers, textiles or risk US cotton tariffs
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump's punitive 50 per cent tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50 per cent tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39 per cent average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11 per cent duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44 per cent of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19 per cent tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13 per cent more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45 per cent-56.5 per cent make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres. As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialization, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
