Kinzer: All the Shahs Men - Book Report/Review Example

?Insert Insert Grade Insert Insert Kinzer: All the Shah’s Men Historically, regional powers have fallen to the world imperialists because of internal conflicts within their socio-cultural formations. Against the backdrop of another Iranian conflict with the United States and other nations, there has been a historical underpinning in the back from the period after the Second World War as illustrated by many historians and authors like Kinzer in his book All the Shah’s Men. The United States and other super power nations such as the British and Russia were on a post war mission to exert influence on particular regions of the world with strategic and socio-economic aspects important to them. As a result, countries that were not stable enough to defend themselves from the ambitious plans of United States of taking control of major regions especially in the Middle East found themselves in a position of vulnerability. Taking the form of Vietnamese and even Chinese invasion, the United States may have carefully planned the attack on Iran in 1953 to serve its interests largely because of the weaker nation characterized by socio – cultural tensions among the country’s ethnic groups in the larger Iranian society. This paper analyses the 1953 coup in Iran that led to the ouster of the then prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. The main reference point is the book “All the Shah’s Men” by Stephen Kinzer (2008). This analysis will be done in line with the main argument of this paper that the coup was down on the socio-cultural tensions of the Iranian nation at that time on one hand and the United States’ interests in the Middle East after the end of the Second World War for strategic and economic purposes. To begin, it is important to preview the historical events during the post world war period that led to this conflict between the two regimes. The world war was a major event that influenced this invasion into a country that was in the path of being a super power in the Middle East. As stated by Kinzer (xiii), Iran is one of the world’s oldest nations dating from the Persian empire of Darius and Cyrus (500 B.C). The country turned to Islam after an Arab invasion, but it is noted that the people still retained their heritage by practicing a mixed Shiism with the elements of Zoroastrianism. The country’s population therefore has a history of following a cultic foundation of self-martyrdom. This was a major influencing factor in the way the leadership of the nation was carried out. It is important to take note that the country was a major regional force but its religious and cultural foundations were weak to help in its liberation from external pressure (Kinzer 2). The Qajars leadership (1796-1925) was one of the manifestations of this apparent weakness in the social cultural structure of the nation. As pointed out by Kinzer (3), incompetence on part of their leadership led to the disintegration of the country’s political standing. First was the successful separation of the region by Russian forces that led to separation of countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan between the years 1800 to 1810 that also determined the present size of the country. In addition, the leadership of the country also made significant sales of its oil reserves to the British. As a result, the county’s population was affected and so they continued to live in poverty and higher levels of illiteracy were the order of the day. The Rein of Mohammed after the Second World War, therefore, came as a major boost for the nation’s political freedom after years of tyranny. The leader’s nationalist party had the passion for enforcing the rule of law in the country as well as disentangling the country’s dependence on foreign powers. Among the Prime Minister’s agenda was to seek for a revision of the terms under which the British bought the oil reserves so that Iranians could have a fair share of the proceeds for economic development. The United States had a similar agreement with Saudi Arabia and therefore was seen by Iran as an ally to push for the proposed reforms. This involvement coupled with the connection of United States with Britain from the two world wars made the United States a strong party into this conflict. The conflict therefore was shaped by US’s interest in the region’s economic and strategic bearing in the wider region. The failed coup attempt by British, therefore, led to the involvement of CIA to the successful coup in 1953 (Kinzer 7). From the historical recount of the period and events leading to the crisis, it is therefore clear that the United States was involved in this crisis as an interested party rather than a sympathizer of the British or even the liberal group led by Shahs who were rivals of the Mohammed led regime. The United States prospect of being involved in another oil deal after successfully facilitating an identical one with the Saudis was relishing one for the Eisenhower led administration. On the other hand, the relationship of the political powers in Iran was a major weakness from the inside that was exploited by the United States in this invasion that changed the history of Iran for the worse. The success of the coup was therefore as a result of a divided country. Whereas there were those reformers led by the national front who wanted to liberate the country from external aggression from the Russian and western powers like Britain and the US, there were extremists other religious factions that were not favoring the efforts of Mohammad. The United States, on the other hand, had vested interests in the Middle East region and the involvement of soviets in the region in their aim to spread communism was a spark enough for the country to intervene in the conflict. It can be stated that the United States was acting on the behest of Britain but this argument may not hold given that the United States’ deployment of its intelligence agency, the CIA, was a show enough that the country wanted to flex its political muscles in the region as a message to the communist aggressors. In addition, as the author notes, in the end the success of this coup has not been credited to the US but on Mohammed because he contributed to expose the selfish interests of external powers. Of course, it is undisputed that the United States succeeded where the United Kingdom had failed; however, the long term effects of the infamous coup in the Persian region is what has defined the ultimate success of the 1953 coup that ousted prime minister Mohammed. Work Cited Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah's Men: The Hidden Story of the CIA Coup in Iran. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008. Print Read More