Iran Super Thread- Merged

[CougarKing]

Nemo888,

It was still Eisenhower who had the final say in Operation Ajax, the CIA operation to oust Mossadegh from the Iranian govt. And btw, Kermit Roosevelt died from a self-inflicted gunshot in 1943, LONG before such a coup would have happened.

[edit] World War II Service
Early in 1940, when Britain was at war with Germany, Kermit negotiated a commission in the British Army with the assistance of his friend, Winston Churchill — who was by then Prime Minister of Britain.[2] His first task was to lead a contingent of British volunteers for the Winter War in Finland.[3] According to a contemporary story published in Picture Post, he had resigned from the British Army to lead the expedition.[4] This story was probably a necessary cover so that he would be able to travel with the volunteers through neutral countries. However, before the expedition could be launched, Finland was forced to make peace with Russia. Kermit served with distinction in a raid into Norway and was later sent to North Africa, where there was little action at the time.[5] He resumed drinking and was debilitated by an enlarged liver complicated by a resurgence of malaria. At the end of 1940, he was returned to England and was discharged from the army early in the following year.[6] Kermit appealed this discharge all the way to the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. But Churchill, after reviewing his record, upheld the medical discharge.[citation needed]

When he returned to the US, he turned to drinking to forget his problems. So worried was his wife, about his deteriorating condition, that she went to the extreme of seeking the help of Kermit's cousin, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (also known as FDR). FDR ordered the FBI to track him down and he was brought back to his family. FDR thought it would be best if he were moved as far as possible from some of his friends who were such a negative influence on him. FDR had given him a commission as a major in the United States Army, and had him transferred and posted to Fort Richardson, Alaska, where he worked as an intelligence officer and helped establish a territorial militia of Eskimos and Aleuts.[edit] Battle with Depression and Related Alcoholism
Kermit's paternal grandmother, Theodore Roosevelt's mother, Martha Bulloch had led a life with supreme highs as well as debilitating lows. His paternal uncle, Elliott Roosevelt was afflicted with chronic bouts of depression and died of alcoholism and drug abuse. His maternal grandfather, meanwhile, had been an alcoholic. Alcoholism plagued Kermit through much of his adult life.


[edit] Death
In Alaska, far from home, Kermit continued to fight his life-long battle with chronic depression and alcohol. He committed suicide on June 4, 1943, by a self-inflicted gunshot.[7] His death was reported to his mother, Edith Kermit Roosevelt, whose favorite son he was, as a heart attack. Given the sensitive nature of his tragic demise, for many years, the cause of death continued to be described as heart disease. Only in later years did the true circumstances of his death become known. He was interred in Fort Richardson National Cemetery near Anchorage, where a memorial stone gateway was erected in his honor in 1949.

He was survived by his wife Belle and four children: Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt, Jr., Joseph Willard Roosevelt, Belle Wyatt Roosevelt, and Dirck Roosevelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt

So far there is nothing in this source that points to any link between Kermit Roosevelt and Iran.

 

[Nemo888]

That was his father. His son took the Kermit Jr. Epitaph

Sr. died of a self inflicted gunshot wound and was not a maker of world events. I think he was a soldier in Alaska and died before he was even 30, but no promises. edit: I looked it up, he did write a book about his father so maybe that will make him remembered.

Kermit Roosevelt, Head of the CIA. Controller of world events. Mastermind of Operation Ajax

Kermit Roosevelt Jr., DC lawyer, did nothing of note as far as I know.

Just own your mistake and move on you look silly.

 

[CougarKing]

You still did not acknowledge or confirm whether Eisenhower had the final say in such an operation or not. Don't tell me Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA did so independently, without the US President's knowledge?

 

[tomahawk6]

I can say that current sentiment against Iran favors air strikes according to an Oct. poll. Some people think this NIE written by 3 State Dept. officials was intended to tie Bush's hands with regard to Iran. The public remembers the hostage crisis and more recently Iran's agents actively working against US troops in Iraq. The Israelis strongly disagree with the NIE and so do the folks in NSA/DIA.

 

[Nemo888]

Kermit Roosevelt recieved 1 Million USD funding from the President, but without his expert  planning I doubt Ajax would have been successful. Kermit was an intelligence expert without peer. With the rare mix of great understanding of culture, character judgement, cunning and boundlessly creativity.

Here is a link to some declassified CIA docs on the operation. The story is actually much more interesting. I thought it would make an amazing movie, but these give a general idea. I think General Schwarzkopf's dad was also a major player in the Middle East and Operation Ajax, if I remember correctly. Give this dude a suitcase full of money and he brings you a frickin nation.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/#documents

 

[CougarKing]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Flip]

Having read Milnewstbay's post and Kirkhills post....

Two thoughts come to mind - If that's the best the liberal left
anti-war crowd have....It's not much.

And perhaps more importantly - what if the program is in
some sort of stealth mode until GWB is out of the whitehouse?

What's the truth about these things? Most Iranians don't know.

If Iran has a civilian nuclear program how long would it take to
go military once they felt safe?

2 Possibilities occur..... The US might wait until a short time before
the election before acting  Or The US "allows " Israel to hit some key sites.

I doubt this'll be over anytime soon.
Anybody else care to guess wildly?

 

[tomahawk6]

The authors of the NIE issued a political report and not an intelligence report. One of the authors Thomas Fingar told Congress just 4 months ago that Iran was developing nukes.Makes you wonder why he changed his mind.Second this report sandbagged Bush as he didnt know about the contents until the same day it was released.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp

 

[Flip]

Tomahawk - I think you're roughly right on.

Not suprized a bit..........

 

[Nemo888]

But why a military strike as a first choice? Military success does not equal political success. Well, ok it does if your dense, but that is beside the point. Kermit Roosevelt took the country with his brains and a million bucks. I suppose they don't make CIA directors like they used too. It makes me think the administration understood the Middle East better back then. And perhaps rhetoric about attacking Iran is more for domestic consumption for political ends than achieving long term Middle East stability.

 

[a_majoor]

If you stopped about actions in 1953 and concentrated on activities between 2003 and today, you would realize that a concerted multi-lateral diplomatic effort has resulted in exactly nothing; the Iranians have essentially told the UN, the EU and anyone else to pound sand; they will carry on with their nuclear program regardless.

Given the astounding lack of political and diplomatic success to date, coupled with the very high danger factor in allowing the program to come to a successful conclusion, only someone who is dense would believe that military options should not be on the table.

 

[Kirkhill]

Didn't I hear this "military strike as first option" somewhere before?  Afghanistan? Iran? 

In all cases, Afghanistan included, there was a period of years of negotiation with ample opportunity for the parties involved to make their intentions transparent and to comply with the will of the international community.  The military strike is most assuredly NOT the FIRST option.  It is most assuredly a very real option.

As to the 1950s era - you will find a very strong body of literature that suggests that far from American administrations of the time having a firmer grip on the middle east than currently they were neophytes driven by ideology and the authors of much of the modern mess.

 

[CougarKing]

Kirkhill,

Interestingly, the US govt. did consider the "First Strike" option before, but with China, believe it or not. If you do some research- I believe on the JFK or LBJ administrations- at least one of those administrations did consider a massive air strike using the USAF's SAC against targets in China to eliminate China's nuclear arms arsenal. I believe this was not long after China exploded its first atomic bomb (around 1962). This was definitely before the Bejing-Moscow schism of the mid-Cold War and the Nixon overtures toward China.

Mao Zedong actually feared such an attack from the US or some other Western country, and initiated the building of so-called "Third-Line Industries" or a sort of a backup industrial base in the countryside to keep the PLA well supplied in any foreign invasion/strike scenario, when the  "First-Line Industries" within China's industrial heartland of Manchuria/Northeast China would presumably be destroyed by aerial bombardment. These "Third-Line" Industries were presumably a part of the disastrous "Great Leap Forward" in China in the late 1950s.

Read the ff. source if you want to get a better idea of how these so-called "Third-Line Industries" were established at the time: (Even if this source focuses more on the economic reforms from the 80s onward, China's past economic failures such as the "Great Leap Forward" are recounted)

Naughton, Barry Growing Out of the Plan, Chinese Economic Reform, 1978-1993
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996(.)

Sorry folks for the tangent again, but I thought it was important to point out this instance.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill,

Interestingly, the US govt. did consider the "First Strike" option before, but with China, believe it or not. If you do some research- I believe on the JFK or LBJ administrations- at least one of those administrations did consider a massive air strike using the USAF's SAC against targets in China to eliminate China's nuclear arms arsenal. I believe this was not long after China exploded its first atomic bomb (around 1962). This was definitely before the Bejing-Moscow schism of the mid-Cold War and the Nixon overtures toward China.

Mao Zedong actually feared such an attack from the US or some other Western country, and initiated the building of so-called "Third-Line Industries" or a sort of a backup industrial base in the countryside to keep the PLA well supplied in any foreign invasion/strike scenario, when the  "First-Line Industries" within China's industrial heartland of Manchuria/Northeast China would presumably be destroyed by aerial bombardment. These "Third-Line" Industries were presumably a part of the disastrous "Great Leap Forward" in China in the late 1950s.

Read the ff. source if you want to get a better idea of how these so-called "Third-Line Industries" were established at the time: (Even if this source focuses more on the economic reforms from the 80s onward, China's past economic failures such as the "Great Leap Forward" are recounted)

Naughton, Barry Growing Out of the Plan, Chinese Economic Reform, 1978-1993
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996(.)

Sorry folks for the tangent again, but I thought it was important to point out this instance.

CougarDaddy - perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here.

I am not suggesting the "First Strike" option as was commonly know during the Cold War MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) days where, as I am sure you are aware, the debate was whether or not to go with a launch first before the enemy launched (First Strike) or wait until the enemy launched so that you could claim the moral high-ground (radio-active by that time) of having only launched a retaliatory strike in self-defence. The risk of course was that by waiting you might not be able to get your rounds out of the silos in time.

What I was responding to was my understanding of Nemo888's suggestion that military action, in the case of Iran, was the first thing that the Bush administration was considering instead of diplomacy.  I was suggesting that successive American administrations have been engaged in "diplomacy" with Iran since 1979  and the Bush administration since 2003.  There has been much discussion but little action.  In the continued absence of action on the part of the Iranians then the military option has to be left on the table as a viable alternative.

Having said that your reference looks interesting.  I'll try and get ahold of it.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Nemo888]

This situation does not necessarily need Western military intervention. Whining at the UN is not the only other option. Kermit Roosevelt took control of Iran covertly with only $7,094,339.85 in inflation adjusted dollars. Crushing the first Middle Eastern democracy was immoral, but still I admire his effectiveness. This is a situation that needs smarts not sabre rattling and brute force.

 

[aesop081]

This situation does not necessarily need Western military intervention. Whining at the UN is not the only other option. Kermit Roosevelt took control of Iran covertly with only $7,094,339.85 in inflation adjusted dollars. Crushing the first Middle Eastern democracy was immoral, but still I admire his effectiveness. This is a situation that needs smarts not sabre rattling and brute force.

WOW...you realy like to focus on only a single event.

 

[cameron]

I've always felt that Iran was the real threat in the region not Iraq, pity the Bush administration waited until they were bogged down in Iraq to find out ( I don't care who says i'm anti Bush).

 

[Bane]

More like one country to the west, not to the east. 


        If anyone's really interested in arms control and proliferation and the such, there is an excellent blog www.armscontrolwonk.com written by a guy from Harvard some other colleagues.

 

[Nemo888]

Many Iranians still remember the glory days of the Shah when Iran was almost a first world nation. They had excellent medical care, near full employment, financial prosperity, and world-class chemists and computer scientists. The Shah was a ruthless bastard, but the new ruthless bastards are worse.

The theocracy controlling Iran is another story though. Thanks to the gutting of the education system we are now the Great Satan to many youngsters who are too ignorant to know otherwise. The theocrats hold on the people is shaky though. So a Western military attack would be mana from heaven to the ruling elite. The perfect distraction from the internal destruction they wrought. I wouldn’t be too happy with my government if I went from a Mercedes to an ox cart either. The Islamic fundamentalists were not even a majority of the revolutionaries if what Iranians here tell me is true. They merely hijacked the revolution after the Shah was removed. Average Iranians may not love us, but they don’t love the fundamentalist wack jobs either. (Yes they actually think they are wack jobs too.)

  Ahmendinejad was an unlikely election winner. He ran on a platform of reforming the theocrats and sharing oil revenues. Being unable to accomplish either and fearing house arrest for disparaging the Mullahs he turned to anti-Israel rhetoric and pushing America’s buttons to distract and misdirect his voters. He is a paper tiger and holds little real power. The Revolutionary Council is the real power in Iran. The Russian connection looks interesting. I really wonder what they were promised. With Russian and some European support attacking would just make us look bad and help prop up the bad guys we want to get rid of. I think we should just try to contain them and let then collapse like the Soviet Union. Most especially containing their huge intelligence network. Iran is pretty broken already, war would not have any readily available victory conditions. The biggest problem being that once you take Iran the economy is so screwed up you’d need 20+ years to get it moving again. We tried that already. You get blamed for the past dictator’s horrendous fiscal management and are expected to fix it. No thanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nemo888:

I can't disagree with most of your points although I do wonder if you have any direct proof that the younger generation actually thinks of the US as the Great Satan.  My sense of open source reports is that it is Ahmadinejad's generation of "Student" radicals that is stuck in that mindset.  The current 20-somethings seem to be very Western friendly, including US-friendly and not at all supportive of the theocrats.

I agree entirely about your points on military intervention and the prospect of either dismantling Iran as happened to Iraq in GW1 1990 or of invading as in the case of GW2 does not seem to me to be a particularly necessary or viable option. As you say we would only get the blame for the Mullah's problems.

My sense is that it is time to try just removing Iran's ability to create mischief - forcible disarmament if you like.  If we/the US can knock out the Air Defence system and establish a No-Fly Zone over Iran, as happened in Kurdistan and the Basra area, then we can indulge in a combination of striking HQs and Nuclear Plants, perhaps the some tank plinking,  harbours and docks.  Harassing fire any where that people in uniform go to work.  Perform a slow motion bombardment staying away from residential areas, hospitals, infrastructure....... Separate the people from the government.

Effectively I am talking about a forcible disarmament of the Iranian state - not an invasion or a dismantling.

Let the Iranians realize that once they have been disarmed nobody is going to force anything on them at all - who would do it?  Afghanistan? Iraq? Turkey? Any of the Arab States (They can't organize a tea party much less an invasion)?  The sole problem would be the Russians and I think the Americans would be a good guarantor of good behaviour by the Russians.  Any problems they are going to have are internal instability - and there your containment concept works fine.