White House Protest Corps

From Medea Benjamin: Two Excellent Events in DC Fri and Sat

From Medea Benjamin:

It would be great if you could help us get out the word for these events–and join us! Please note the two different Busboy locations. Thanks so much, Medea

Friday, 8:30pm BP Oil Spill – Report Back and Discussion with Diane Wilson and Medea Benjamin

8:30 pm  Busboys and Poets, 14th and V St, NW (Langston Room) – Join Diane Wilson and Medea Benjamin (Global Exchange/CodePink) as the! y bring a first hand account of the damage that the BP Oil Spill is causing in the Gulf. Diane Wilson is a fourth generation shrimper from the Texas Gulf and a founder of CODEPINK. Medea Benjamin recently returned from a visit to the Gulf. Both have been involved in actions to protest BP. FREE AND OPEN TO ALL!

Saturday: 5PM , Report back from Free Gaza Flotilla
Busboys and Poets, 5th and K NW (Cullen Room) – R: Hear eyewitness reports from activists who accompanied the Free Gaza Flotilla, which was boarded by Israeli troops, in the early hours of May 31. Speakers include: Col. Ann Wright, former Ambassador  Ed Peck, Ramzi Kysia, and others associated with the Free Gaza movement. Background of the Free Gaza movement, efforts to provide needed humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, and next steps. Please join us and support these human rights activists! FREE AND OPEN TO ALL!

Gael Murphy


The Oil Spills You Never Heard Of

By Conn Hallinan, June 11, 2010


While the news about British Petroleum’s (BP) Deepwater Horizon platform blowout in the Gulf of Mexico is on a 24-hour news feed, it took a long boat ride and some serious slogging by John Vidal of The Observer (UK) to uncover a bigger and far deadlier oil spill near the village of Otuegwe in Nigeria’s Niger Delta.

“We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots. This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest,” Otuegwe’s leader, Chief Promise, told Vidal.

The culprits in Nigeria are Shell and Exxon Mobil, whose 40-year old pipelines break with distressing regularity, pouring oil into the locals’ fishing grounds and drinking water. The Delta supports 606 oil fields that supply close to 40 percent of U.S. oil imports.

This past May, an Exxon Mobil pipeline ruptured in the state of Akwa Ibon, dumping more than a million gallons into the Delta before it was patched. According to Ben Ikari, a writer and member of the local Ogoni people, “This kind of thing happens all the time in the Delta…the oil companies just ignore it. The lawmakers do not care, and people must live with the pollution daily. The situation is worse than it was 30 years ago.”

Just how bad things are is not clear, because the oil companies and the Nigerian government will not make the figures public. But independent investigators estimate that over the past four decades the amount of oil released into the Delta adds up to 50 Exxon Valdez spills, or 550 million gallons.  According to the most recent government figures, up to June 3, Deepwater Horizon had pumped between 24 to 51 million gallons into the Gulf.

Nigerian government figures show there have been more than 9000 spills between 1970 and 2000, and there are currently 2,000 official spill sites. The oil companies claim the majority of them are caused by local rebels blowing up pipelines or siphoning off the oil, and that spills are quickly dealt with.

However, the locals say most of the spills are caused by the aging infrastructure, and they and environmental groups charge that the companies do virtually nothing to clean them up. And when local people do challenge the oil giants, they say they get run off by oil company security guards.

The biggest oil disaster in the world, however, is not in Africa or the Gulf of Mexico, but in Ecuador’s Amazon jungle, where Texaco—now owned by Chevron—pumped 18.5 billion gallons of “produced water” into an area of more than 2,000 square miles.  “Produced water” is heavily laden with salts, crude oil, and benzene, a carcinogenic chemical,.

According to the Amazon Defense Coalition, Chevron dumped the toxic waste directly into rivers and streams, in spite of recommendations by American Petroleum Institute that such waste be injected deep into the earth. “The BP tragedy was an accident; Chevron’s discharge in Ecuador was deliberate,” said the Coalition in a press release.

Experts estimate that 345 million gallons of oil have been discharged into the rainforest, one of the most biodiverse areas in the world. The oil and wastewater, along with “black rains” produced by the uncontrolled burning of gas, has created a nightmare for the local indigenous groups—the Secoya, Cofan, Siona, Huarani, and Kichwa.

Ecuador and the five tribes are currently suing Chevron for $27 billion, but the oil company claims it bears no responsibility for Texaco’s practices and says it will not pay a nickel if it is assessed for any of the damage.

As oil resources decrease, the pressure will be on to seek new resources in more marginal territory, including the deep ocean, tropical rain forests, and sensitive artic and tundra zones.  Shell is chomping at the bit to start drilling in the Artic Ocean.

Judith Kimerling, who wrote “Amazon Crude” about the oil industry in Ecuador, told The Observer, “Spills, leaks and deliberate discharges are happening in oilfields all over the world and very few people seem to care.”

Except, of course, the people who live in the middle of them.

The Danger of Invisible Corporate Power: It may take several election cycles to scrub corporate influence and control from our political system.
June 10, 2010, 2:24 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,

By John Steel


Let’s face it: Large corporations have our country, and us, in a death grip. Some of their bad behavior makes big headlines: the BP oil disaster, Goldman Sachs’ financial shenanigans, Enron’s book-cooking. However, equally dangerous corporate activity happens every day, far from public view.

Corporations have seeped almost invisibly into nearly every government agency and too many congressional offices. And they’re as poisonous as carbon monoxide. In the last 20 years, protective legislation and regulation, carefully constructed from the days of President Coolidge and vastly strengthened due to the Depression, have seriously deteriorated.

There’s nothing inherently evil, or even bad, about corporations. Indeed, the combination of capital and management under one roof is efficient and essential in a global, competitive world. So much of our standard of living and our worldwide leadership are directly traceable to our corporate and entrepreneurial culture. But even good things, when they get out of control, turn destructive. Cancer, after all, is just growth gone wild.

There has always been tension between good government and free enterprise. It hurts the bottom line to scrub emissions from coal-burning power generators, ensure meat is sanitary, clean up toxic waste, and disclose the full risks of financial products. But once corporations realized that instead of fighting government they could actually buy it through lobbying and political contributions, the base of our democracy eroded. Their “invisible power” got a grip. The stealthy hunt for corporate profits metastasized from the marketplace and entered the halls of Congress and the executive branch.

The fight over reforming Wall Street is just the latest example. The need for regulation is hardly theoretical here. We’re still reeling from a crisis caused by the absence of it. Congress doesn’t even need to reinvent the wheel, a favorite task. There were laws and regulations that had worked for so long, such as those to keep banks and investment brokers separate; require diligent lending; prohibit betting against your own borrowers; require full disclosure to borrowers; and, above all, keep the risk with the lenders to insure they make prudent loans.

So why has the debate on reform dragged on for nearly a year? The public wants Wall Street reined in. So why would any legislator, much less an entire political party, get in the way of financial reform? It can’t just be a coincidence that the financial sector happens to be the biggest contributor to 2010 congressional campaigns, with more than $129 million doled out already. Financial firms have also spent well over a half a billion dollars on lobbying since early 2009.

To reverse this situation we must change who gets elected to Congress. And that is the one thing we can do, and perhaps the only thing, to neutralize corporate control of our government. Only real people have the vote; corporations don’t.

To regain our democracy, we must:

  • Identify and make public those elected representatives who owe their jobs to corporate largesse and cast their votes accordingly.
  • Insulate the election process from corporate funding. Bills in both the Senate and House that would forbid campaign spending by contractors who receive more than $50,000 in taxpayer funds would be a good start.
  • Prohibit lawmakers and lobbyists from interacting with each other, except to exchange ideas on legislation, and require them to publish a record of their contacts.

It may take several election cycles to scrub corporate influence and control from our political system, but once it starts it will gain momentum. And once we’ve accomplished this feat, appropriate regulation and control will follow. The horse will be before the cart, and the driver will be a human person.

Nearly 200 activists and journalists outside of BP’s headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., to stage a citizen’s arrest of the oil giant.

Last Friday, June 4, Public Citizen and its allies rallied nearly 200 activists and journalists outside of BP’s headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., to stage a citizen’s arrest of the oil giant.

screen capture of video of Tyson Slocum at BP protest in D.C.
Watch Public Citizen Energy Program director Tyson Slocum blast BP on its criminal corporate record!

If you joined us on Friday, a big sincere thank you for making this important action a huge success! I also invite you to share your experience and photos on our blog and flickr account (tag your photos with arrestbp).

If you were unable to join us, no worries. Other events and actions are in development as you read this.

And let us know if you have creative ideas for future citizens’ actions on big oil. Holding BP accountable, preventing future oil spills and moving toward clean energy solutions require massive citizen engagement. Submit your ideas here.

Thank you for your commitment and your action,

Allison Fisher
Organizer, Energy Program

To get regular e-alerts about opportunities for activism and other ways to help with Public Citizen’s work, sign up for the Public Citizen Action Network.

Contribute | © 2010 Public Citizen | Take Action

British Petroleum and The Legacy of Operation Ajax ( The CIA overthrow of democracy in Iran in 1953 )


Iran has always played a pivotal role in world politics. It was once a world-class empire, it is strategically located at a crossroad between Europe, the Near East, and Asia, and it has the world’s second largest petroleum reserves. In the 18th and 19th Century, it was the battleground between imperial rivals Russia and Britain in what came to be known as “The Great Game”. In both World Wars, Iran held a strategic position and was pivotal to the Allies’ victory. In 1951, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) controlled Iranian petroleum production. Little of the company’s profits went to Iran and the AIOC’s Iranian workers were severely mistreated and underpaid. On April 30, 1951, everything changed. The Iranian parliament, with the support of Prime Minister Mossadeq, voted to nationalize Iran’s oil. The following years would change Iran, America, and the world forever.
In Stephen Kinzer’s book All the Shah’s Men, the author prefaces the book with the discourse of an Iranian woman,

‘Why did you Americans do that terrible thing?’ she cried out. ‘We always loved America. To us, America was the great country, the perfect country, the country that helped us while other countries exploited us. But after that moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again. I can tell you for sure that if you had not done that thing, you would never have had the problem of hostages being taken in your embassy in Tehran. All your trouble started in 1953. Why, why did you do it?’

This woman’s statement gives us a glimpse of Iranian sentiment regarding American involvement in the 1953 Coup, codenamed Operation Ajax; an event that to this day few Americans know about. Are her statements accurate? Did the United States really destroy a democracy? Examining her claim will show that her views hold some truth, and that her sentiments reflect a deep resentment among Iranians. This examination will summarize the Iranian-American interactions that culminated in Operation Ajax, examine the effects of the 1953 Coup, and determine that the Coup was detrimental to Iranian-American relations; specifically, the Coup hurt American credibility, resulted in anti-American sentiment, and directly led to the Hostage Crisis of 1979.

A Brief Look at the 1953 Coup

In 1950, Iran’s economy was in a state of depression. Contrarily, the flourishing Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was pumping oil from Iranian soil with the help of Iranian workers, yet it was the United Kingdom who benefited the most. The company paid the British government more in income taxes than it paid Iran in royalties. According to Pollack, “[The AIOC] lied and manipulated its books to underpay the Iranian government to the tune of billions of dollars…violated the terms of the 1933 concession…paid [workers] 50 cents per day…[while workers had] no vacation, no sick leave, and no disability compensation.” The anger and resentment over the AIOC, as well as Mohammad Reza Shah’s attempts to centralize authority in his hands led to the establishment of the National Front.

The National Front’s confrontations with the Shah, and later the British government, led to the American involvement in Iran that culminated in the events of August 1953. There were two different presidential administrations in America during the time period of the National Front, and while these administrations held the same ideology, they undertook different policies towards Iran. The Truman administration’s black-and-white image of the Cold War led to its support of the National Front and Mossadeq’s efforts. He was worried that British demands would lead to the Iranians turning to the Communists for help. Furthermore, Truman recognized that the National Front was a nationalist movement, a not a Communist movement. This mentality led to closer relations between Iran and the United States during this period of the Nationalization Crisis, including defensive pacts, monetary aid, and more pressure American on the British government to compromise with the Iranians.
In 1950, ARAMCO, an American oil conglomeration, agreed to a 50-50 profit split between it and the Saudi government. At this point, the Iranian parliament, known was the Majles, attempted to workout a compromise with the British. The British refused. This refusal, coupled with ARAMCO’s deal, eliminated any moderate solution and led to the drive for nationalization, resulting in the Majles’s nationalization legislation, which was passed on April 30, 1951.
The British were furious. Their government plotted attacks as well as a coup attempt in Iran, but the Americans once again stepped in supporting the Iranian cause, as fears grew that a British invasion would lead to a similar Russian invasion. Yet, regardless of America’s pro-nationalist stance, Mossadeq denounced any American intervention in Iranian affairs.

Britain then attempted to take the nationalization issue to the United Nations. Mossadeq’s speech to the world community in defense of his actions was compelling and he won the admiration of the American people and the United Nations. The United Nations declared then that the nationalization crisis was an internal issue. This was one of Mossadeq’s greatest victories. Yet the British felt humiliated and were still unwilling to compromise.

At this point, an internal power struggle in Iran led to Mossadeq’s de facto control of the government, and the Shah’s defeat and escape to Rome. It was now that the British attempted a compromise, but Mossadeq was unwilling, making him seem stubborn, particularly in the eyes of newly elected President Eisenhower.

One of the turning points of this conflict came with Eisenhower’s inauguration as President of the United States. Mossadeq thought that Eisenhower would be even more sympathetic to his cause, but he was mistaken. Eisenhower also took a black-and-white approach to the Cold War, much like Truman, but the discrepancy can best be summarized by the phrase, “you’re either with us, or against us.” As far as John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State (whose brother, Allen Dulles was the head of the Central Intelligence Agency) and President Eisenhower were concerned, Mossadeq was against them. Initially, Eisenhower was sympathetic to Mossadeq, but Secretary Dulles convinced him otherwise. The issue was exacerbated by Mossadeq’s threat to side with the Soviets if the British-Iranian dispute were not resolved.

On August 15, 1953, the CIA, operating from the American Embassy in Tehran, underwent its first operation: Operation Ajax. The undertaking sought to depose Mossadeq and re-install the Shah as the autocratic leader of Iran’s government. Through the dispersion of money and the gathering of crowds, the operation was successful, and Mossadeq was defeated.

The Myth of the 1953 Coup

“At a time when America is telling the world its aims are to bring democracy to the whole plant, the Mossadeq era proves all of America’s protestations to be a long lie.” – An Iranian Blogger

Many Iranians denounce America’s involvement in the 1953 Coup, but did the event destroy a democracy and is the United States to blame?

First, it is important to note that Mossadeq had a near autocracy during his rule. After the deposition of the Shah, Mossadeq was given near-autocratic powers by the Iranian Majles. Second, the United States had previously made efforts to help the Iranians, but Mossadeq seemed unwilling to reciprocate. Finally, it was Iranians who carried out the Coup with CIA support; it was not an exclusively American undertaking; there was then a great deal of disaffection with Mossadeq in Iran, particularly among Iran’s political elite. In terms of CIA involvement, the Americans only used $100,000 and British intelligence to engineer the Coup.

Mossadeq was certainly not a perfect leader. He possessed many character flaws that hurt his cause. His antics may have been received with favor in Iran, but internationally, they made him a spectacle and a laughing stock. Mossadeq also became increasingly isolated and trusted no one, particularly his fellow Iranians. This led to his denouncement of those who voiced any opposition to his plan as traitors and British conspirators, thereby deepening his opposition base. Mossadeq was also uncompromising; he was unwilling to broker a 50-50 deal with the British, a deal which Truman appealed to Mossadeq to accept. His inflexibility particularly after this incident led Eisenhower and his administration to believe that the only solution to the Mossadeq situation was to depose Mossadeq and place a more easily influenced leader in Iran.

While there is a great deal of evidence and claims that the Coup was not solely fueled by the CIA, the organization did act as a catalyst and was responsible for placing the Shah in power after Mossadeq’s fall. Keddie states that “the coup could not have succeeded without significant internal disaffection or indifference, but without outside aid it would not have occurred.” The CIA unified Mossadeq’s opposition and armed them with money and information, allowing the Coup to take shape. As opposed to restoring power to the Iranian parliament after the Coup, the CIA supported a more malleable figure: the Shah, thus guaranteeing that Iran would become an authoritarian state. This later came to be seen as evidence that America did not want democracy for the Middle East, but rather wanted to control the region.
Regardless of the truths and myths of the Coup, the sentiments of the Iranian people determined the event’s impact on Iranian-American relations. Neither the realities nor the actualities of the events of August 1953 matter when dealing with such an emotional issue. While many argue that it was not solely the actions of the CIA that led to Mossadeq’s toppling, the myth and political folklore created from the event tell a different tale. Many Iranians regard Mossadeq as “an uncorrupted modernizer and democrat who defied the imperialists.” Iranians also conclude that Iran would be a democracy today were it not for the events of 1953. While the idea seems far-fetched, as Mossadeq was a near autocrat during his rule, he was still democratically elected and his powers were derived from the Iranian parliament. The emotional nature of the incident led to the status of Mossadeq as a martyr and a symbol of American treachery. Among the burgeoning Iranian blogs, many place pictures of Mossadeq without any text on significant dates associated with the popular leader as a show of morning over a lost opportunity. The caption of one blogger read, “In honor of Dr, Mossadeq, a man who never betrayed his own people…”

The Legacy of the Coup

“…Operation Ajax has left a haunting and terrible legacy.” – Stephen Kinzer

The Coup has had many repercussions on American-Iranian relations, reaching from anti-American ideological positions to historical occurrences, such as the Hostage Crisis.
The ideological products of the 1953 Coup include anti-Americanism and an obsession with foreign intervention in Iran. The ideologies did appear before the Coup, but they were strongly reinforced and solidified by the events of August 1953.
First, the anti-Americanism found in the Iranian Revolution and during the Shah’s time can be attributed to the actions of the CIA and the Coup’s placement of the Shah as despot of Iran. While it is important to acknowledge that the British were involved in the Coup, not only did the Iranians think very little of the British, but also the United States was “seen as a betrayer and not just an old enemy.” Prior to the Coup, the United States was very popular in Iran. But because the Americans were responsible for the Shah’s dictatorship and for supporting him throughout his reign, the blame for the Shah’s actions fell on America. The Shah thereby became a symbol of America’s intervention in Iranian affairs. The conspiracy theories that Iranians had perpetuated turned out to have truth behind them: “…the United States did help to overthrow Mossadeq, and it was culpable in the establishment of the despotism of Mohammad Reza Shah that succeeded him.” The event led to a lot speculation about how Iran would have been without Mossadeq’s removal. It became commonplace for Iranians to claim that were it not for the 1953 Coup perpetrated by the Americans, Iran would be a flourishing democracy, an economic powerhouse, and even an American ally. Furthermore, the Shah’s atrocious repression of any opposition, as well as his corruption are blamed largely on the United States. The Shah’s actions were so horrific that in 1976, Amnesty International stated “no country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.” In 1977, Jimmy Carter came to Iran supported the Shah, proclaiming that Iran is “an island of tranquility in a sea of turbulence.” America’s support of the Shah regardless of his actions was a sore point that Iranians did not forget.
Second, the Iranian focus on imperialist intervention can be attributed to Mossadeq’s obsession with foreign involvement in Iranian affairs. The Coup proved the presence of foreign collusion in Iran, an obsession that would blind politicians and Iranians from the political and economic woes of Iran. The paranoia it created acted as a unifying force against the meddling foreigners, particularly the US and Britain. While Iranians had previously held such ideas, the Coup confirmed those notions. Furthermore, the events of 1953 taught Iranians that taking an extreme position would be the most successful method of action. Even though Mossadeq’s extreme position led to his downfall, he achieved the status of a martyr, being even more popular after his downfall than before. Khomeini adopted this technique during the Revolution of 1978-79.

The historical products of the 1953 Coup are key to Iranian-American relations. Much of the anti-American and anti-Western activities carried out by Iranians before and after the Revolution can be attributed to what is seen as America’s act of betrayal. Specifically, the 1953 Coup is responsible for the Hostage Crisis. The hostage-takers’ capture of the American Embassy in Tehran was an attempt to stop history from repeating itself, as the 1953 Coup’s base of operations was the American Embassy. The Iranian students who stormed the Embassy did not want to be subject to further actions against their best interest. Massoumeh Ebtekar, the spokesperson for the hostage takers said, “In the back of everybody’s mind hung the suspicion that, with the admission of the Shah to the United States, the countdown for another coup d’état had begun. Such was to be our fate again, we were convinced, and it was to be irreversible. We now had to reverse the irreversible.” The students who stormed the embassy allegedly had copies of the memoirs of Kermit Roosevelt’s (a key operative of the Coup) called Countercoup during the time of the hostage-taking. Furthermore, the students also believed that the hostages could be held as collateral to insure that the Americans would not engage in another coup attempt. The Coup’s creation of the Hostage Crisis showed the lasting impacts of August 1953.
Operation Ajax initiated a shockwave that changed the Iranian landscape greatly. The deeply rooted anti-American sentiment of the past and of the present is fueled by the 1953 Coup, and the Hostage Crisis was a direct attempt to stop a repeat of Operation Ajax. The installment of the pro-American Shah following the Coup may have seemed to create stability in the Middle East, but in the long run, a deep-rooted distrust of Americans was created; a distrust that is proving hard to overcome.


“Operation Ajax taught tyrants and aspiring tyrants there that the world’s most powerful governments were willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as oppressive regimes were friendly to the West and Western oil companies. That helped tilt the political balance in a vast region away from freedom and toward dictatorship” – Stephen Kinzer

In All the Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer gave a review of what a handful of American historians said regarding the Coup. Mark Gasiorowksi said, “U.S. complicity in [the Coup] figured prominently…in the anti-American character of 1978-79 revolution, and in the many anti-American incidents that emanated from Iran after the revolution, including…the embassy hostage crisis.” Mary Ann Heiss stated that the Coup showed the United States’ lack of interest in what is best for Iranians. Keddie stated, “…However exaggerated and paranoid some charges by Iranians may be, suspiciousness and hostility have their roots in real and important occurrences.”
Indeed, the American deposition of one of Iran’s most popular figures, and Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1951 (beating out the likes of Winston Churchill, President Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower), provides evidence of the self-advancing position of the United States and the disinclination towards policies that would benefit the people of the world.
It is important to take some lessons from the 1953 Coup. For one, foreign intervention in internal affairs rarely produces positive effects; it destroys the credibility of foreign governments and further pushes a country into isolation. A regional or global hegemony must be mindful of the people’s perceptions of its actions. What one government may declare as the only rational option, others may consider a gross injustice.


BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (2005, June), 8.

Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men (Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2003), ix.

Nikki R. Keddie, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 123-124.

Kenneth M. Pollack, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America (New York: Random House, 2004), 52.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 53.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 55.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 56.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 57.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 59.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 63.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 63-64.

Nasrin Alavi, We Are Iran (New York: Soft Skull Press, 2005), 37.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 68-69.

James L. Gelvin, The Modern Middle East: A History (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 279.

Moyara de Moraes Ruehsen, “Operation ‘Ajax’ Revisited,” Middle Eastern Studies 29, no. 3 (1993): 8-9.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 63.

Keddie, Modern Iran, 130.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 69.

Alavi, We Are Iran, 35.

Alavi, We Are Iran, 36-37.

Mostafa T. Zahrani, “The coup that changed the Middle East: Mossadeq v. the CIA in retrospect,” World Policy Journal 19, no. 2 (2002): 1.

Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men, 215.

Keddie, Modern Iran, 131.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 68-69.

Gelvin, The Modern Middle East, 281.

Gelvin, The Modern Middle East, 282.

Alavi, We Are Iran, 40.

Alavi, We Are Iran, 36.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 70.

Zahrani, “The coup that changed the Middle East,” 4.

Gelvin, The Modern Middle East, 280.

Zahrani, “The coup that changed the Middle East,” 4.

“How to Change a Regime in 30 Days,” The Economist, August 14, 2003, 1.

Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men, 204.

Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men, 213.

Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men, 214.

Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men, 214.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Aria_Safar