Of course, Martha, W poured gas on a fire that was already burning.

Jim Bob,
Don’t you think W had something to do with that?

rsmatesic is correct, leaving out one detail that I think constitutes some nice black humor.  The Brits, having failed to overthrow Mossadegh, and knowing the CIA could probably do the job, figured, “Hmmm…they’re not going to do this to save our oil, but maybe there’s a way to get them to do it anyway.”  Knowing that the Dulles brothers (Alan and John Foster, head of the CIA and SecState, respectively) were foaming-at-the-mouth paranoid about Communism, the Brits planted in their tiny skulls the notion that Mossadegh was on the verge of aligning himself with—gasp!—the Rooskies.  That was like holding red meat up in front of a hungry dog, and from that point the CIA was in, the Americans played for fools by the savvy Brits.  And today we’re still paying for that bit of foolishness because no one in the Middle East trusts us worth a damn.

Tony Blankley is never at a loss for disinformation.  To Robert’s charge that toppling Mossadeq was the work of the U.S., Blankley counters that no, it was the Brits who started it. 

Fact:  the Brits, who held a monopoly on Iranian oil production (through the Anglo Iranian Oil Company), one that would not expire until 1961, tried to topple Mossadeq after Iran moved toward nationalization of the oil industry.  They failed.  (This much, and little else, Blankley gets right).  Enter the Americans, who, unlike the Brits, succeeded. 

Evidently, it’s not enough for Blankley that all of the extant evidence (some, but clearly not all of the documents [since the CIA went on a search and destroy mission of all its records in the 1960s and 1970s), and lots of testimonials by witnesses with firsthand knowledge] demonstrates that the Americans, and not the Brits, pulled off the coup.  And they did it in the usual way, too, or maybe it’s better to say, in a way that would become the model for future destabilization efforts in, among other places, Chile:  by paying off disgruntled politicians, planting false stories in the press, and placing (false flag) agents on the ground as ostensibly pro-Mossadeq thugs with the mission of terrorizing the citizenry.

Conveniently, Tony also omitted this troublesome morsel from his analysis:  if, as he contended, the operation had primarily been of British provenance, the outcome would have not included, as it most certainly did, the end of the British oil monopoly in Iran in 1953, which was eight years before it was set to expire.  Instead, the House of Windsor was forced to make room at the table for a gusher of uninvited guests—and unwelcome competition—including the Seven Sisters (five of whom were American oil giants, along with Royal Dutch Shell and Compagnie Française des Pétroles). 

So much for historical revisionism, and so much for Blankley.

JimBob,

As far as I can see, Obama is doing fine in his handling of Iran; it is always a good strategy to maintain all possible options. 

The only thing that I would consider Obama should do differently, in the United States, is to declare his support for the people that elected him, the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States, so that the people of the United States are not left with their only option being the same as the people of Iran, to turn out into the streets in order to get representation of their interests, rather than the interests of the ruling elite.

And, Martha, Obama—like Lafayette—might have reason in the future to feel he should have done things differently.  If the moderates take over and tell Obama, “You didn’t support us,” he’ll have that to deal with.  But right now, given the realities of the situation, he’s wise to play his cards close.

Thank you, Martha, for the history lesson.  Good points all.  I trust you do not disagree that Mr. Blank-brain made a specious negative comparison between Obama’s tempered response to the Iranian post-election riots and Lafayette’s willingness to involve France in our revolution.  The French had a long history of conflict with England; each country considered the other to be a wart on the ass of humanity.  That France would join ANYONE in sticking a thumb in England’s eye was nothing to be surprised about, though there were considerations that made it a courageous and valiant move nonetheless.  The architecture of our relationship with Iran—and with its hopefully growing support for real democracy as opposed to the cartoon version the mullahs have created—is completely different from the dynamic that existed betwixt and between England, France and the American colonies. 
Which brings me back to Blankley and Boehner and the rest of the right wing nut-jobs: they’ll say ANYTHING, reality be damned.

JimBob,

Lafayette did help with the war for freedom for all, but later, when he saw what happened, said he would never have helped if he had known he was supporting slavery and was sorry he had ever got involved.  Perhaps Tony B doesn’t want to relate that.

Here is what (General) Marquis Lafayette actually said as accounted in Henry Wiencek’s book, “An Imperfect God, George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America”:

“Lafayette never reconciled himself to the contradiction between American liberty and American slavery.  He said, “I would never have drawn my sword in the cause of America, if I could have conceived that thereby I was founding a land of slavery.”  He wrote to John Adams: “In the cause of my black brethren, I feel myself warmly interested, and most decidedly side, so far as respects them, against the white part of mankind.  Whatever be the complexion of the enslaved, it does not, in my opinion, alter the complexion of the crime which the enslaver commits—-a crime much blacker than any African face.”  The very idea that slaves were still being transported on ships flying the American flag is 1786 appalled Lafayette, for whom the symbols of freedom had profound resonance: “It is to me a matter of great anxiety and concern, to find that this trade is sometimes perpetrated under the flag of liberty, our dear and noble stripes, to which virtue and glory have been constant standard-
bearers.”

Lafayette visited America in 1824, in the City of Savannah where all blacks had been banned from seeing him, but Lafayette made a point of visiting some slaves that he knew and in New Orleans he met with a group of black veterans and said to them, “I have often during the War of Independence seen African blood shed with honor in our ranks for the cause of the United States.”

When Tony B. says—after Bob S. says Obama’s doing the right thing by staying out of Iran’s internal affairs—that we should be glad Lafayette didn’t feel that way about getting involved in our struggle from freedom from tyranny, he really shows what a dishonest guy he’s prepared to be.  As if that were anything but the most specious comparison.  But then, he’s a wing nut.  Educated, sure, and that accent lends some polish, but he’s no more reality-based than Boehner who tries to make the case that if we have a public health option, going to the doctor will be like a trip to the DMV.  They’re all so dishonest, they’ll have to be screwed into the ground when they die.