July 20th, 2018

One detail missing from Iran Nuclear Treaty withdrawal

By Letter to the Editor on May 15, 2018.

I believe there is at least one pertinent detail missing from the discussion of President Trump’s announced intention to withdraw the U.S. from Iran Nuclear Treaty. While Trump alleges Iran has violated the terms of the treaty, Gwynne Dyer notes in his May 13 column carried in The Herald that the other signatories to the agreement – Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – agree that Iran is in full compliance with the terms of the treaty.

But the pertinent detail? In all the discussion about this topic, little attention has been given to the U.S. role in the 1953 coup d’Ε½tat that transferred power from the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to the corrupt and authoritative Shah Pahlavi.

The U.S. dissatisfaction with the elected government of Iran had to do with oil. Believing that Iran should be seeing a larger share of its oil wealth, Prime Minister Mosaddegh announced plans to audit the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now part of BP. To forestall this and any subsequent restrictions on the operations of Anglo-American oil, the CIA and its British counterpart launched a coup on Aug. 15, 1953. This led to the installation of a pro-American, anti-Communist regime which relied on American support to remain in power until 1979, when it was replaced by the Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Given its role in the recent history of Iran, perhaps the U.S. should reconsider its decision to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Treaty.

Robert D. Tarleck


Share this story:


2 Responses to “One detail missing from Iran Nuclear Treaty withdrawal”

  1. George McCrea says:

    Yeh Bob, Iran is so much better off now that they have gotten rid of the despotic US influence. Just a couple of links to what you left out.



  2. biff says:

    another example of usa crimes brought back to light. the shah was a brute, and a human rights disaster. he was propped into power becasue the usa has only ever cared about setting up strong armed front men abroad, so long as they could be certain they would sell out their nation and people in return for power and money. the suffering that causes and caused to people where the usa has intervened has always been inconsequential to the american elite – so long as the big corp gets its way. recall how the bad saddam hussein of iraq was long the good saddam…until he, like the democratically elected mohammad mosaddegh in iran, decided to ensure a fair return from their oil. while human rights may mean something to many average americans, the usa remains a country with a dirty human rights record of its own.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.