IRAN: Why Mossadegh’s Liberal Anti-Imperialist Project Collapsed

Mossadegh Nationalized Iran’s Oil Industry, but Failed to Build Institutions of Workers’ Power, Leaving the Country’s Young Democracy Vulnerable to the Western-Backed Coup of 1953: We Must Not Repeat the Same Errors of the Past. Reflecting on this historical episode is crucial because it offers vital lessons about the importance of strengthening democratic institutions and popular participation to prevent repeating such tragedies. Mossadegh’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was an act of economic nationalism that resonated deeply with Iranians who longed for control over their natural resources. It challenged not only British imperial interests but also set an example for post-colonial nations asserting their rights. 

For the U.S. government, violently imposing its will on the Iranian people is a generational tradition. The most consequential of these interventions took place in 1953, when American and British intelligence overthrew Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, two years after his government nationalized Iran’s oil reserves, which had previously been monopolized by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).

Mossadegh, who embodied anti-imperialist sentiment in a country that had long been at the mercy of foreign powers, enjoyed broad support ranging from Marxist organizers to Shiite clerics. But when the pressures of the British-led embargo and Mossadegh’s plans to restructure the oil industry threatened the interests of Iran’s financial establishment, the unity of the anti-imperialist front quickly unraveled. Mossadegh’s refusal to empower a mass working-class movement ultimately sealed the fate of his government.

The Fracturing of a Broad Coalition

Nationalist fervor initially concealed the fragility of the liberal-oriented coalition led by Mossadegh. He came to power as the leader of the National Front, a broad alliance of nationalist, pro-democratic, liberal, and socialist tendencies that mobilized for fair elections, freedom of the press, and the nationalization of Iran’s oil economy against the British monopoly. In the patriotic and euphoric years following its founding in 1949, the movement was financed and supported by the bazaaris, Iran’s traditional merchant class, who expected nationalization to transfer the oil monopoly from British hands into their own.

Instead, the bazaaris found themselves facing blockade-induced hyperinflation, paralyzed trade, and the growing reality that Mossadegh intended to place the country’s oil under the control of the newly created National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), a state-led capitalist development vehicle whose revenues would fund major infrastructure projects, public welfare programs, and a secular education system.

Most of the ulema, Iran’s clerical establishment, similarly abandoned Mossadegh’s coalition once their material interests came under threat. Initially, they viewed him as an ally, sharing a mutual hatred of the foreign and non-Muslim interests that stifled Iranian sovereignty. But once British and American influence had been contained, the dominant factions of the clergy came to regard Mossadegh as their greatest threat. To them, his vision of a secularized society represented an assault on Iran’s religious identity, while his plans to build a modern welfare state undermined what they considered their traditional role in providing charity to the poor and containing proletarian unrest.

The British blockade, which strangled revenues derived from land rents and customary religious taxes—a problem they largely blamed on the prime minister—hurt the ulema as much as it did the bazaaris. While some clerics remained loyal to the anti-imperialist cause, the most powerful strata of the ulema were prepared to abandon Mossadegh by 1952.

As the British embargo eroded their profits, many Iranian elites demanded an accommodation with either Britain or the United States, even if it meant allowing Western officials to administer the oil fields—an arrangement Mossadegh refused to accept. Rather than capitulate to Britain or negotiate through an external mediator such as Truman, the government issued bonds and restricted imports, but resisted more radical measures such as rationing and heavy taxation of the wealthy. This attempt at moderation satisfied few.

Western Spies and the Shah

By late 1951, Winston Churchill’s incoming Tory government accelerated secret plans to forcibly remove the Iranian prime minister. While President Harry Truman officially refused to participate in an outright coup, he authorized the CIA to undermine Mossadegh by other means. The CIA and MI6, working only nominally toward different objectives, built a network among key interest groups and oversaw a meticulously planned campaign to discredit Mossadegh through rumors and trusted operatives embedded within Radio Tehran and other media outlets. By the time Eisenhower lent his support to what they euphemistically called a “counter-coup” in early 1953, the opposition infrastructure and funding channels were already in place.

Two of the coup’s principal architects were Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and CIA Director Allen Dulles, among the most fervent advocates in U.S. history of subverting any country they considered too close to Soviet socialism. They were motivated both by their deep ties to the AIOC, the predecessor of British Petroleum, and by their Cold War ideology. It did not matter that Mossadegh was a constitutional liberal who opposed concessions to the Soviet Union as vehemently as he opposed the AIOC monopoly. This intervention was driven by more than revenge for lost capital or reflexive paranoia about Soviet influence; it was a violent corrective measure against a government and a movement that threatened the core logic of Western imperialism and capital accumulation.

Western intelligence cultivated potential allies by portraying Mossadegh as a left-wing radical and a Russian puppet, but few of these accusations could withstand genuine scrutiny. Mossadegh was in fact a liberal reformer seeking to develop a capitalist economy free from foreign imperial extraction, and a fierce critic of the proposed Soviet oil concession of 1944. His frequent clashes with the Moscow-aligned Tudeh Party created a rift within the Iranian left, leading to a breakaway faction that formed the left wing of his National Front in 1948. Nevertheless, Western propaganda provided convenient narratives that Mossadegh’s opponents embraced in pursuit of their own immediate economic demands.

Perceiving Mossadegh’s vulnerability and increasingly alarmed by his policies, Iranian reactionaries gravitated toward the Shah, a powerful symbol for millions among the urban poor and rural periphery, and one of Mossadegh’s most dangerous antagonists. Although some of the monarchy’s powers had been curtailed following the Anglo-Soviet occupation during World War II, the Shah still controlled the armed forces, presided over a court that served as a safe haven for anti-government conspirators, and exercised the constitutional right to appoint half of the Senate’s members, filling it with landlords, monarchists, and wealthy merchants who systematically vetoed Mossadegh’s reforms.

The Shah and the ulema made an unlikely pair. Since the 1920s, the father-and-son monarchy had sought to weaken clerical influence by absorbing traditional religious domains such as education and law into the secular state. In the long run, however, these efforts merely pushed the ulema to adapt and embed themselves more deeply within elite political circles. Senior clerics, often drawn from high-status families, used their connections to secure state scholarships and government positions for their children, creating a professionalized generation capable of opposing the government from within the state apparatus itself.

Despite this history, Mossadegh’s apparent desire to promote secular nationalism—and the more fantastical rumors that he would adopt Soviet-style anti-clericalism—convinced his opponents among the ulema that his leadership represented an existential threat. Overcoming their historical animosity and encouraged by American and British agents, the court and the mosque willingly joined forces against a prime minister they regarded as a common enemy.

Western intelligence deliberately nurtured the reactionary alliance of the Shah, the bazaaris, and the ulema by sending provocateurs disguised as pro-Mossadegh supporters to threaten religious and business leaders with “savage punishments” if they dared criticize the government. One cleric, Seyyed Mohammad Behbahani, with pockets full of American money, distributed letters bearing the Tudeh Party emblem threatening to hang mullahs from lampposts across the country. Another cleric, Abol-Ghasem Kashani, a former ally of Mossadegh in the campaign to nationalize the oil industry, made subtle yet defiant statements that elevated the conflict from a political dispute to a theological struggle.

Western intelligence paid particular attention to Kashani, whose influence among the urban poor was enhanced by their dependence on mosque charity for daily survival. Already estranged from the government over secularism and internal power-sharing, Kashani was encouraged further by the CIA through a mixture of private appeals and public subversion, including a leaflet depicting a caricature of Mossadegh sexually abusing the ayatollah.

In the months preceding Mossadegh’s downfall, Kashani no longer bothered to conceal his defection. Before departing for Mecca in August 1952, he warned Mossadegh through his ally, the deputy speaker of the Majlis, that parliament might take matters into its own hands if Iran’s economic situation continued to deteriorate. It was a blatant display of status, as Kashani was powerful enough that Mossadegh dared not arrest him, unlike many of his other political rivals.

Caught in the Middle

Faced with total obstruction from imperialism and the right, Mossadegh could have relied more heavily on left-wing allies such as Khalil Maleki, one of the leading Marxist organizers who had split from the Tudeh Party in 1948. But the prime minister, an aristocratic constitutionalist of noble lineage, was terrified of proletarian insurrection and fundamentally unwilling to build institutions of working-class power.

Rather than cultivating an independent, organized mass movement capable of defending his government against its enemies, Mossadegh focused on gaining control of the monarchist armed forces and combating foreign and domestic subversion from above, using a fractured and unreliable state as his primary instrument.

This left the Soviet-aligned Tudeh Party as the only viable street-level force on Mossadegh’s left flank. Fearing that his replacement would pose an even greater threat to Iranian workers, the Tudeh began organizing large demonstrations in support of the government. Mossadegh refused to fully embrace them, yet neither did he forcefully refute the accusations of communist sympathies spread by his opponents, ultimately satisfying no one.

From pulpits throughout Tehran, many clerics preached to working-class congregations that Mossadegh’s tolerance of secular factions was paving the way for atheistic Marxism. Others, such as Ayatollahs Mahmud Taleghani and Seyyed Reza Zanjani, argued that socialist policies represented Islamic justice in its purest and most egalitarian form. Mossadegh, however, convinced that religion belonged in the private sphere regardless of its orientation, preferred to wage his battles in the Majlis and at The Hague rather than support progressive clerics.

An emotional and gifted orator in his own right, Mossadegh was not opposed to mass mobilization per se, but he maintained an aristocratic disdain for the rougher work of street theology and violent resistance. His opponents had no such reservations. Through local intermediaries such as the wealthy, Anglophile Rashidian brothers, the CIA and MI6 funneled millions of dollars into buying the loyalty of military officers and gang leaders. Over the previous century, the ulema and the bazaaris had repeatedly joined forces whenever political crises threatened their power; now, armed with foreign backing, they prepared to create a crisis of their own.

Completing the Coup

In February 1953, Mossadegh visited the Imperial Palace to bid farewell to the Shah and Empress Soraya before their extended European vacation. During the visit, a massive crowd mobilized by Ayatollah Behbahani’s network and monarchist gang leaders gathered outside to implore the Shah not to leave the country, fearing that Mossadegh and the Tudeh Party would seize complete control of the state. Kashani, Behbahani, and other clerics personally fueled the hysteria, with Kashani lamenting that “if the Shah leaves, everything we have will leave with him.” The spectacle achieved its intended effect: portraying Mossadegh as cunning and power-hungry while fostering public panic that any delay in removing him would result in an irreversible communist dictatorship.

The February crisis convinced coup organizers that sufficient opposition could be mobilized against Mossadegh. To ensure success, Western intelligence and their Iranian allies continued undermining him while allowing the economic strangulation to take its toll throughout the spring and summer. Mossadegh then made a critical mistake in early August by holding a rigged referendum in which 99.9 percent of participants voted to dissolve the Majlis and grant him the authority to legislate by executive decree—a move condemned as dictatorial and unconstitutional even by some allies within the National Front.

Believing that public opinion, or at least a critical mass of coercive power, had shifted in their favor, the CIA and MI6 launched Operation Ajax on August 15. To provide legal cover for military action against the prime minister, CIA operatives persuaded the ambitious yet fearful Shah to sign a royal decree dismissing Mossadegh and appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi as his replacement.

The uprising initially failed. Poor execution and warnings from Tudeh infiltrators allowed Mossadegh’s loyalists to uncover the plot, arrest several conspirators, and force the Shah to flee abroad. Tens of thousands of Tudeh-led demonstrators celebrated the coup’s failure by toppling royal monuments, demanding that the government declare a democratic republic or establish a regency council, and confronting the demoralized remnants of pro-Shah mobs. Mossadegh, meanwhile, publicly dismissed the attempted coup as the work of a few rogue military elements.

On August 18, however, insisting that removing the Shah would be unconstitutional, alarmed by escalating proletarian unrest, and already facing threats from the U.S. ambassador to withdraw official recognition of his government, Mossadegh ordered the police to clear the streets of anti-monarchist crowds. Eliminating his only organized working-class defense was precisely what Kermit Roosevelt—the CIA’s man in Tehran—needed for a second attempt.

On the morning of August 19, with the militant left nowhere to be seen, paid provocateurs disguised as pro-Mossadegh supporters flooded the capital, burning and looting mosques and shops. Hours later, a larger wave of monarchist thugs led by gang bosses such as Shaban “The Brainless” Jafari and backed by soldiers and tanks from the Tehran garrison violently attacked government loyalists and Tudeh members under the pretext of crushing a supposed “communist revolution” that Mossadegh had already dispersed the day before.

Mossadegh was captured and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Most of his closest associates were imprisoned under harsher conditions, while others, such as Foreign Minister Hossein Fatemi, were tortured and executed. Zahedi assumed the premiership, the Shah regained power, and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was smoothly reorganized into a Western consortium.

Mossadegh died in 1967, still under house arrest. Ayatollah Zanjani, the progressive cleric whom Mossadegh had kept at arm’s length, personally washed his body and performed the ritual prayers before the former prime minister was buried beneath the floorboards of his dining room.

Throughout his twenty-six years in power, the Shah relentlessly crushed all internal dissent through SAVAK, a notoriously brutal secret police force trained by the CIA and Mossad. The United States and the United Kingdom had carried out a cynical intervention that secured their oil interests, installed a friendly regime, and destroyed Iran’s pro-democracy opposition. In doing so, they offered a costly historical lesson: liberal anti-imperialism, terrified of its own working class, cannot withstand the power of foreign capital and domestic reaction. Mossadegh’s failure ensured that the next anti-imperialist revolution and regime would take on a radically different character.

Source: Nicholas LIU – JacobinLat

@albagranadanorthafrica

#ajaxOperation #AngloIranianOilCompanyTudehParty #britishBlockade #britishColonialism #CIAANDMOSSAD #embargo #hyperinflation #iran #mossadegh #oilIndustry #savak #secularNationalism #ulemas

Cecil Rhodes And His Time by Apolion Davidson

Cecil Rhodes…

He has been spoken and written about for a hundred years. Do we really need yet another book?

And does his time, the age when the world was divided up by the European countries using people like Rhodes, really need to be written about again? After all, the age of colonialism is past.

When undertaking this book, the author believed that only now that the political dominance of colonialism has ended can one truly grasp this phenomenon as a whole. And this must be done since the imprint of colonialism still remains on states, and even continents, and on the lives and characters of their inhabitants.

The figure of Rhodes helps one to understand a great deal about how colonialism functioned and about the psychology of people of that time. Why did Rhodes become a symbol of the largest empire in the history of mankind? Why was it Rhodes who became the idol of colonialism in the epoch of the division of the world? And what impression did his personality leave on the nature of colonialism?

These are some of the questions which the book tries to answer.

Translated from the Russian by Christopher English

Designed by Oleg Grebenyuk

Jacket: The battle of the Umguza (April 22, 1896). reproduced from Oliver Ransford’s book Bulawayo: Historic Battleground of Rhodesia, Cape Town, 1968.

Title page: A late nineteenth-century map of Southern Africa showing the countries conquered by Rhodes (from the book Rhodes by J. G. Lockhart and Hon. C. M. Woodhouse, London, 1963).

You can get the book here and here

This is a cleaned, optimised scan.

Original Scan

A 1988 Soviet work. Scanned by Ismail.

Follow us on

Twitter https://x.com/MirTitles

Mastadon https://mastodon.social/@mirtitles

Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/mirtitles.bsky.social

Tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/mirtitles

Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/mir-titles

Fork us on gitlab https://gitlab.com/mirtitles

 

 

 

Contents

 

Page

6 Testament of a Young Man

The Gold and Diamond King

26 “How Cecil Rhodes Made His Fortune”

64 His Road to Politics

79 Battle of the Magnates

Hero of the Day

96 The Land of Ophir Between the Zambezi and the Limpopo

120 From the “White Queen” to Inkosi Lobengula

165 Setting Up His Own State

182 His First Military Campaign

214 And the First War

239 The Idol of His Day

Instigator of the Boer War

262 The Conspiracy Against the Afrikaners

286 Rhodesia Against Rhodes

314 Mere Setback or Utter Debacle?

338 “Terug na Die Ou Transvaal” (“Back to the Old Transvaal”)

370 Fading Away

393 Conclusion

400 Appendix

416 References

436 Name Index

#1988 #africanSubjugation #boerWars #britishColonialism #britishImperialism #deBeerCompany #history #southAfrica #southernAfrica #sovietLiterature
The #MarchIntifada, a #communist-led movement against #BritishColonialism in #Bahrain, began on #ThisDayInHistory in 1965. It began with anger over a British company eliminating local jobs & turned to outright rebellion. At least six civilians were killed before it was put down.

Low fire risk landscapes
Challenging the norm of prescribed burning

* "Research shows long-unburnt forests act to limit fire without human intervention – even as the climate changes."

"Would it be worth removing the short-term defence of prescribed burning to bring forests back to a less flammable state?"

"In our new study, we examined whether phasing out prescribed burning could help Australian forests endure climate change. The answer was clear: it’s entirely possible to stop the cycle of fire feeding more fire, and help forests endure new climatic conditions."
>>
https://theconversation.com/in-1939-a-royal-commission-found-burning-forests-leads-to-more-bushfires-but-this-cycle-of-destruction-can-be-stopped-269099

* Are the alternative ecosystem states produced by positive fire-flammability feedbacks reversible? Philip J Zylstra and David B Lindenmayer 2025 Environ. Res. Lett. 20 124037DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ae18e7
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae18e7
#fires #bushfires #Megafires #PrescribedBurning #BritishColonialism #pastoralism #loggingImpacts #climate #GHG #forests #destruction #biodiversity #ecosystems #conservation

In 1939, a Royal Commission found burning forests leads to more bushfires. But this cycle of destruction can be stopped

After devastating fires in 1939, authorities began burning forests to reduce fuel load. But we now know this creates conditions for even worse fires.

The Conversation

📖 Tijl Vanneste and Rafael de Azevedo wrote an article about #AliceKinloch, a South African activist and one of the first people to openly criticise the violence perpetrated against black workers in the #Kimberley mining system at the end of the 19th century.

🔓 Her history in #OpenAccess: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002085902400097X

@histodons
@histodon

#Histodons #Mining #SocialHistory #Activism #SouthAfrica #PanAfricanism #Colonialism #BritishColonialism #Minas #HistóriaSocial #ÁfricaDoSul #Colonialismo

Just Kneecap reading mean tweets 👀

YouTube

See our latest blog about the Sierre Leone Railway Strike in 1926. This strike challenged the British colonial system in Sierra Leone. #SierraLeoneRailwayStrike #BritishColonialism

https://zurl.co/B2TT1

Sierra Leone Government Railway Strike, 1926

On 14 January 1926, a strike broke out among all grades of worker on the Sierra Leone Government Railway. The strike united precariously-employed African daily wage labourers with Creole clerks and artisans who were bein...

HistorianSpeaks

#IndigenousAustralian lawmaker confronts British royals: ‘#YouAreNotMyKing'

Story by Hilary Whiteman
October 21, 2024

“Britain’s #KingCharlesIII had just finished giving a speech to #Australia’s Parliament House on Monday when an #Indigenous senator began yelling, 'You are not my king.'

“From the back of the room, Independent Senator #LidiaThorpe shouted at the royal couple, 'Give us our #LandBack, give us what you stole,' as security officers moved to escort her away.

“The interjection came as King Charles and Queen Camilla visited the Australian capital Canberra to meet the nation’s leaders, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

During his speech, King Charles acknowledged Australia’s #FirstNations people, who lived on the land ‘for tens of thousands of years before the arrival of British settlers over 230 years ago.

“‘Throughout my life, Australia’s First Nations people have done me the great honor of sharing so generously their stories and cultures,' King Charles said.

'I “can only say how much my own experience has been shaped and strengthened by such traditional wisdom.'

“Earlier, a traditional Aboriginal welcoming ceremony was held outside Parliament House for the royal couple, but for many of the country’s Indigenous population, they are not welcome.

“The arrival of British settlers to Australia led to the #massacre of #IndigenousPeople at hundreds of locations around the country until as recently as the 1930s. Their [descendants] still suffer from #racism and #SystemicDiscrimination in a country that has failed to reverse centuries of disadvantage.

“Thorpe, a #DjabWurrung #Gunnai #Gunditjmara woman, has long campaigned for a treaty and has previously voiced her fierce objections to the British monarchy.

“Australian’s Indigenous people never ceded #sovereignty and have never engaged in a treaty process with the British Crown. Australia remains a Commonwealth country with the King as its Head of State.

“During her swearing-in ceremony in 2022, Thorpe referred to Australia’s then-Head of State as 'the #colonizing Her Majesty #QueenElizabethII,' and was asked to take the oath again.

“She did so while raising one fist in the air.

“On Monday, protesters stood with an Aboriginal flag as the royal couple visited the Australian War Memorial. A 62-year-old man was arrested for failing to comply with a police direction.

“Before she yelled at the King, Thorpe turned her back during a recital of 'God Save the King,' Australian media reported. Images showed her wearing a possum-fur coat, standing in the opposite direction of other attendees.

#TheGreens party said in a statement that the King’s presence was 'a momentous occasion for some' but also a 'visual reminder of the ongoing #ColonialTrauma and legacies of #BritishColonialism' for many First Nations people.

“In the statement, #Greens Senator Dorinda Cox, a #YamatjiNoongar woman, called for the King to be clear in his recognition and support of ‘First Nations #justice, #TruthTelling and #healing.'

“‘He now needs to be on the right side of history,' she added.

“The Australian Monarchist League demanded Thorpe’s resignation after what it called a 'childish demonstration.’”

Read more:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/australia/lidia-thorpe-confrontation-king-charles-australia-intl-hnk

Archived version:
https://archive.ph/Sv2D6

#TruthAndReconciliation #StolenLand #Genocide #CuturalGenocide #Racism #GreenParty #GreenPartyAustralia #AbolishTheMonarchy #NoKings

Australian lawmaker confronts British royals: ‘You are not my king’

Britain’s King Charles II had just finished giving a speech to Australia’s Parliament House on Monday when an Indigenous senator began yelling, “You are not my king.”

CNN
A Fatherless Nation

BaaghiTV English