All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
Wiley - Wiley
Release date: 2008-01-02
Paperback
Author: Stephen Kinzer
Asian / Middle Eastern history: postwar, from c 1945 -, Revolutions & coups, c 1945 to c 1960, History, History - General History, History: World, Israel, History / Middle East / Israel, Middle East - Iran, Political History, United States - 20th Century, Middle East - Israel, 1880-1967, 1941-1979, Iran, Mosaddeq, Mohammad,, Politics and government, Relations, United States, Regional History
average reviews
0 vote
0 vote
React and review
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
Date undefinedAll the Shah's Men is considered by many to be the 'standard' book covering the subject of the 1953 coup that ousted Prime Minister Mossedegh and it's easy to see why. The book is very well written and you'd never get the idea from reading the book that there's anything wrong with the author's interpretation of the event. There are however, as man bad parts to this book as there are good parts.
The first problem is that the author reissued the book this year with a new preface titled "the folly of attacking Iran." This new preface is the only change to the book and it's written in such a lazy way that criticisms accusing the author of a money-making grab are totally warranted. The author rattles off a chapter criticizing the Bush administration for what the author thinks policy towards Iran is without really examining what current policy towards Iran actually is. This new preface comes across as the liberal equivalent to Fox news. If it's wrong when Fox offers up this type of 'analysis,' it's wrong when the opposite interpretation adopts the same tactics.
The second glaring deficiency is all of the available sources that the author doesn't use. When you take into account the amount of declassified material from the years covered in the book, it's shocking that the author only has 14 pages of notes from a remarkably small amount of sources. A wealth of declassified government documents exist from this period on both the American and British sides, and the author uses next to none of them.
Another problem is that the book is billed as the story of the 1953 coup, but save the first introductory chapter, you don't even start hearing about the coup itself until around page 150 of a 228 page book. The bulk of this book deals with Iran and its struggle with the British during the late 40s and early 50s. I think the fact that the author doesn't use the wealth of material on the coup itself is the reason for this. The fact that the U.S. is mentioned in the subtitle but the British aren't is ridiculous. Upon finishing the book, the reader will notice that the U.S. has very little to do with what the book actually deals with. Again, perhaps a crass decision to sell more copies since fewer people would buy the book if you replaced "American" with "British."
Reading the last chapter also provides numerous reasons to question the usefulness of this book. Kinzer jumps back and forth with relative ease to several contradictory viewpoints. At times he warns against citing a particular historical event as the reason for another event in the future, but then claims that it's 'not too far-fetched to draw a line from the 1953 coup to the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York." It's ridiculous that this entire book was written by the same person when taking into account the number of contradictory views within.
Although very well-written and no doubt providing a readable account of some parts of the story, All the Shah's Men is more of a popular historical novel than serious academic look at these events. Kinzer takes what he doesn't like about current American politics and projects that onto what happened in 1953. He also ignores a wealth of readily available material on the subject. That in and of itself doesn't mean that this is a bad book. What it does mean however is that it would be a serious mistake to base one's opinions of this event solely on Kinzer's book.
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
Date undefinedOverall, this book is a interesting, short, and readable account of Mossadegh and the CIA sponsored coup that overthrew him in 1953. It flows quickly (sometimes too quickly) and is superb at detailing the debates between British, American, and Iranian officials on how to respond to the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil. The British, not the Americans or Iranians, become the real villains in this story. In fact, Churchill plays an interesting role, one of which most Americans and Brits, who fondly remember their WWII hero, are unaware.
While some have questioned the author's supposedly naive admiration for Mossadegh, I found that Kinzer balances his obvious condemnation for the coup with revelations about Mossadegh's flaws (emotional rather than logical discussions, fainting spells, stubbornness, etc.). Indeed, Kinzer does make a compelling case that the coup was really ordered to protect a corrupt oil company and pathetic Shah, with Americans fooled into seeing a communist threat. I did think the preface to the 2008 book on attacking Iran did not help, since injecting current political debates merely labels Kinzer's historical account. While I agree with Kinzer and think invading Iran would be a disaster for the reasons he says, I could understand how the preface might color the rest of the book by suggesting that anyone who supports a tough line against Iran now should also disagree with the author's assessment of the 1953 coup.
I found it ironic that Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA mastermind behind the coup, says he would accept thanks from Iranians and Americans soon after the coup succeeds. Rather, Americans should learn their history and realize that he may very well be responsible for our current problems with Iran and its nuclear program.
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
Date undefinedOf course, I remember the chronic "60 Minutes" segments where the Shah was interviewed ever so politely about various atrocities and he reponded suavely denying the accusations. Now, the day before the Iranian "Hostage Crisis," I was in the dining facility admiring the Iranian unforms which were so much fancier than my own. I presumed our guests were officers being trained in the fine art of infantry slaughter. In any case, they never spoke to me, perhaps because of the language problem, or perhaps because they were better than a white NCO. The day of the seizure, our friends were still enjoying fine dining with us, but, the next day, they were gone. No explanations were offered. Nobody told me nothing. Now, well before 1953, our secret government was planning to whack Iran so that Churchill and his ilk could rob the nation by stealing its oil. And so it would have gone, if Truman had not been president. Eisenhower, was another story entirely, and he was easily convinced to go along. This book records a series of evil machinations which benefitted no one in Iran and only the rich elsewhere. Read it for yourself. You will not find a word of it in the No Child Left Behind textbooks.
