Rating: 
Summary: Drawing conclutions from the history ...
Review: There is nothing to argue about the verasity of the events listed in book since the book is entrly based on CIA report on operation Ajax with the actual excerpts from the report.
But how about the conclusions?
"It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shas's represive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the Word Trade Center in New York." Says Kinzer.
Can we draw the same conclusion with French in Vietnam? Can it be that, if French had not killed every moderate Vietnamese nationalist to hold on to power, Vietnam would have been a democratic country today as India.
According to Newton's third law, for every action force there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. So harder we push more radical reaction we receive in return.
If so why England did not push harder in India? They certainly could have killed Gandhi and hold onto power a little longer. May be because of economic return did not justify that kind of push. But in case of Iran, it did, that is why Iran ended up this kind of a radical government. Now Iranians are trying to move toward more moderate system.
Can it be that Arabs are going to go trough the same kind of pattern as Iranians went trough? First backward then forward revolutions?
Mr. Kinzer draws a lot of conclusions. A lot to learn and think about. What if he is right? Can we effort not to know?
"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know-Hanry Truman"
Rating:
Summary: Must read for understanding the history of US-Iran relations
Review: Indeed a facinating as well as eyeopening account of events that took place half a century ago but it might as well be today. Just replace the facade of intereferenig to prevent spread of "Communism" then with "Terrorism" and you have the same scenario played out in Afghanistan and Iraq today -- Aggressive US involvement in other nations' affairs for commercial and strategical gains.
Rating:
Summary: Informative book on Iranian history
Review: I would recommend this book to anyone who is either interested in the contemporary history of Iran, or wants to find out why the Iranian revolution took place / the reasons behind the hostage taking of the US embassy. I bought this book for my uncle who was a young man when Mossadegh was Prime Minister. My uncle told me that the book covered many of the things that he had observed at the time which reassured me of the book's accuracy.
Rating: 
Summary: Same old Song
Review: This book is another meant to bash the former monarchy and nothing more. History-wise it is on the lame side on many issues to long to go into. If you want THE REAL STORY on the 1953 coup read former Queen Soraya's book PALACE OF SOLITUDES. She tells it like it really was.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking, and scarily relevant to current events
Review: Turmoil in the Middle East? Check. US- and British-led regime change? Check. Unexpected consequences? Check. Stephen Kinzer is writing about the 1953 IRANIAN coup - but it might as well be today. As Kinzer says, you can draw a straight line from that intervention to today's upheaval and anti-American sentiment. Where will we be in another 50 years?
Rating: 
Summary: The Best thriller I have ever read!
Review: In the face of all those who deride Islamic Democracy in Iran, Mr. Kinzer (he's a hero amongst us Muslims in Iran) has done a superb job to portray the crimes of the Shah who killed 7 million Iranians in just three months. The kind people of Iran want Islam, love Islam, adore Islam and will forerver bury the sick secular policies of the Shah and the his American Cowboys. My hat's off to Stephen Kinzer to rightfully gloryfying the grand revolution of the grandest Muslim nation on the face of this earth.
Rating: 
Summary: History as hagiography
Review: This book is very strong if you want a coherent and readable account of what happened. Another bonus is you can read it in a day. But I must admit that I found the author's tone vis-a-vis Mossadegh himself quite annoying. The portrait borders on worship. Mossadegh becomes an almost religious figure. Kinzer also makes the ridiculous if predictable claim that a straight line can be drawn from the 1953 coup to 9/11, explicitly contradicting his own caveats about how history should not be reduced to a linear series of cause and effect, etc. In sum, the guy's a bleeding heart, but that doesn't necessarily detract from his ability to report the story. Except that it would be nice to have a more realistic portrayal of Mossadegh himself, rather than this idealized angelic version.
Rating: 
Summary: Not quite all together.
Review: The book is a documentary of the people and events surrounding 1900-1950s British and US involvement in Iran. Clearly the British, the Shah, and Mossadegh were all being naive about the oil dispute. The British entirely too arrogant, Mossadegh too unrealistic with poor timing, and the Shah not strong enough with the foreign influence. I have a number of problems with this book. The author is quite dismissive about the role Soviet influence could have played and the legitimate concerns of the Communist influence in Iran. He does discuss it but from the outset doesn't seem to respect it. It most certainly was a concern and as the non-US/British backed governments struggled it was entirely possible and likely that a Stalin/Kruschev sponsored coup and ruler fall into place. The author keeps referring to Mossadegh as democratically elected. In reality there was no such thing in Iran. With people being dismissed, arrested, ballot boxes divided to yes and no, massive fraud, etc. you can't really put any more legitamacy to his rule than the Shah's or othe Prime Ministers before and after. They whole lot of them were messed up. The authoer doesn't acknowledge the number of people who were really sick of Mossadegh's unrealistic approach. Unhappiness wasn't all CIA inspired. The books title and description want to link these events to the development of the terrorist networks and culture. He does indeed spend a few paragraphs wandering over that at the end of the book but nothing hugely more substaintial than fundamelist leaders starting in '79 and funding. Big whoop. It could be argued that Jimmy Carter's lack of involvement and backbone played a big role in that too. Clearly Mohammed Reza Shah wasn't some grand man with his head perfectly screwed on. He wasn't very confident, played too hard with his military and police, and was naive when it came to managing country resources (the oil boom wasn't going to last forever but he seemed to think it was). The question is, relative to his predecessors and those who followed, what state was the country in? There were better schools, better business, more opportunities for Iranians of all religious backgrounds. Sure there was poverty but relative to the surrounding eras, it was getting better. Lets say Mossadegh was really a great idealist but that's all he was. His realism and ability to deal with real-world influences and issues were sorely lacking. Oh yeah, and the author seems to switch the impression of Mossadegh as a clever manipulator with good forsight to a naive and take-your-work-for-it person when it comes to the eventual overthrow at the hands of Kermit Roosevelt and friends. The book isn't well developed enough in the end (more on the ties to terrorism, how Israel's creation played into it as well)... and it didn't cover much of the pro-Shah Iranian's opinions of the situation. Now, can we all just get along? ;-)
Rating:
Summary: An Eye-Opener
Review: All the Shah's Men - an engrossing page-turner - learn how the hidden history of the CIA comes back to haunt us. At the urging of the British, the U.S. overthrows a democratic regime in Iran, and things are never quite the same. An A+ for timeliness, as the Shah's son is being touted as a new U.S. puppet, ready and willing to start a new cycle of woe.
Rating:
Summary: Kinzer tells us all we need to know about mucking in Iraq
Review: Kinzer not only tells the story of the 1953 coup against Mossadegh itself, but gives a very good historical review of the events in Iran leading up to the coup, and gives us all pause for thought as to how we should ... and should _not_ ... go mucking with other countries and trying to set them up in _our_ interests. The short term benefits to U.S. and British "national interests" (read: "oil companies") in installing the Shah as the ruler in Iran may have been beneficial (although it's not clear that Mossadegh would have been a whole lot worse), but the long term outcome was pretty much a foregone conclusion: The revolution, and a generation or two with deep distrust if not outright hatred for the Western powers. And we're reaping the whirlwind right now for it. Must reading. I'd say start at the White House. Rewrite it in small words with lots of pictures, and force Bush to put down the "Very Hungry Caterpillar" and take on something substantial for once in his life.
| 
