This is fairly recent. Between 1970-1999 Canada's exporting of oil to the US has increased. During the 1973 oil embargo, OPEC nations firmly limited their the supply of available oil, so the US panicked and began buying from alternative countries. Canada has a lot of oil, and because of policies like NAFTA, buying oil from Canada was the smart thing to do. This has been exacerbated even more since the creation of the Keystone pipeline in 2010.
It is imperative to understand the historical & political context behind where the US buys their oil. For example, Venezuela is interesting. They made a lot of more money selling oil during the same embargo. However, in 1989 the IMF imposed hard austerity measures and pressured Caracas to support the US oil corporatocracy. Venezuela went through years of violence, their economy crumbled and eventually electing president Hugo Chavez saved their country against US oil companies. Many say the Bush administration has discussed the removal of Hugo Chavez using military and civilian leaders from Venezuela, similar to Kermit Roosevelt's Iranian model when the CIA brought down Mossadegh and replaced him with the shah.
I've been reading a lot of history lately, and this gets fueled by my downloading the Kindle sample for, well, everything, and then agonizing over which book to read for reals.
/r/AskHistorians, help me choose which book to read next! I'm debating: All The Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Root of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer or God's Chinese Son: The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan by Jonathan Spence.
Both are pretty introductory, I know, but I'm just getting into reading non-fiction. I technically have a B.A in East Asian Studies but I focused largely on Mandarin language so my historical knowledge is sorely lacking, but I do remembering thinking the Taiping Rebellion was fascinating. And then I've always been extremely interested in Iran for reasons I can't quite articulate.
Anyone read either? Or know of a better book on the subjects?
>It implicates the USA as having an equal hand in the coup by the CIA's own admission.
I'm not disputing that, but you should understand that the article you posted, despite appearing in the CIA's journal, was not published by the CIA, it appears in the "INTELLIGENCE IN RECENT PUBLIC LITERATURE" section and is essentially a book review of this book.
What I am disputing is the narrative about The U.S. supporting the Coup for the oil. The U.S. was willing to work with Massadegh to hammer out a deal, the British were not.
>The "communist threat" was a red herring, in the words of Secretary of State Dean Acheson the "Communist threat was a smokescreen"
A few paragraphs down in the link you provided to me, it quotes the opinion of another scholar, Mark Mark Gasiorowski, that contradicts your statement about the communist threat being a Red Herring. would you mind explaining to me why you decided to treat Abrahamins interpretation as accurate, and Gasiorowski's as not? I am skeptical of Abrahamin because he is a self-proclaimed Marxist and is thus likely to frame events according to a Marxist narrative (i.e. greed and imperialism are the motivators, not security or containment). Here is the source he cited for the claim that the communist threat was a "smokescreen" http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/content/republished/doc.public/politics/iran/mossadeq/coutercoup/countercoup.pdf on (page 88). I would not interpret Acheson's statement in that way at all. He seems to be saying that he wants further evidence of a communist coup before approving military action, not that the threat has been overplayed or fabricated. The real issue (mentioned further in the source) was communist (Tudeh's) creeping influence on Iran's ruling party. In light of this, the "smokescreen" comment seems deliberately cherry-picked.
hey no worries! I didn't take it as a jab at all, I just saw it as a chance to think about a topic I enjoy a little bit more. :) [Granted, I can talk to a brick wall at times with the best of intentions]
I totally agree with all your statements. I've seen/heard it too (not as much in DC, where I currently live, but it's still there) the best I can say is if you get the chance, try to understand why people act as they do. Honestly you can learn a lot about the Middle East now by looking at the History of the region. Iran has been my area of true interest (although I don't discriminate, I love understanding as much as I can about the region) A good book / audiobook on the topic is called: All The Shah's Men. (link at the end of my comment) it's a great read and helps set the background for WHY the Iranian Revolution of 1979 occurred. If you want more, I'd be more than happy to give you some more recommendations, or whatever!
But thanks for engaging with me. I honestly love the conversation. :)
http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410 (Kindle / Paper version)
http://www.audible.com/pd/History/All-the-Shahs-Men-Audiobook/B002V0JT90/ref=a_search_c4_1_1_srTtl?qid=1424825253&sr=1-1 (Audiobook version)
not quite. he was a genius in his political maneuvering to get the Islamic groups leading the country post Iranian Revolution. I'm not claiming to be a lover of Khomeini in any capacity, but I can admire what he was able to accomplish.
And what "conspiracy theories?" please, inform me of how I am making up "Conspiracy Theories" about the 1953 Coup when the CIA themselves admit to being behind the Coup.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/ - [National Security Archives]
None of what I am saying is really that "crazy" especially when it is backed up by facts.
Here. a book to educate yourself on the 1953 Coup that overthrew Mohammed Mossadeq. I highly recommend this book. http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410
In Iran, how frequently-mentioned is the 1953 CIA coup against Mossadegh? How similar is the way the book All the Shah's men talks about it to the way people in Iran talk about it?
Where can I buy an Iranian high school history textbook?