And They Lived Happily Ever After

From www.washingtonpost.com:

Half a century ago, Iran was very close to a real democracy. It had an elected legislature, called the majlis, and it had a repressive monarch, called the shah, and power veered uncertainly between them. In 1951, over the shah's objections, the majlis voted in a man named Mohammad Mosaddeq as prime minister. His big issue was nationalizing the oil companies.

But in 1952 the United States had an election for president, and the winner (Dwight Eisenhower) got more votes than anyone in Iran. That must explain why in 1953, in the spirit of democracy, the CIA instigated a riot and then staged a coup. Mosaddeq was arrested, the majlis was ultimately dissolved and the shah ran things his way, which involved torture and death for political opponents, caviar and champagne for an international cast of hangers-on, and no more crazy talk about nationalizing the oil companies.

Am I missing something? Maybe I don't grasp this guy's (Washington Post Op-Ed Columnist Michael Kinsley) sense of humor, but I don't think I like it. Even worse (or 'funnier') than the above statement is what Mr. Kinsley leaves us with at the end of his article, which you will find out soon...

Particularly troubling is his assertion that the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq was 'in the spirit of democracy' because US President Eisenhower 'got more votes than anyone in Iran'. This statement is true, of course, because Eisenhower received nearly 34 million votes in 1952 (source) while the population of Iran in 1951 was a mere 16 million people (source).

At least Mr. Kinsley is honest in his description of the coup as 'instigated' and 'staged' by the CIA. Not that the United States' long history of questionable foreign policy implemented by the CIA is news (questionable being a rather polite word- more appropriate may be 'criminal' or 'inhumane' or 'illegal').

But then Mr. Kinsley goes on to mention the US-backed Shah's inclination to "torture and [kill] political opponents". I guess I am just confused about Mr. Kinsley's direction. I find myself wondering where he stands on the issues he mentions and, more importantly, where he stands on similar issues that are materializing around Iran today.

As promised, here is the conclusion of Mr. Kinsley's little essay:

...we [the United States] marched in [to Afghanistan] and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we're -- well, we haven't figured out what, but we're hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.

And they lived happily ever after.

And they lived happily ever after!? Who did? I am still having trouble understanding Mr. Kinsley's sense of humor. Perhaps he would like to enlighten me?