Latest news with #MohammadMosaddegh
Business Recorder
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Know thy enemy
In the recent Iran-Israel conflict the Islamic Republic of Iran was able to withstand the combined onslaughts by the two bullies. Israel was the un-disputed bully of the Middle East while the USA holds international ranking in this field. There were major security breaches, but the people were able to defend themselves. The government could not be toppled as there was no enemy within. Iran's Missile Technology and the resilience of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards prevailed against all odds. Unfortunately, in most Islamic countries there are both internal and external enemies which must be balanced out for common good. There are vested interests that strike from within to weaken the nation. Iran as a country has suffered heavily on this count. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister (PM) of the Iranian Republic in 1951. When he decided to nationalize the British owned Anglo Persian Oil Company together with the Abadan Refinery the West came after him. The then PM of Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan was asked to intervene but on his refusal, he was assassinated followed by the removal of the Iranian PM. There was a military coup in 1953, Mosaddegh was captured and imprisoned. Reza Shah Pahalvi was installed as the Shah of Iran who ruled with an iron hand as an agent of the Western powers. Finally, Shah was toppled in an Islamic Revolution led by Imam Ruhullah Khomeni in the year 1979 thus ending royal dominance of Kings and Monarchs for all times to come. After Israel today Iran is the only democratic country in the Middle East (ME). Elections are regularly held for the Majlis and the President, but candidates must be cleared by a council of elders to stop undesirables from entering the corridors of power. In 1953, the enemy within succeeded in regime change but in 2025 it failed despite the massive external support. When the US decided to enter WW II (World War II) the balance tilted in favour of the allied forces. General Dwight D. Eisenhower played a key role in the war. Finally, after the fall of Berlin, the hostilities came to an end and the victorious forces went home to a hero's welcome. The heat of popularity of the men in uniform was felt by the civilian quarters. Very thoughtfully it was decided to include the Generals in the mainstream of politics. In the year 1953 Eishenhower was elected the 34th President. He completed his two terms in office and went home in 1961. As head of state, he strengthened the democratic process and was very sensitive to the emerging power of the Military-Industrial Complex. His exploits in the battlefield and in the corridors of civilian authority are revered till today, he remained loyal to both. As a General he led the men in uniform, as President he served the people to the best of his abilities. Richard Nixon served under him as Vice President. In his second term of office as President when Nixon was facing impeachment by the Congress, the Chief of Staff of the White House General Alexander Haig advised the President to declare emergency as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and send the Congressmen home. Instead, Nixon decided to resign and go home to save the democratic order. General Mustafa Kemal, a graduate of Ottoman Military College, led the Ottoman forces to victory against the Allied Forces in the battle of Gallipoli in 1916. At the peak of his popularity after the victorious campaign he was given the title of Ataturk (Father of the Turks). He then founded the Turkish Republic and remained President till his death in the year 1938. In his constitution he gave the Armed Forces an upper hand to take control of the country at will. The Ottoman Empire was dismembered. Turkey remained a 'sick man of Europe' under the hybrid system introduced by the General. Finally, there was resurgence of civilian authority led by Recep Tayyib Erdogan. His Justice and Development Party first took control of Istanbul in 1994. There was no looking back. He turned around the historic city of Istanbul. Based on his performance he was elected Prime Minister (PM) and then President. To restore civilian authority, he introduced constitutional amendments to end the role of the Armed Forces in running the country. Those who resisted were dealt with. In July 2016 a military coup was attempted to topple the civilian government but the brave people of Turkey took to the streets to block the takeover. As President, Erdogan decided to change the name of the Republic from Turkey to Turkiye. Today the country is a constitutional democracy under civilian control where religion and modernization have been balanced. Since 1994 till today the country has been turned around and continues to prosper. In US it is widely believed that there must be an enemy for direction and build-up. In the decade of the fifties the Soviet Union was declared an 'Evil Empire'. The focus of the nation was to bring it down. Finally, after the collapse of the mighty Socialist Empire (1922 to 1991) the target moved towards Islamic Fundamentalism. It was called the clash of civilizations. The entire Islamic World has suffered because of this phobia. Israeli Armed Forces are built around territorial integrity/expansion. Generals after retirement follow the democratic order to serve in civilian capacity. The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks resurgence of Islam. It is perhaps the only Islamic country that believes that Israel has no right to exist while others have reconciled to the idea of two states (Israel, Palestine). Iran prepared itself to take on the enemy. As ground war not possible they used technology to face their foe. Their missiles were able to penetrate the Israeli defences. Israel and then USA were able to bomb Iran by flying over neighbourly countries. I am sure some lessons have been learnt to develop better air cover and not to trust Indians. Pakistan decided to build the nuclear device after the break-up of the country in the year 1971. Technology is a key component of our defences. Originally, the plan was to reduce the size of the troops and rely more on the technological strength. Unfortunately, it has not happened. Nation's resources have been consumed by both. It is time to reevaluate priorities. Traditional defence paradigms have now become obsolete. Enemy must be targeted and dealt with. For Iran, Israel is the enemy. It is prepared to take it on. Despite all its under-hand tricks and external support Israel had to bite the dust in the recent war. The regime in Tehran has not only survived it has come out stronger. For Israel it's beginning of the end starting with creation of a Palestinian state. The message is loud and clear, know thy enemy both internal and external to thwart its evil designs. Force must have clear direction to be beneficial in meeting national objectives otherwise it can become a menace. (The writer is Ex-Chairman Pakistan Science Foundation; email: [email protected]) Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Daily News Egypt
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily News Egypt
The B-2 Gamble: How Israel is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics
The Middle East has long been a region where contradictions fuel conflict. It is a place where terrorism morphs into political authority with both regional and international consent. It is a battlefield for nuclear brinkmanship, where occupying powers and others pursue dangerous ambitions for weapons they may never dare to use. It holds nearly 40% of the world's energy reserves, while wealthy nations depend on superpower protection to ensure their survival. This volatile mix provides endless justification for intervention, for redrawing borders, and for reinventing regional power structures under shifting global agendas. The latest chapter of this evolving story began on October 7, 2023, and has intensified with the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran. At the centre of this accelerating transformation stands a blunt truth: Israel is being prepared not merely as a stakeholder, but as the region's official security enforcer and power broker. What distinguishes this moment is not that the United States is grooming a proxy to police the region — Washington did so in the 1950s with the Shah of Iran after the ousting of nationalist leader Mohammad Mosaddegh. The difference now is that this is not a US design imposed on Israel — it is Israel's own blueprint, carried out with Washington's endorsement. The evidence is no longer subtle. Just weeks ago, Admiral James Kilby, acting US Chief of Naval Operations, told Congress that America's military operations in the Arabian Sea were rapidly depleting its arsenal at an unsustainable rate. Over a billion dollars' worth of missiles had been launched against Houthi rebels, with three Super Hornet jets lost in three months — one due to friendly fire. Kilby's message was calculated and unambiguous: while US interests in the Gulf and Middle East remain vital, the costs have become prohibitive. Perhaps it is time for a regional actor to shoulder that burden. That actor is, unmistakably, Israel. US lawmakers are already moving in that direction. Following recent American strikes on Iranian assets, Congress proposed new legislation granting President Donald Trump authority to transfer advanced strategic weaponry to Tel Aviv — including the formidable B-2 stealth bomber and GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, capable of destroying targets buried sixty metres underground. This is not routine arms support. It is about enabling Israel with autonomous deterrent capabilities, easing Washington's political load regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. The so-called 'Bunker Buster Act,' backed by Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Republican Mike Lawler, seeks to give the president sweeping powers to ensure Israel's readiness for any scenario should Iran advance its nuclear programme. If enacted, it would transform the Middle East's military landscape. For Israel, the implications would be historic. Acquiring B-2 strategic bombers would allow Tel Aviv to enforce its long-held doctrine of 'open skies' — ensuring uncontested air dominance from Lebanon to Iran via Syria and Iraq. This would not only disrupt supply lines to Hezbollah and Hamas but would also grant Israel a definitive military veto over any regional force aspiring to strategic parity. Trump and Netanyahu are perfectly aligned in this vision. Their recent summit — the third in just six months — marked a turning point in US-Israeli relations. Trump saw in Israel's role during the strikes on Iranian assets confirmation of Tel Aviv's enduring strategic value. Notably, no global power — not even China or Russia — condemned the attacks. This silence was telling, reinforcing deterrence and giving Trump a window to advance a Middle East order grounded in preemption and militarised regional policing. At the core of the Trump-Netanyahu dialogue was a pragmatic and unapologetic vision for the region: to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through a binding deal that curbs its regional influence; to stabilise Syria under pro-Western — or at least anti-Iranian — leadership; to integrate defence systems and economic corridors under an expanded Abraham Accords framework; to marginalise Chinese influence through deeper military ties with Gulf states; and to preserve Israel's absolute military and technological edge. For Israel, the immediate challenge is not competing with Gulf states for investments or high-level visits. Its real dilemma lies in defining its role within this emerging order while avoiding premature confrontations. Historically, Israel has operated as Washington's indispensable regional asset, equipped with one of the world's most advanced military machines, backed by extensive Western intelligence networks. In contrast, even the wealthiest Gulf states — led by Saudi Arabia — remain militarily vulnerable, a condition unlikely to change despite multi-billion-dollar arms purchases. Within this emerging structure, Israel is positioned to become the frontline executor of US interests — at least until tensions ease and Iran's nuclear file is closed. To solidify this role, Israel must progress along three tracks: maintaining its independent military superiority, now bolstered by the proposed B-2 transfer; pursuing pragmatic relations with regional powers like Turkey to prevent destabilising flare-ups; and embedding itself within new regional economic frameworks by leveraging its unmatched technological base. Yet none of this is inevitable. History consistently reminds us that no geopolitical vision, however heavily armed, is immune to resistance. The region's future will hinge on whether its nations possess the resolve, strategic cohesion, and unity to challenge this vision — before Israel secures uncontested authority over the Middle East's airspace, politics, and resources. The clock, however, is ticking. Dr. Hatem Sadek, Professor at Helwan University
Asharq Al-Awsat
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
The Supreme Leader and the Emperor
There is an immense moral and political gap between Israel's blatant unhinged incitement on the life of the symbolic figurehead of the Islamic Republic of Iran (which the Americans eventually sympathized with after their initial opposition) and calm reflection on Iran's fate after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Although the ongoing Israeli-Iranian conflict has put this question under the limelight, this conversation predates the conflict- even in the corridors of power in Iran, in think tanks inside and outside Iran, and among ordinary citizens who are mindful of their leader's advanced age. There are real question marks around political continuity. Those who know Iran understand that it is a nation (regardless of political affiliation) that is highly sensitive about the independence of the state, the security of society, and the integrity of the country's resources and institutions, particularly in the face of foreign meddling. It is no coincidence that Iranians continue to speak of the coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh's government, which has become a collective wound foundational for the national consciousness. The issue has never been about a single person, but rather an untouchable principle. Within this framework, reflecting on Iran's post-Khamenei future becomes a conversation not about safeguarding the state, not dismantling it; renewing the social contract, not tearing it up. The key question emerges here: Can the Supreme Leader pave a path toward change? Can he lead Iran to reinvent itself through the framework of the current regime, rather than over its ruins? What if Khamenei chose to follow Japanese Emperor Hirohito's example? After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the emperor redefined himself and his country. He remained on the throne, not as a sacred leader of war but as a constitutional symbol of a nation that had chosen peace and democracy. He lost the war, but he saved the future. Iran faces the same 'challenge-opportunity.' Of course, this comparison risks oversimplification. History doesn't repeat itself verbatim, and the two men are hardly identical. Hirohito was a symbolic figure who denied any real power; supported by an ancient imperial institution, he was surrounded by occupying forces who rebuilt the state. The Supreme Leader, on the other hand, has the final say in Iran, and he is the embodiment of its ideology. His state's foundations are being fiercely attacked, and there is no clear roadmap for a post-revolutionary era. Nonetheless, Khamenei possesses something no one else does: the legitimacy of endurance, if not a popular mandate. It is largely to the credit of his strikingly pragmatic flexibility that the regime has survived. He compromised with reformists when necessary, negotiated with the US when that was the only way to avoid isolation, and repeatedly changed his tune at critical junctures. Each of these steps was necessary for survival. His agility could help him once again. He must present flexibility not as a betrayal of the revolution, but as a means for safeguarding it. In 1988, Imam Khomeini likened his decision to end the Iran–Iraq war to 'drinking the cup of poison.' It wasn't a victory for his doctrine, but a strategic bow by Iran's founding father that allowed the country and the revolution to survive. The poison may have changed, but the goal remains the same: to save Iran. Moreover, it is hard to think of anyone other than Khamenei who has the symbolic and institutional capital needed to manage this difficult transition without risking descent into chaos. It is almost as though only Khamenei can frame the steps needed as a sacrifice, not a defeat; as wisdom, not retreat. There are subtle signals coming from within the regime itself. Its political fatigue is evident. The largely silent technocrats and reformists now see the failure of perpetual confrontation as a strategic investment. Decades of quiet change have given rise to a new class within the regime. This class thinks in terms of state survival, not exporting the revolution. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, once the very symbol of hardline ideology, now focuses on economic dignity and national sovereignty: 'Iran First.' Ideology hasn't disappeared, but it has fragmented, planting the seeds of a potential shift. Even the severity of foreign pressure, especially since the US entered the war, offers Khamenei a dignified exit. He could claim that God has entrusted him with saving Iran from a 'world war,' not just a conflict against Israel, but against a silent and expanding international coalition. He could frame Iran's resilience as the ultimate victory: the Islamic Republic endured until the world's major powers were forced to unite against it. From an abstract theoretical standpoint, the comparison with Emperor Hirohito is highly flawed. From a political perspective, it opens a realistic- albeit narrow- window of opportunity. A window that some may believe is not likely to be used, but it is possible. In our region, it is precisely within that margin (between the unlikely and the not impossible) that we find historical shifts, provided the presence of exceptional leaders.
CBC
24-06-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Here's what happened the last time the U.S. forced regime change on Iran
Social Sharing Hours before Iran struck an American military base in Qatar on Monday in retaliation for the bombing of three of its nuclear facilities, U.S. President Donald Trump said what some experts feared could lead to history repeating itself. In a post on his social medial platform Truth Social on Sunday afternoon, Trump wrote, "Why wouldn't there be a regime change???" For Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi, a professor of Near and Middle Eastern civilizations at the University of Toronto, the answer is existential. If the U.S. were to overthrow Iran's government — again — Tavakoli-Targhi said, "it's going to create a bigger chaos in the Middle East than one could ever imagine." That scenario is now less likely following Trump's assertion in a post on Monday evening that Iran and Israel — which began bombing Iran's nuclear and military sites on June 13 — have reached a ceasefire agreement. But it wouldn't be the first time the U.S. became involved in a conflict in Iran. WATCH | Regime change in Iran 'not a serious policy option' for U.S., analyst says: Iranian regime change 'not a serious policy option' for U.S.: analyst 17 hours ago Duration 0:55 What happened in 1953? In 1953, a coup orchestrated by the CIA forced Iran's first democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, to spend the rest of his life under house arrest. It also led, according to experts who spoke with CBC News, to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the repressive government that rules the country today. But replacing that government through outside forces would plunge the region into more turmoil, they say. "I just don't understand the game plan," said Lucan Way, a professor of democracy at the University of Toronto. "My gut is that this would make a regime that is quite unpopular more popular." Documents declassified by the CIA in 2013 revealed the U.S. intelligence organization overthrew Mosaddegh, Iran's prime minister, in August 1953 by staging riots that were sympathetic to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. Mosaddegh was arrested, then tried and convicted of treason in the shah's military court. Pahlavi restored power to his monarchy, which was sympathetic to Western interests, namely British control of Iran's oil reserves. Mosaddegh was elected on a promise to nationalize Iranian oil. At the time, the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP) shared only a small amount of its profits with the country, to growing discontent. 1950s Red Scare While the U.S. was initially supportive of Mosaddegh's aspirations and his liberal government, it began to fear he could be pressured into communism by the Soviet Union, with which it competed for power in the global world order. Initiatives whose goals were to give back to the people, especially in formerly colonized states, were easily seen by Western countries as steps toward communism and therefore a threat to their interests, said Wilson Chacko Jacob, a history professor at Concordia University in Montreal. "The United States is seeing its post-World War II efforts to kind of shore up allies in defence of what they would dub 'freedom,' the freedom of capital to move around the world," he said. "And of course, most of that capital rested with the United States by the end of the Second World War." The 1950s were also a time when decolonization "is not a complete given," Jacob said. Old colonial powers, like Great Britain, were trying to hold on to power over foreign countries. "This [was] mainly a defence of global capitalism." Today, Israel is seen by many as maintaining U.S. interests in the region. Others, though, see President Benjamin Netanyahu as causing more turmoil because of his own expansionist actions, such as allowing settlements to grow in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and, now, attempting to take control of Gaza. "At the heart of the conflict [between Israel and Iran] is the Iranian states' ideological and political commitment to the creation of the Palestinian state. Otherwise, Iran is far away from Israel [and] has no reason to be concerned by Israel," Tavakoli-Targhi said. Fears of nuclear development While the threat in the 1950s, in the eyes of the U.S. and the United Kingdom, may have been communism and the Soviet Union, Tavakoli-Targhi said the perceived threat has evolved to "Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism and nuclear weapons." Israel sees Iran's nuclear program as an existential threat, but both he and the University of Toronto's Way note that Israel has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 1970, but Iran did. While it "makes sense" that Israel would want to go after Iranian nuclear capabilities, Way said Russia's invasion of Ukraine has created growing sympathy for states that do not have nuclear weapons. "Unless you're a large country with a large army that can defend its border, nukes are a much cheaper option as a kind of insurance policy against foreign invasion," he said. After Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, took back control of Iran's parliament in 1953, he struggled to gain legitimacy within his borders, and a religious movement championed by Ruhollah Khomeini began to win acceptance — eventually leading to the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. "Part of what brought the current regime to power was this sort of anti-Americanism, which was very much grounded in 1953," Way said. WATCH | Iran needs to be held accountable for 'countless crimes,' activist says: Iranian regime needs to be held accountable for 'countless crimes': Iranian Canadian activist 2 days ago Duration 13:37 Hamed Esmaeilion, former president of the Association of Families of Flight PS752 and a Canadian Iranian human rights activist, shares his thoughts on the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. Esmaeilion lost his wife and daughter when Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 with two surface-to-air missiles, killing all 176 passengers, in 2020.
Irish Independent
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
The Irish Independent's View: Cessation of US-Iran hostilities will need diplomatic steps
All that changed after World War II, when the US emerged as the dominant superpower in global affairs. The Cold War saw US interest in Iran turn from cordial to hostile. The CIA-backed overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 was carried out under the cloud of communist fears. In reality, it was about the control of oil supplies for the Western powers. The autocratic rule of the US and British-backed Shah disrupted the structures in the country, heightening social, religious and tribal tensions. The seeds of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 were sown in the 1953 coup. The subsequent Iran hostage crisis, when 66 American diplomats and civil staff were taken hostage at the US embassy in Tehran, ended diplomatic relations between the two countries, which have never been restored since. The only high point was a thaw during Barack Obama's time in office The US and Iran have engaged in proxy wars ever since in the Middle East and beyond, from the arming of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, to the funding of terrorism. The only high point was a thaw during Barack Obama's time in office, resulting in a nuclear agreement in 2015, but this was short-lived. Now nuclear armament is the premise for the latest outbreak of hostilities, with the US joining Israel in targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. US bombers targeted three sites in an effort to curtail Tehran's nuclear programme. But Donald Trump has echoed the sentiments of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in raising the possibility of a regime change in Iran. The US and Israel have speculated about assassinating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has now gone into hiding as his foes boast they know how to get at him. But the killing of Iran's leader could further destabilise the Middle East. Iran has now followed through on threats to strike back against the US and Israel, targeting military bases in Qatar. Shipping in the region, key for the flow of oil to the rest of the world, is a potential further target. Iran's military capabilities, however, have been severely limited by Israeli airstrikes on long-range ballistic missile launchers. Iran still has a formidable arsenal of shorter-range missiles and drones. But the capacity of its proxies, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, has been dramatically reduced over the past 18 months. The US has also taken precautions over the past few weeks, dispersing its naval presence in the region and beefing up air defences, to try to ensure it presents as hard a target as possible. Diplomatic efforts have so far been fruitless as the conflict between Israel and Iran has escalated with the direct intervention of the US.
