 August 19th marks 70 years since the U.S. backed coup against the then Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Masaddik. But this is not just any anniversary and the coup has relevance to this day. How is that? In a dramatic development, the Pewtai Party and the party of former Prime Minister Prayudh Chanuja have reached an agreement which might pave the way for a new government. The loser in this scenario is the move forward party, which was the single largest force in the recent elections. What exactly is happening in Thailand? These are our stories for the day. This is daily debrief. And before you watch any further, don't forget to hit that subscribe button on YouTube. On August 19th, 1953, the popular nationalist Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Masaddik, was overthrown in a CIA-supported coup. This was one of the first post-World War II coups that showed the spread of U.S. tentacles and decided to establish its hegemony in West Asia. The U.S. managed to get the Shah of Iran restored, but he himself was overthrown 26 years later. The implications of this coup continue to this day, and the wars and conflicts and tensions in West Asia are a sign of this. Curiously, days before this anniversary, Iran's foreign minister was in Saudi Arabia, which is a key prong of U.S. strategy in the region. How does it relate to today's realities? We go to News Clicks, Praveer Prakash. Praveer, thank you so much for joining us now. Some might even call it a bit quaint that we are discussing about a coup that took place in 1953. So much has happened since then in Iran, in the U.S. and the rest of the world. But I think it's very important to register that in some ways that marked the beginning of a trend as far as U.S. was concerned, but also had impact in that region which continues to this day. So could you maybe take us through why talking about this anniversary of this 1953 coup is so significant? That's an interesting issue because it started, I think, two things which are very important. One is that it started making it very clear that oil is the crux of the West Asia issues. That means oil was going to increasingly play a much more important geopolitical role than it had done before that. So in that sense, Iran, who was really about oil because Mosaddegh, who was the prime minister at the time, he had nationalized, he had threatened to nationalize, he had nationalized, he just wanted to check the Anglo-Iranian oil companies records. So the second part of it is the entry into West Asia, at that time, don't forget it is to be called Middle East, that of actually the United States, who at that point of time Mosaddegh thought would be sympathetic to Iran because they were not a part of the colonial powers and he thought that he could appeal to the United States for support against what the British were trying to do. But what he didn't know, that already the die had been cast and the US had decided to support the coup and actually get rid of Mosaddegh. So this was the rising nationalism in West Asia, coming with in conflict with the desire of the Western powers to control the resources of West Asia, primarily of oil. And this is what already the United States had negotiated with Saudi Arabia, if you remember, after the Second World War, this is what the United States had already done. So what was going to be for next 50, 60, 70 years, the politics of West Asia was set at this point in, I would not say set in stone, but was set, course was set at this point. But both the United States becoming essentially the leader of the West, taking over from Great Britain, France, other European countries, primarily from Great Britain, and of course the oil becoming the crux of the politics in the region. And I think that is why this is important. And that's why when Shah Viran, I think 19 or 20 years old, was brought into power by essentially the US, British joining in. And the whole we know now from the CIA records, which are in public domain, most of it is in public domain now, that the role the CIA and the British intelligence agencies had played in bringing the Shah Viran into power. And that that was what led finally the surge against the Shah Viran and his getting his being thrown out. And of course, the clerical regime coming into power in Iran also is important at that time, the clerical the clerical forces were not against the United States. They were, in fact, sympathetic to the West, because they're very much anti Mosaddegh. So in that sense, they were not a player at that point of time, but getting rid of Mosaddegh, the left the only political force, because you know the Tude party was again smashed all the things that the U.S. and the United Kingdom did at that point of time, but the only political forces that were left, finally, were the one which were in the mosques, the basically the clergy, that they were left as opposing Shah Viran. And sure enough, that's what led finally to what will be seen as the Shah of Iran being thrown out, where his unpopularity became very high by the clerical forces, and we then got what we have today. That's an interesting starting point of history, which, of course, turns out to be very bloody. Like you said, there was the clerics taking over in Iran, followed by that very brutal war between Iran and Iraq, of course, in which the U.S. fully backed Saddam Hussein, who was their ally at that time. And you know, I think ever since that moment, ever for decades now, relations have been pretty bad. There was a brief interim period during the Obama years, and now under Trump, it went back again. But interesting to note that around the time of the same anniversary, the Iranian Foreign Minister was actually visiting Saudi Arabia. You mentioned Saudi Arabia, which was a key pole in the U.S. strategy of retaining control over oil and containing Iran was maybe another key pole for many, many years. But now we see that these two countries are, you know, although it's not perfect, establishing some kind of relationship. So is that order also under threat that 70 year old order almost? You know, that's a very interesting point to which I think Jass Freeman, one of the doils of U.S. foreign policy makes recently, that finally, the region is moving from Middle East to West Asia. And this is symbolic because what they are seeing is not how the West looks at them, because that's how it is Middle East. If you look from European Union or you look from the United States, it is somewhere towards the East. But if you're looking for where you actually belong, then you're a part of Asia and a part of West Asia. So here it was that the Saudis were at the point of time, the linchpin of the American policies, as we know, in West Asia. But Iran was also with Shah of Iran, completely aligning with the United States. Shah of Iran was also a big player. Now, this whole issue then becomes that who controls West Asia's oil. And the Carter policy was very frank about it, that essentially our strategic interests are in West Asia. And therefore, anybody who interferes with our control of West Asia's oil, they're interfering in our strategic resources. So what is the famous cartoon we used to see when we were kids? That our oil is under their sand. So that used to be the American cartoon that we used to see about progressive forces, I guess, and put out over there. So this whole issue about oil became much more important after 71. As we know, the US went off the gold standard and therefore who sets the price of oil and if it is set in dollars or other currencies become an important issue. And there you see now the Saudis slowly breaking away from setting up, doing all their business in dollars and starting to buy what shall we say, choose a basket of currencies depending on which country they're trading with for selling their oil. So this is also, and as you rightly said, the Saudis have had also the other issue that they are more bent upon now what we call Saudi national interests rather being just a religious identity based political entity and siding with the United States. So there is that relative autonomy that they want to have vis-à-vis the United States and the West. And in this, Iran normalizing relationships, Iran is very important for them. Otherwise, they between the two, if there is such a conflict that was always threatening to spill over into arms armed conflict, then of course, it helps Israel, it helps the West. So this was something which they needed to do in order to be able to carve out a path for West Asia, which is different from what would be dictated by outside forces. So I think this realization that they have to create space for themselves and not depend on somebody else to give them what direction they should work at. I think very important. You also talked about Iran-Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was at that point of time essentially aligned to the United States. He, both the United Kingdom and the United States, gave him the poison gas, which was used to chemical weapons and poison gas, which are used widely against Iranian troops. So at that point of time, they didn't talk about how it was evil, how it was bad and so on. It only this kind of narrative only rises when they talk about Syria. Again, essentially cooking up the story, most likelihood. So this whole region, the direction it took from the 50s onwards, particularly the monarchies siding with the US and the European powers, they are slowly breaking off into trying to work out for themselves. What should their equation be with the world, whether it is Iran, of course, which was a clerical force, but it's a sheer force as well. And this is what we know, as well as when you talk about Saudi Arabia, you talked about that, but also United Arab Emirates, also Qatar. They all seem to be working out an independent path for themselves. They are not progressive forces in any sense. So not that they are making revolutionary changes either in the region or in their countries, but they just don't want to be now hanging on to the court till the United States and other imperialist powers. And I think that is something which is changing this region in a way that we haven't anticipated. We didn't think two years back that this would happen. So these are some of the fallouts, unexpected fallouts in the way things are shaping up in the world. And part of it is the weakness of the European Union. It's no longer a major economic or political force. United Kingdom is a has power, which is days are gone. The glory days are long over. It's just that they haven't reconciled themselves to it. And the United States is no longer as dominant as it was, for instance, after the Second World War or even more after 1990. So I think a realignment is happening. And the Asia and Africa are is really where the action is. And here there are separate regions which are trying to work out their own way. Southeast Asia is one. They wanted to be a training block with the United States, with China and Japan. The US pulled out of it the famous TPP Trans-Pacific Agreement, which they wanted. At the end of it, it was our set. So now, of course, Southeast Asia does see an Asian integration of the economy and their growth is linked to that. So you see in different parts of Asia forces coming out, which want to work out for themselves what the direction should be. And also Africa, Africa finally is getting out of France, France's colonial grip over parts of the particularly Francophone Africa. Large parts of Africa is also in play today. So Africa and Asia, and don't forget, this was Nehru Sokarno imagination, including Nkrumah, that this should be the Afro-Asian unity. And this, I will not say there's an Afro-Asian unity, but it's definitely true that Africa and Asia would like to work out for themselves what their future should be. And therefore they are acting as a different set of poles in the world order today. And the weakening of the European Union and the United States in in the way they dominated the globe after 1950 and after the fall of Soviet 1990, that period seems to be now coming to a close. Right. Thank you, Praveer. It's interesting how we started the coup in 1953, but in some ways, its implications, the waves from that coup and, say, countercurrents continue to prevail in many parts of the world, especially in that region today. Thank you so much for talking to us. We next go to Thailand, which has been facing a political crisis since the elections in a few months ago. The latest reports say that the Pew Thai Party associated with the Shinawatra family has struck an agreement with the United Thai Nation Party of former Prime Minister Praveer Chanochak. Praveer's party is one of the forces being backed by the military. Now, this marks a realignment in the political spectrum as Pew Thai has moved away from the move forward party, which emerged as a single largest force in the elections to make sense of what might appear as a convoluted situation. We go to Anish. Anish, thank you so much for joining us. A bit of a confusing situation in Thailand. The last time we talked, I believe, a move forward party had been stuck. But the idea was that they and Pew Thai might continue to work together. Now it does seem like the Pew Thai Party has sort of shifted positions. Yeah, so this has been going on for a couple of days now. Actually, the speculation that, in fact, even during the previous vote that we talked about, there were already speculations that the military has been or the militaristic bloc has been making overtures to Pew Thai to actually get them to back a government that will not include move forward. So what we're looking at is a very, very interesting situation where former rivals, in many ways, ideological and historical rivals are coming together in an alliance that they say is for the stability of the country. But clearly is also part of preserving the former elites' control over the situation at the moment. What we're looking at is what is going to likely happen on the 22nd would be a government where move forward will not be part of it. It will be kept completely out of it. And that also kind of creates a situation because it's just the United Thai Nation Party that has now declared support for the Pew Thai-led alliance. Other of the more conservative and royalist parties have not given any statement so far. So it is quite and it will be quite interesting to see how they're going to get the vote through because with our move forward, which is the largest party with over 115 members, it is next to impossible to form a government of their own and it will be because obviously then you obviously have to gain support from the Senate. So and that will be a more interesting situation because that would mean that you will make significant compromises on a whole host of issues and it will be interesting how the actually plans to move forward from there and also hold on to its own base because that is also going to be very difficult at the moment. Many of them did believe that the way I would stand in an anti-military state and anti-conservative block. And right now they are put in a situation where they have to back a party that will be in alliance with some of the most hard-core conservatives and pro-military groups in the parliament right now. Right Anish. So what does this mean in some ways for move forward also? It was a new party. It came to power on an agenda of like you said, which is kind of difficult, different from most of the other conventional parties. And it actually won quite a bit of support going beyond some of the traditional opposition bases and it of course made a lot of emphasis a lot that it wanted to actually repeal the less Majesty law as well. So what is the situation of the party now? The party right now is existing on a second chance for Theta and that is primarily because it does not believe there is any established intervention or rule that pretty much prevents anybody from standing again if they failed in a prime ministerial vote in the parliament. And so they are trying to fight a case in the constitutional court. They're also trying to push for the parliament to give to accept Theta's second chance. But it's a very tricky situation right now because they have not made any statements so far, they've not made any statement of either support or opposition to this new alliance. And obviously with that there will also be no route map or blueprint for what their strategy will be in the next coming years under what might be a new government by next week. And so we need to really wait and see how they are actually going to react. The response has been quite slow at the moment, primarily because they are also believed by a lot of possible litigations against them, which might include the solution of the entire party, which is not new in Thailand politics. But and so they are probably at a moment where they want to focus more on these litigations to save them up and also probably push for a certain ideological ground within the parliament where established norms can be respected. That's pretty much their standard performance. But that is not what other members of their former alliance actually believe in right now. So it is quite like also we need to look at the base. It is one thing to talk about the parties, but the voters who voted for these parties and we need to look at how they're going to be, you know, vote or be organizing in the next couple of years, how many of them will be alienated by the situation or how many of them will actually look for maybe other alternatives in the current political scenario. It is something that we need to wait and see. Obviously, things are going at a very glacial point right now. It's almost three months since the general election results were declared and there is no government, a proper stable government yet. And so everything is going at a very glacial moment. Everything is uncertain at the moment. So the political situation, how it is going to evolve is something that we need to wait a little while. But the uncertainty is something that is not going to have a good result at the end of it, because obviously if you're going to disregard the anti militaristic vote, that is, that was the overwhelming mandate of the recent elections, that is definitely going to mean that there will be a different kind of movement in the horizon that probably with eyes not planning to deal with at the moment. Well, Anish, thank you so much for that analysis. We'll come back to you after the vote in parliament in case, especially if there is any move towards government formation. And that's all we have time for in today's episode. We'll be back tomorrow with another episode. And until then, do visit our website, People's Dispatch.org. Watch our videos from across the world. And don't forget to hit that subscribe button on YouTube.