The Iranian CIA coup of 1953 is not only one of the most controversial political topics to ever reach mainstream America, it is perhaps the most controversial. To understand the histography of views on this issue, it is best to understand the positions of both an orthodox and non-orthodox perspective, of common sources versus more global sources, of conservatives versus liberals, and of civilians versus historians. An example of these two divisive positions is the ideology of Kinzer and Abrahamain. While both of their writings are credible and considered intelligent, they both take different approaches to their respected positions. In the book “All the Shah's Men,” Steven Kinzer takes a much more neoconservative approach to the topic. His argument throughout the book implies that America has the right to intervene to help spread communism and that we went to Iran for humanitarian purposes. On the other hand, we have the historical Abrahamian, who has a more liberal approach to the issue. Your article claims that we went to Iran solely for economic purposes. He claims we went to Iran and used the humanitarian effort to contain communism to distract people from why we were really there. Kinzer's position on the matter is a much more hawkish, neoconservative approach and uses the policy of containment as the fundamental reason for entering Iran, while Abrahamain argues that economic reasons are the fundamental reason for entering Iran. Kinzer's focus in “All the Shah's Men” was the ideology of benevolent assimilation. As in the Philippines under the McKinley administration, this is what Steven Kinzer said was the main reason for going to Iran. In the book he points out that two... halves of the paper... of the agreement with the Anglo-Iranians are similar because they both provide insights into similar historical events. Iran (like the Philippines and Cuba) was a primitive society and since those particular countries were in dismal conditions, it was easy for much richer countries, who had the skills and knowledge, to exploit their respected native populations in their respected villages. The mentality was that because these countries were large and powerful, they could easily manipulate a society not only mentally, but also culturally. Abrahamian not only has a more liberal view of the 1953 coup and its aftermath, he also has a more condescending view of the United States. Unlike Kinzer, he analyzes that Western powers were not in Iran for humanitarian reasons, rather they were there for economic reasons and used humanitarian purposes to justify their involvement..