The 1953 CIA coup in Iran is not only one of the most controversial political topics ever addressed by mainstream America, but it is also perhaps the most divisive. To understand the histography of views on this issue, it is best to understand the positions of an orthodox perspective versus an unorthodox perspective, common sources versus more comprehensive sources, conservatives versus liberals and civilians versus historians. An example of these two controversial positions is the ideology of Kinzer and Abrahamain. Although both of their writings are credible and intelligent, they both take different approaches to their respected positions. In his book “All the Shah’s Men,” Steven Kinzer takes a much more neoconservative approach to the subject. His argument throughout the book implies that America has the right to intervene to help the spread of communism and that we went to Iran for humanitarian purposes. On the other side we have the historian Abrahamian, who takes a more liberal approach to the issue. His article argues that we went to Iran for economic purposes only. He argues that we went to Iran and used the humanitarian effort to contain communism to distract people from why we were actually there. Kinzer's position on the subject is a much more hawkish and neoconservative approach and uses containment policy as the fundamental reason for entering Iran, while Abrahamain advances economic reasons as the fundamental reason for entering Iran. In “All the Shah's Men,” Kinzer focused on the ideology of benevolent assimilation. As in the Philippines under the McKinley administration, this, according to Steven Kinzer, was the main reason for his entry into Iran. In the book, he points out that two agreements with the Anglo-Iranians are similar because they both provide insight into similar historical events. Iran (like the Philippines and Cuba) was a primitive society, and since these countries were in a sorry state, it was easy for much wealthier countries, which had the skills and knowledge to exploit their respected indigenous populations in their respected countries. The mentality was that since these countries were large and powerful, they could easily manipulate a society not only mentally, but also culturally. Abrahamian not only takes a more liberal view of the 1953 coup and its aftermath, but he also takes a more condescending view of the United States. Unlike Kinzer, he analyzes that Western powers were not in Iran for humanitarian reasons, but rather for economic reasons and used humanitarian objectives to justify their involvement..