Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Article "The Economics of Overthrow"

A recent article published in the CIA's Studies in Intelligence journal and posted on the CIA Web site. The author argues that the main impulse behind the coup was Britain's financial issues, but Britain emphasized the possibility of a Communist takeover to encourage U.S. action. Interesting reading.

The Economics of Overthrow

The United States, Britain, and the Hidden Justification of Operation TPAJAX Torey L. McMurdo

Studies in Intelligence Vol. 56, No. 2 (Extracts, June 2012)

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-56-no.-2/pdfs/McMurdo-The%20Economics%20of%20Overthrow.pdf

"This essay examines the differing views of the United States and Britain on the postwar situation in Iran. In it I argue that although the US government justified the coup as an effort to turn Iran from the path of communism, the United States, in fact, was led to intervene on behalf of the British government, which emphasized the communist threat in order to encourage US action. The British concerns were less political, however. They were primarily economic and centered on the threatened loss of currency reserves that would follow nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). This, in turn, threatened a rapid depletion of British dollar reserves, a loss of international purchasing power, and a further drop in London’s international economic standing." 173.81.167.53 (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good essay. The Americans who were led in the direction of prevent-Soviet-influence were generally agreeable to that stratagem; they were pre-disposed to that line of thought. The tactic was a success for the Brits because it was a natural position for the Yanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been reading Three Kings : The Rise of an American Empire in the Middle East After World War II

What it looks like so far is the Eisenhower administration believed that attempting to overthrow the government is what might lead to a communist takeover. They decided to send in the CIA after being pressured by the oil companies who argued that if Iran got away with nationalizing their oil it would embolden other countries to do the same. It was the domino theory. Washington had to make an example out of Mossadegh to send a message to others that using their resources for their own purposes would not be tolerated.--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We should not view all these sources as contradictory. It is very possible for things to happen as a result of convergence of many different reasons. To say in another way, there is no reason to believe that the US government acted like a "person" with one set of beliefs. It is very possible for different people to have believed different things, which converged on a course of action, which was later taken. All these "reasons" should be listed in the coup section, only differentiating them in terms of the notability of each theory (i.e. how mainstream each theory is). A fringe theory, opposed by most historians, should be noted as a fringe theory. Poyani (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah, pretty much all the principles in the administration believed that attempting to overthrow the government was risky. They viewed Mossadegh as someone who would prevent a communist takeover but they also believed that if the coup failed he might have joined the Soviet bloc for protection. The oil companies and Brittain werent worried about it. The oil companies and some in the administration just wanted him gone before the "virus" spread to other countries. The primary concern was "losing Saudi Arabia" to an internal revolt by "radical pan-Arab nationalists".--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read similar things in declassified documents from Eisenhower's state department. What I am saying is that you should not consider the "US government" to behave like a person. A person does things for a single set of reasons. Often times, governments behave as they do because there are convergence of interests, many of them totally contradicting others. So to assume that the US government "believed" something is not correct. I have read in numerous locations that Eisenhower personally believed that Mossadeq may be helping the communists. This is directly contradicting his state department, but was totally in sync with what the British government was feeding him. Poyani (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The President's view is the least important of all the principles. The people behind the President are the ones that run policy. Presidents come and go, the national security complex remains. The financial institutions, oil companies, military industrial complex and so on will always be there. Pretty much the same administrations are recycled with every new president. So, even if Eisenhower authorized the coup, believing Mossadeq was Martian armed with a death ray, who cares..--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Motives section was fairly obviously copied from somebody's essay. Should be edited to make it less partial and colloquial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.27.138 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

POV

This article is to an excessive degree biased in favour of Mossaddegh. I see that a few editors have put their grips on this article, stopping any changes not in favor of this man. Let me remind you that wikipedia is not your own propaganda platform, enough of trying to make Mossaddegh look like a saint. I see that for more than a year there have been a group of people who wanted to make it more neutral and bring more theories into the article about how it could have been. Sadly that did not seem to work as some people are trying to spread propaganda through wikipedia. What can be done? --Vahriz (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is not an article about Mossaddgh as a person, and it is not an article about Mossaddegh's policies, governing, etc, etc, it is an article about the coup. It is hard to be 100% unbiased about certain things (massacres being one example, coups being another) but if you have any specific items you think need to be added, or challenged, please feel free to mention those in detail, in specifi form. For my part, o, I have had only limited time to participate including on thisTalk page...In my work editing on wikipedia I have always tried hard to have positive dialogue with people with different, shall we say, philosophical or political background - even pro-Oil-company people have thanked me and have praised my working hard to be fair to all sides, for example, despite my unhidden care for environmental protection, when I edited about that (BP oil spill) - but here I fear about the coup in Iran, some of them do not seem to be even handed or interested in the truth - for example when you quoted Obama, "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government." some started arguing about Obama's wording, that it didn't count because Obama did not specifically use the phrase "prime minister" but only "democratically elected government"...It would be unimaginable if the KGB had admitted its role...and even Putin gave a speech in Egypt (instead of Obama giving that speech) and it's still not "good enough"...so, at least some examples of anti Mossaddegh bias ..but rather than get into an argument about these, I want merely to make a suggestion: we invite others to join, not from super partisan (100% pro-USA or 100% pro-current-Iranian-government) but from General wikipedia articles - those are the respects and even handed or very general Harel (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Parliamentary Democracy vs. Absolute Monarchy

This article is very detailed, but mainly is written from a Western (non-Iranian) perspective. It fully covers the oil nationalization issue, but ignores another equally important issue that Iran was facing at that time.

Iran was at a crossroads at that time. The two paths it had to choose was "parliamentary democracy" or "absolute monarchy". The 1906 Constitution of Iran was very ambiguous. It allowed for a popularly elected parliament and a prime minister. But at the same time, it gave the king (shah) power to act on his own through royal "firmans", in other words completely sidelining the democratic parts of the government at will. Whenever the king was weak (like during the 1940's), the democratic aspects reigned supreme. But whenever the Shah stepped up to assume his powers, those democratic aspects were sidelined. In 1949, when the Shah attempted to rule, Mossadegh created his political coalition (the National Front) and used the popular oil nationalization issue to prevent the Shah from acting on his own. He was successful in his endeavour, and by 1953, Mossadegh was able to effectively turn the Shah into a ceremonial monarch.

But the oil nationalization issue was completely intertwined with democracy. When the British embargoed Iranian oil it resulted in economic setbacks, and in declining support for Mossadegh among Iranians (ironically to this day, most Iranians look at the Mossadegh era not as an era of peace and democracy, but as an era of political chaos and poverty, while the "autocratic" Shah's era is looked at as an era of stability and wealth!). As a result when the foreign backed coup d'etat occured, there was little popular protest.

Iran had been forced to chose absolute monarchy over parliamentary democracy by a foreign backed plot, but at the same time, it was indirectly the people's choice as well. They supported a short term decision (prosperity) over a long term one (democracy). Neither the Shah nor Mossadegh were bad, they both loved Iran in their own way. But the Western interference in the delicate affairs of Iran helped indirectly create the Iranian Revolution in 1979, ironically resulting in both the destruction of both absolute monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

I am overhauling this article and this new information will be added to the article. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to follow WP:NPOV and make sure that the opinions presented in the article reflect accurately various views in proportion to their acceptance. Your argument btw has been used to defend authoritarianism in other cases as well, and a typical colonialist statement at the time was that people were not ready for self-government. TFD (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, and thank you for your feedback. The revision I made to the article is well cited, and I have followed WP:NPOV. I have made it clear that the Shah wished to exercise absolute power, while Mossadegh supported parliamentary democracy. I am not sure which part of my previous statement defends authoritarianism and colonialism. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to an overhaul of this article. Previous editors here were too firmly set in the fable of Mosaddegh-as-martyr, a vision of the man as a near-perfect leader of Iran who was taken down by UK and USA. These previous editors would not accept that there was spreading unhappiness in Iran regarding Mosaddegh's high-handed actions in late spring and summer 1953, and that a lot of people were worried about his change from a firm constitutional scholar to a power-grabbing populist politician who was willing to ignore or redefine the constitution as he saw fit. Tens of thousands of men protested in the street to remove Mosaddegh from power. The UK and the CIA did all they could in advance to unbalance the situation with bribes and propaganda but it was already tipped far by Mosaddegh's own actions. The Iranian people made the coup happen.

Some good sources are The Shah by Abbas Milani and Iran and The CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited by Darioush Bayandor. George Lenczowski's American Presidents and the Middle East is a classic work from 1990, written before a lot more primary source documents became available, but his analysis is good. Douglas Little's American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945 is another fine source, and recent. These authors question the CIA sources as being unduly self-serving, especially Kermit Roosevelt who rewrote history to make himself look good. In other words, the CIA's plan was not so critical to the actual coup which took place a few days after the CIA intended. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Partridgeinapeartree, you wrote, "most Iranians look at the Mossadegh era not as an era of peace and democracy, but as an era of political chaos and poverty, while the "autocratic" Shah's era is looked at as an era of stability and wealth!)." I do not know if that is true, but the same argument has been used to defend authoritarianism in the past. In fact that is the reason dictators provide for assuming power. TFD (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Partridgeinapeartree, you deleted the entire addition I made with two references, saying in your edit comment only "New information about the struggle between the forces of parliamentary democracy vs, absolute monarchy, see talk page for more details" Although the "struggle between.." is a separate topic from what the CIA did or did not do, and although it was not easy to do so, I withheld judgement and decided to read this entire section with an open mind.

Having done so, it is now even more clear that nothing in your narrative gives any justification for your deletion of information that article readers have the right to know, about the fact that the CIA recently admitted its involvement in the coup, and some details about this involvement that are not openly admitted (even if already suspected before the admission) Your post amounts to saying "it was the people's choice" (since when did "the people" have one and only one view) and basically that the elected Mossadegh wasn't so good and that you think the Shah wasn't so bad (an interesting perspective on a dictatorship with political prisoners, torture, and killings - whose victims and families might not see it as an era of " era of stability and wealth!" in the worse you use) and you're right, there are always other dictators one can point at that were "much worse" than the dictator whose record one is tryign to show "wasn't so bad" and you're entitled to your views.

You're also entitled to add material from reliable sources that support some of these claims - but this still does not give you any reason (let alone justification) to delete key information that just came out with the CIA admitting its role directly, and admitting to key details (approved at top levels ; the coup was "under its [CIA's] direction" etc in it sown words) You want to argue that the Coup was "not so bad"? With reliable source reference, you have the right to make that argument, as I'm sure others will make about invasions by the USSR into a few other countries that come to mind...Go ahead, argue that the coup was "not so bad" if you want - but you have NO right to use that or to use this "Parliamentary Democracy vs. Absolute Monarchy" discussion you are starting, as an excuse to deny wikipedia readers from knowing about the CIA's recent admission. It's one thing for an editor who (hypothetically) wants to edit the entry of a Soviet invasion into country A or Soviet tanks into country B and to argue things were "more complex" but outside of an Orwellian world it's not ok to erase a factual update about the KGB declassifying and for the first time ever admitting it's role in A or B or C.

That the CIA now admits to what's in the quote

In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."

is a fact and one that has been widely reported (I might add a third or fourth links) and a highly relevant set of admissions. You have the right to add about "nuance" about the domestic Iranian politics as you say you want to do - but that does not give you the right to do something completely different, namely to erase part of the entry with facts about CIA admissions. That is not in good faith, and will be reported if you do it again. Please do not delete that again. Thank you Harel (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Harel, I am glad that you have withheld your judgement from me. Anyway, onto the facts:

1. I had no intention of deleting your contributions, in fact I did not even SEE them. It took me nearly two hours to write my portion of the article, and by the time I finished and tried to save it, there was an edit conflict (something that even user Binksternet realized). Apparantly, I must have done a sloppy job in resolving it, because your work was deleted. As I stated earlier, I had no intention of doing so. If you read my contributions, I made it perfectly clear that the coup happened, and that the Shah was an absolute monarch, while Mossadegh represented parliamentary democracy.

Once again, I apologize for deleting your work, I did so by accident. Anyway, you could have saved yourself from frustration and remember that despite their best efforts, sometimes people make mistakes, and that Wikipedia's policy is to assume good faith.

2. I have no idea why you want to claim that I "support" dictatorships, after all I never even did so. My entire entry into the article was written as unbiasedly as possible.

However, on the talk page I simply stated something that the vast majority of Iranians agree with. Despite the fact that Mossadegh's ran a democracy, his era is looked at as a time of poverty and chaos, while the autocratic Shah's era is looked at as a time of prosperity and peace. I will even add another fact now: most Iranians admire Mossadegh's ideals and wanted democracy then and now, but also recognize that the Shah ran Iran better, especially after the 1979 Revolution. Perhaps you should go meet some Iranians from the generation of the 1940's, who actually lived through that era. Even Mossadegh supporters have to agree that it was a time of chaos, with mobs of Fadaiyan-e-Islam and Tudeh Party members trying to take over power. Maybe talk to some women who have "warm" memories of knife wielding Fadaiyan members ordering them to don hijab before walking out of their house, or former schoolboys who remember Tudeh Party members entering their elementary schools and handing out clubs, so they could wage war on the so-called "bourgeois". Mossadegh not only failed to reign these people in, but he even for a time worked with the spiritual leader of the Fadaiyan, the Ayatollah Abol-Ghassem Kashani, appointing him Speaker of Iran's Parliament. He wanted democracy, but the actions of those people hurt his reputation and caused instability. Add some poverty to the mix (thanks to the British oil embargo), and walla! You have people who would rather have (at least for the moment) the stability of an autocratic Shah compared to the democratic Mossadegh, even if it means giving up oil nationalization. That does not make it right (and it is likely that some was orchestrated by the CIA), but that is what occured. Either way, Mossadegh wanted to create democracy, the Shah wanted to keep absolute powers under the ambigious 1906 constitution, and in the end, both lost.

I made it clear that many Iranians implicitly accepted the autocratic Shah as a short-term solution, but the long term results were ultimately bad for Iran. If you aren't aware, while there were many democracy supporters in Iran, there were also many monarchists as well, and they supported the Shah and believed that he should rule the country (the current joke in Iran is that there are more monarchists today than there were during the entire history of the Pahlavi dynasty). Anybody who lived through that era can tell you Iran was very divided between the two during 1951-53.

3. Many of the problems Iran faced (from my experience) came not so much from the 1953 coup, but from the 1963 15th of Khordad Movement, when the Shah promised to implement democracy, then instead rigged elections and banned the opposition, eventually generating widespread protests led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. He assumed that the economic prosperity his "White Revolution" would bring to Iranians would result in his opponents being neutralized. It was simply a case of "kicking the can down the road". While the economic reforms were in effect, most people suddenly became "monarchists". But by 1978, when the reforms petered out, all of the built up political tensions blasted to the surface in a giant wave, sweeping the Shah out of power. Of course, had Mossadegh marginalized the Shah, none of this most likely have happened either.

4. When I said that the neither the Shah nor Mossadegh were truly bad, that is a fact. Nobody can argue that the Shah did not care for Iran. As the king of his country, he had a duty to listen to his subjects, and help them. He helped them in many ways, by carrying out great reforms. Had he and his family remained in power, he would have almost certainly turned Iran into a first world country. Many Iranians after the revolution began to have an appreciation for the leader that they brought down, and today there are many people who "love" him so much that they even burst into tears when they hear his speeches! (usually they were those who screamed "Death to the Shah" the loudest in 1979).

However, the Shah was obviously not brought down due to his perfection, but due to his faults and problems. His main fault was that he failed to listen to his people like was expected from a monarch, and that he did not relax his power over the government until it was too late. He surrounded himself with flatterers in his royal court, who isolated him from his subjects. Iran became wealthy quickly, and by the 1970's there was a booming middle class, who wanted the same political freedoms that Westerners enjoyed, and the Shah was seen as an obstacle to it. Meanwhile, the poorer classes whom the reforms did not yet reach were disillusioned by his Westernization programs, and there was a conservative backlash.

5. As for his brutality, I do not, and will not defend it. It is clear from my entry in the main article that I accept it, and acknowledge it. His security agency SAVAK was hated by Iranians of all stripes. Nevertheless, for most part, the violence inflicted was aimed at armed guerillas mainly during the 1970's, typically those who carried out bombings, assasinations, etc. The general public was relatively unaffected, but those guerillas obviously did not deserve such treatment either. When the Islamic Republic came to power, they unleashed a reign of terror against all Iranians that was simply incomprehensible, including against former supporters of the revolution. The reality is that both actions were evil, but there are different degrees of evil. On a hypothetical scale of brutality, I give the Shah a 1-2, while I give the Islamic Republic at least a 7-8 (for reference, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler were at 10). Today, most Iranians have very little interest in hearing about the Shah's crimes, when they are living with something far, far worse (especially when some of those whom the Shah persecuted are the current leaders in power). Comparing the Shah's prisons and the Islamic Republic's prisons is equivalent to comparing America's Guantanamo Bay to a North Korean labor camp. Both are evil, but neither are comparable either. 300-400 Iranians died during the last decade of the Shah's rule, mostly in armed clashes with the police (not counting deaths during the Revolution, of which were about 500-600, although other sources says 2,000). Of those, 91 were executed for political reasons. At least 15,000-20,000 Iranians were executed or died under torture for political reasons during the first decade of the Islamic Republic alone. There is simply no comparison between the two. According to one prisoner who survived both, 4 months inside an Islamic Republic prison took the toll of four years under SAVAK. They frequently tortured, arrested, and even killed (and still do) family members of the dissidents as well. And that is just the political situation; don't get me started on the economic situation, government mismanagement, or the Iran-Iraq War, both of which have caused the deaths of far more Iranians that the any of Islamic Republic's prisons. Virtually every Iranian knows someone who has died prematurely as a result of this current government (whether by prison/execution, war, sanctions, poverty, lack of building codes, mismanagement, etc.).

As for Mossadegh, all I can say is that virtually anybody who comes to power will cause suffering for some. His actions in supporting the Fadaiyan, and failing to reign in the Tudeh certainly resulted in numerous deaths, and suffering among opponents as well (Haj Ali Razmara would certainly agree). That is why most remember his era as being one of instability, however they respect his ideas and his attempt to bring democracy to Iran. Both he and the Shah loved Iran and did so much good for it, but also carried out mistakes that resulted in the suffering of others, and resulted in their own demise.

Cheers. And once again, I apologize for accidentally deleting your work. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello - I did not claim you "support dictatorships" Maybe you are referring to a place where I agreed with a comment someone else made, where that other commenter (TFD) said they will not comment on the accuracy of the details of your claims, "but the same argument has been used to defend authoritarianism in the past. In fact that is the reason dictators provide for assuming power." I was agreeing with his statement that such assertions (even if a few of the claims they cite might be true) "have been used [historically by many people in many countries] to defend authoritarianism" I stand by my agreeing with his statement, but that is not the same as claiming that you personally support dictatorship. I was agreeing with his statement that an argument you were (or were close to) making can be very selective, or can be a dangerous slippery slope, etc, and I agree with that sentiment. I will not comment on specific historical analysis.

As for assuming good faith, one thing to clarify - as I said I forced myself to assume it but I maybe was not clear about the other thing I said (namely I indicated it was difficult to do so - while still doing so) why was it difficult to do so? Because when I asked wikipedia under "history" to show me the "difference" in that edit, I recalled seeing the deletion of my paragraphs as the only difference - therefore either my eyes missed something or it was a change that was not a general article re-write but instead, the *only* change that was made was deleting my two sentences. I am sharing this not to argue - I accept your apology and appreciate it - I am just explaining what I did (the "diff") and what I saw so you can better appreciate how it looked to my eyes.

By the way I've been editing wikipedia for many years but have not gotten any browser plug-in or addon to simplify - is there a good one for firefox so I don't have to scan with my eyes to find where there is a reply among the many many screenfuls of the Talk page? It's easy to miss a reply someone makes to your posts..Harel (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD, the point you make about "the same argument has been used to defend authoritarianism in the past" is very true - but as you may or may not have been away, he went much farther, and actually deleted (inconvenient?) facts like the CIA's admission today, see my preceding comment Harel (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It is likely that your addition was deleted by accident in an edit conflict. I don't think you should assume bad intent until you hear from Partridgeinapeartree about the text under discussion. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

CIA documents released

Binksternet, CIA documents were released today, which may change the historiography[1] We might want to wait a few days for news sources to comment on them. TFD (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The CIA cannot be used as a reliable independent source for their own actions. The amount of disinformation is too high. Bayandor writes that the CIA story about success in Iran's coup was important for the early CIA to establish its power in the US government hierarchy, but that the story falls apart after comparison to certain established facts such as the Tehran CIA office hurriedly packing to leave town after the initial coup failure, as opposed to the official CIA version of the CIA quickly making new plans to carry out a second attempt. This same story is repeated in the recent mid-1970s documents that were declassified and announced today. Such documents are not worth much—what was needed was a cache of documents written in June, July and August 1953, but stopping at August 19 before Kermit Roosevelt had a chance to perform his self-serving rewrite. I don't think we are going to find out much from the CIA. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Some CIA-related text was removed today, the text added by User:Harel but removed by User:Partridgeinapeartree, possibly by accidental edit conflict. Here is the removed text:

In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."

The references are as follows:

• CIA finally admits it masterminded Iran’s 1953 coup
• In declassified document, CIA acknowledges role in '53 Iran coup

Again, I don't think these revelations are very important for facts related to the case. I agree with TFD that we will need to wait until topic scholars have digested the new evidence and fitted it into the rest of the picture. The CIA is too conflicted on the subject to be accepted as an independent observer. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason not to mention that the CIA claims they were behind the coup. However, we should not read through the files and add material, but wait until experts have done that and reported, which I imagine will happen soon. TFD (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is "no reason not to" mention, and there is every reason to inform wikipedia's readers. As for your assertion Binksternet that "the CIA cannot be used as a reliable independent source for their own actions" my first thought was that it is remarkable the lengths to which some people will go (consciously or not) to find a reason not to include facts that don't reflect well on past actions of certain governments, but another explanation is that you might instead be confused about wikipedia policy, and the situation here. We are not relying on the CIA as a "reliable source about its own actions" we are merely quoting its assertions. This is standard in wikipedia, as in "The Department of Homeland security said on [date] that their agents had [committed certain acts]" would be completely standard and acceptable and would NOT be a case of "assuming that DHS is a reliable source about its own actions" - if we wanted to claim that "DHS agents did X" then we'd need to find sources about that. Or if we reported "DHS agents did X" when our information only allows us to say "DHS released a statement saying that its agents did X" that would be a different issue. I did not add any text that claims "X happened" but rather than "CIA declassified documents in which it" takes responsibility for certain actions.

Can you imagine the KGB releasing a statement that its agents did something unsavory, and people looking for excuses to delete that information from wikipedia and saying "oh well, the KGB is not a reliable source about its own actions"? It would be silly. No, we can't report "KGB did X" (unless/until we have a source for that) but we certainly could and would report that "on [date], the KBG said it was admitting to past actions A and B" and that would be standard. Again, wikipedia policies about reliable sources are not intended to exclude the inclusion in wikipedia articles of information such as when governments or their agencies (or corporations) release a statement in which they say "we did A" That is standard and even critical to an informative entry. Harel (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

See for example Black site which includes "On December 6, 2007, the CIA admitted that it had destroyed videotapes recordings of CIA interrogations" in fact this same entry includes another example of "On September 6, 2006, Bush publicly admitted the existence of secret prisons" - we do not illogically say "Bush is not a reliable source about Bush's actions" or "the CIA is not a reliable source about its own actions" for the (what are, if they weren't earlier, should now be) obvious reasons already discussed - wikipedia as a matter of routine includes statements by corporate and governmental official representations, making statements about their own actions from claims about attempts/intentions being good (a la "we did everything we could to minimize environmental damage") to admissions of involvement ("some of our employees did engage in ....activities") and so forth. Completely standard. Harel (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And also, no, we don't need to wait for scholars to pour over the material (In fact insofar as the National Security Archive is a scholarly source of a certain type, this already happened) but if the Coca Cola official representatives release a set of documents saying they admit to doing something to their cola, or if the KBG release documents admitting to doing something and if its' reported widely in well respected sources then there is no need to wait - it would be very different if we were to try to individually give our own analysis of the original sources - that is not what is done here - there is just completely standard quoting of established sources - here, CNN and RT, and there is also the UK's Guardian which can easily be added among others - and they give very direct statement, very straightforward, including some quotes, about what the CIA's declassified documents admit to - and this does not need to be poured over by scholars before being included, any more than any other major revelation by a corporation or government agency needs to - there is no need. Now, I do agree we should refrain from adding anything in big, broad historical conclusion type narratives a la "this now changes how the entire history of US-Iran relations [or entire history of the CIA etc] is seen" - of course I agree that such statements should be avoided, and not included until there are reliable sources, and agree reliable sources for those kinds of statement, will need some time for scholars to draw broad conclusions - and we should include a wide range of scholars. But to include the basic facts admitted to directly - "was carried out under the CIA's direction" and approved and planned "at the highest levels" are extremely relevant (and more than easily pass the Martian Test - would a visiting alien want to know that the CIA now directly admits this? of course) and do not need any "waiting periods" before include such basics are included in the entry for readers to be informed about these admissions directly by the CIA. Harel (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Harel, the CIA material released today is interesting only in light of the official announcement being a new admission of guilt, not because of new facts that were uncovered. There is no need to go overboard in the attempt to show that the information should be included—it should. However, the information is not central to the coup; in his book Darioush Bayandor has already shown that the CIA fluffed up its role far beyond reality. Yes, the CIA intended to take Mosaddegh down by coup. Yes, the CIA should be held accountable for that intent. However, the CIA failed in the initial coup attempt and they had no backup plan. The subsequent (successful) coup attempt was largely the result of regular Iranians, not American or British agents. By the 1970s when today's declassified material was being written, the CIA was already fooling itself with a fabricated history taken straight from Kermit Roosevelt's later account. The 1970s CIA history cannot be taken at face value. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a matter that can only be determined by waiting for secondary sources. TFD (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Such as [2]. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, your analysis is interesting, but please keep in mind, the issues you touch upon, like whether the "initial copu attempt" was a failure or not, whether people are "fooling themselves" whether it "fluffed up its role far beyond reality" etc, all these elements of your analysis, please keep in mind I was not addressing any of these - I merely said "we don't need to wait for scholars to pour over the material" before adding to this article, that the CIA now admits, including the "at highest levels" of planning etc, and that this should be included in the article. I did not make any claims about the other elements in your analysis. Harel (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputed

This user has disputed this article's accuracy. In their edit summary, they linked this YouTube channel discussion page (the actual channel). Note that people are claiming the user is "drumming up hatred with your biased view of the world" and that these are not facts. IsraphelMac (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

List of government officials overthrown

It was not just Mossadeq who was overthrown in the 1953 coup. It was his whole government. This is my attempt to create an incomplete list of ministers who were removed from office by the coup.

• Mossadeq (Prime Minister)
• Hossein Fatemi (Foreign Affairs Minister)
• Abol-Ghasem Kashani (Speaker of the House)
• Mehdi Bazargan (Deputy Minister)

Poyani (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Parliamentary Democracy vs Monarchy continued

Partridgeinapeartree,

There are a few issues you pointed out above which I think require some reconsideration.

You wrote:

"When the British embargoed Iranian oil it resulted in economic setbacks, and in declining support for Mossadegh among Iranians (ironically to this day, most Iranians look at the Mossadegh era not as an era of peace and democracy, but as an era of political chaos and poverty, while the 'autocratic' Shah's era is looked at as an era of stability and wealth!). As a result when the foreign backed coup d'etat occured, there was little popular protest."

First, a side note: the British did not just "boycott" Iranian oil. They sabotaged and sanctioned it, placing their military in the Persian Gulf and preventing the oil tankers from leaving (an act of war). That is a BIG difference.

But more importantly, what is it that is leading you to believe that Iranians preferred the Shah to Mossadeq? I have seen some sources which state this position (based on, IMHO very weak arguments) and many more which state the opposite. The 'autocratic' Shah's era was certainly not seen as an era of "stability and wealth". Almost immediately after Mossadeq's overthrow there were constant upheavals in Iran until 1979 when the Shah was overthrown outright. This movement began after a short lull following the Shah's execution and torture of Mossadeq's key advisers (for example see Hossein Fatemi, the architect of Mossadeq's nationalization program was executed immediately). In fact, student protests were organized immediately after the overthrow. The student leaders were promptly arrested and tortured, some killed (one of those student leaders who was tortured happens to be my father).

Another clear indication that this is false, is the fact that the Shah banned the National Front outright and turned Iran's elections into a one-party, Royalist system. If there was any truth to the notion that the Shah was popular, he would have never required such actions. The reality is that he and his regime feared that the National Front would have been reelected, possibly with an even larger majority, should they had the chance.

But after that short lull, caused by the executions/torture/repression, began a popular movement to overthrow the Shah outright, lead primarily by Mossadeq's living colleagues in the National Front (who used Khomeini as their symbolic figure). In fact, Mossadeq's head of NIOC, Mehdi Bazargan, would go on to become Iran's first post-revolutionary prime minister, before he, along with other members of the NF, were removed from power by the Islamists. Another nationalist, Abolhassan Banisadr, was elected president (Iran's first democratically elected president), before he too was removed by Islamists.

These notions that "most or many Iranians indirectly chose the coup over Mossadeq" or "Iranians preferred the stability of the Shah to democracy" are just Orientalist myths. They directly contradict a whole slew of facts, such as what happened after Mossadeq's overthrow and years of struggle before, from the Tobacco revolution to Mossadeq's election. It is absolutely incredible in my opinion to claim that the military coup was popular, when one considers that when in 1979, the Shah fled, the first act of the disorganized groups which lead the revolution was to execute the generals of the army. The second act was to over-run the American embassy (which was wide believed, correctly, to have been the central HQ for the coup). All these actions clearly indicate that the 79 revolution was the people's direct response to the 53 coup.

Today, the notion that Iranians prefer the Shah to Mossadeq holds absolutely no water. I am not saying that based on second-hand research. I am saying that from a first-person perspective, of an Iranian who has discussed this exact issue with literally hundreds of other Iranians (both expats and in the country). I have yet to meet 1 person (ONE single person), who has shown any inclination toward these views. They are nonsense. It is based on absolute fantasy (along with the myth of the possibility of the popular return of the Shah's son to power or the notion that the MEK are a democracy movement with support within Iran). In fact, these views are so wildly unpopular, that even the Shah's son distances himself from such views, criticizing his own father (generally a heresy among Royalists) in order to MAINTAIN support within his own small network.

The reality is that to this day, the vast majority of Iranian (myself included) see Mossadeq as a lost opportunity to achieve the elusive goal of democracy in Iran, which Iranians have been fighting for, for at least 100 years. This is precisely why Mossadeq is an important figure in Iranian history and not afforded the same status as the hundreds of other Prime Ministers that preceded and followed him (arguably with the notable exception of perhaps Amir Kabir and Mehdi Bazargan).

In fact, I can make my argument with a simple comparison.

If your argument that "No major protests were held after the 53 coup, therefore the coup must have been popular" is true; then it must be equally true that the 2009 election fraud and subsequent crushing of dissent was also popular, since from 2010 to today there were no major protests in the streets of Iran. Both arguments have the same structure, logic and predicate. Poyani (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As for your assumptions regarding the intentions of the Shah, I generally do not like to play such games. It is impossible to decipher people's intentions. I have as much reason to believe that the Shah was doing what he thought was right for Iran, as I do in believing that Cecescu did what he believed was best for Romania or Muammar Gaddafi for Libya or even Khamenei in Iran today. It is an extremely cynical and egotistical view for one to believe that the people of a nation are better-off under his iron-grip, rather than in a democratic setting. Poyani (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you are conflating the recent views of Iranians (and people of Iranian heritage) versus the view of the man on the street in 1953. There was a lot of support for the Shah back then, even if it was simply support for retaining the constitutional monarchy. Mosaddegh was starting to look very different in 1953—he was grabbing for power. He dissolved the Senate of Iran as well as the lower house, and he took emergency powers. People in Iran were worried he was becoming too dictatorial. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Poyani,

First of all, I am very sorry to hear about what happened to your father. I fully agree that nothing justifies such an action. The embargo part does make everything you mentioned clear.

After reading several things you had written, such as blaming the mass killings that Khomeini ordered on "disorganized groups" and writing that they were a "people's response" to the Revolution (actually most of the people were terrified at that time, it was Khomeini and his cohorts doing those atrocities and nobody else), I originally wrote another response. After some thought, I decided to rewrite my response to you. But either way, I cannot see those as anything other than a justification and a whitewashing of events that caused far more misery for Iranians than anything that happened under the Shah. I had also written in a longwinded manner, so I am correcting that as well.

My goal in my edits was not to defend anybody, but to expand an article that was written in a often incoherent manner, and with little details, especially about the coup itself. One who would read the article prior to my edits would have trouble understanding what even occured. Both my edits and this article are not biased against Mossadegh, it makes clear that Mossadegh was the supporter of parliamentary democracy, the Shah wanted absolute monarchy, and the CIA orchestrated the coup. However, I have added more details. However, one cannot ignore the facts either, and the failings of Mossadegh. History is not black and white.

Mossadegh supported democracy, but he failed to achieve any of his goals. He started out in a noble manner, and came to power intending to make Iran a democracy. Had he been able to actually do what he said he wanted to do, Iran's history would be very different. But instead, he made no real democratic reforms. The only "reforms" he made was taking power out of the Shah's hands and into his own. In other words, he was becoming a dictator. In that sense what difference was there between the two? His stubborness on the oil nationalization issue hurt Iran's economy, and helped seal his own fate. Perhaps a different way of looking at it is if Mossadegh actually achieved what he claimed he wanted to do, and turned Iran into a real democracy, Iran would not be the way it is today. Blaming everything that went wrong on the CIA or the Shah is simply refusing to accept responsibility, and blaming one's own faults on an outside source (a common tactic of another government that I am aware of).

One thing to remember is that in the 12 years prior to the coup, the Shah had taken a very limited role in politics. So people had no idea what kind of a leader he would be in the upcoming decades. But Mossadegh had began to abuse his powers (and that's not even refering to the economic hardships and political instability). The Mossadegh-Shah issue was not so much a democracy-dictatorship issue, but a contest between two major personalities. Iran was not a one-party state until 1975, prior to that there was a period of so-called "guided democracy", in which there was a two-party system. The Shah really has been a much maligned figure (although among most Iranians he has enjoyed a comeback in reputation).

The era of the Shah was always not one of torture and executions. For example, Ervand Abrahamian in his book Tortured Confessions describes that torture in Iran was uncommon between the 1920's to the 1970's. The worst one could expect in prison during that time was getting pushed around by a police officer. Torture and political imprisonment in Iran became common after the 1971 Siakhal Incident. Even during the 1970's, torture, jail and executions were used mostly against opponents who took up armed struggle against the government. By 1977, it had largely declined again after widespread complaints and Jimmy Carter's insistence. But that doesn't excuse the fact that his government was the first to start using it in Iran, and the Shah's government really sunk to a new low in allowing it, and developed a very poor human rights record. It is likely he wasn't fully aware of what was taking place either, but it happened yet.

Today in Iran people are tortured and even killed even for speaking out against the government (someone who takes up armed struggle is executed immediately). The primary practitioner of torture, imprisonment, and executions in Iran (and possibly the world) has been none other than the Islamic Republic's government, which has consistently carried it out in its more than 30 years of existence, to a degree more brutal than anything seen before in the country. Torture in Iran is not for gathering information, but simply to force the prisoner into making a "videotaped confession" where he/she converts to the ideology of the regime and repents for his "crimes" (how Orwellian). Abrahamian puts the Islamic Republic's Iran in the same league as Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and early modern Europe in the use of torture to produce public recantations, writing that virtually no other governments in history used such tactics to the extent that these four did. Even Saddam Hussein's Iraq never did that. He just quickly killed opponents, he didn't imprison and systematically "re-educate" them like Iran's government does. I would imagine that being in an Iranian prison today is worse than death for many. I doubt Khosro Golsorkhi could have made his famous and impassioned defense against the Shah's abuses in an Islamic Republic "court of law".

I will admit right here and now, had the government that replaced him been a normal and humane government, I and others may not regret the Shah's loss. The vast majority of Iranians miss the Shah, whether one likes it or not. I don't know very many Iranians that are still happy about the Shah's overthrow, mainly because Iran had been dragged so badly in the mud since then. I am not even talking about the monarchists, I am refering to your average Iranian. The Shah was obviously bad for his time, but he can't be compared to today. If Reza Pahlavi admits his father's wrongdoings, then I commend him. Perhaps Iranians don't need another Mossadegh nor another Shah. They don't need a government that is dominated by a powerful personality, but one that actually represents its people in a true democracy. The hardcore Mossadegh supporters are no different than hardcore Shah supporters in that they refuse to accept any wrongdoing that their hero carried out.

The history you gave of the Iranian Revolution is not necessarily backed up by history. Khomeini was no figurehead, he was the leader of the Revolution. He used the National Front to help achieve his goals, the same way he used leftist groups and religious people. According to Abbas Milani, the only reason the National Front was given "power" was to have a democratic face for the Revolution and manipulate the West into abandoning the Shah, and they were quickly discarded of once they served their purpose.

One person you did not mention was Dr. Shahpour Bakhtiar (I am sure you know who he is). Bakhtiar was one of the most important figures in the National Front during the Revolution. He realized what a disaster was about to take place, and where the revolution would lead Iran. He managed to become prime minister, and he attempted to reform the system from within (the Shah was in no position to resist). But instead, he was kicked out of the National Front, and later was murdered for his troubles. Had the people not been so hardheaded, they would have seen that Bakhtiar was the one they should support, not Khomeini. Other National Front people you forgot to mention are those like Karim Sanjabi, who persuaded Iranians to support Khomeini. You also forgot to mention Ibrahim Yazdi, who became a Revolutionary Court judge and helped sentence people like General Mehdi Rahimi to death. Abdolhassan Banisadr was the prosecutor for that court. Mehdi Bazargan (a respectable man) could do nothing to stop the killings. They certainly were "democratic" opponents!

You made a comparison of the Shah to Ceausescu and Gaddafi. Aside from the fact that they destroyed their nation's economies and plundered wealth while the Shah was turning Iran into an industrial and economic giant, they also fought back against the tide of revolution, even if it resulted in the deaths of many. The Shah on the other hand was unwilling to use violence against his own people. He gave up his power rather than ordering his army to kill them. As a result, his country became the first and possibly only 20th century Middle Eastern country to overthrow a government via popular revolution. That is not to say that there were no deaths, but the Revolution was largely a bloodless one (something most historians have even recognized). If not for anything else, the Shah will always have a place in the hearts of Iranians for this exceptional act.

And lastly, you talked about post 1953 coup protests. You argued that a relative lack of protests against the Shah post 1953 coup did not mean that people were happy Mossadegh was gone, and you made a comparison of it to the lack of Green Movement protests in Iran post 2010. That argument I am afraid is completely wrong. First of all, there were major protests in Iran in 2011. The main post coup protests took place in the University of Tehran (which were the ones you were describing), which resulted in the shooting deaths of 3 students. At the time it was very shocking. Nobody else died though, and there were very few additional protests because there was little support for Mossadegh. On the contrary, in 2009 Iranian riot police entered the same university and beat to death 5 students. Those five students were among nearly 100 to die during the protests. During the post-1953 era, the worst that could happen to a protester was that he/she would be jailed for a short while. Even during the Revolution, protesters could expect little retribution. During the recent protests, protesters were arrested, beaten, raped, tortured with whips, cables, and electic batons, dragged under cars, and even killed (don't forget forced confessions). Most of the abuses took place within prisons. Many were taken to Kahrizak prison in the middle of the desert, and subjected to indescribable torture. Several even died, and almost all were on the verge of death when reports of the prison reached Western media, and the government transfered the prisoners out. I have read descriptions written by the survivors of that prison, and it was similar to a concentration camp. There were other similar prisons as well which I do not know of by name.

Such slaughterhouses simply did not exist under the Shah. Prisoners were never treated that way even during the worst years of his rule. Had he employed such force against his own people, the Revolution would simply have failed on the first day. Saying the Islamic Republic's response to protests vs. the Shah's were alike is something that not ONE single person in Iran accepts. Virtually everybody knows how much more brutality this current government employs against dissidents compared to the Shah.

I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. Cheers. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep this talk page focused on specific improvements to the article rather than general discussion of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I was responding to Poyani's concerns. Thank you. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Partridgeinapeartree, First and foremost, I never once "(blamed) the mass killings that Khomeini ordered on 'disorganized groups'". I don't know where you got that from, but it certainly was not from me. Nor am I here to get into an ideological or factional argument with you or anyone else. If there is an academic consensus on an issue you can post it on the page. The notion that Mossadeq was trying to bring democracy to Iran is itself controversial. As you mentioned yourself, scholars agree that he did many dubious things. What is not controversial is that he lead a democratically elected government (the first government where the Prime Minister and the Cabinet were selected by the elected parliament, rather than hand-picked by the Shah), and that he was overthrown. The notion that he was unpopular is dubious, since not only is it not supported by the Reliable Sources listed, but is in actuality in direct contradiction of most of them, which say the opposite. If you feel that there is relevant information, supported by Reliable Sources, which is missing from this article, bring it in. Otherwise please do not add your opinions or analysis to the page. All the best, Poyani (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE "Democratically elected government" from the article

There seems to be an unending effort to remove the phrase "democratically elected government" from the lede of this article. This has been the subject of numerous discussions, all ending with a plurality of editors agreeing that the phrase is appropriate, since it has been used, word for word, in numerous peer-reviewed works pertaining to the coup. Please refrain from removing it again. Poyani (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday's version of the article, before you changed it, contained the phrases "democratically elected parliament", "democratically elected prime minister", "overthrow a democratically elected government", "overthrow a democratically elected, civil government", "overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government" and "democratic Prime Minister of Iran", so I don't know what you are complaining about. So much repetition beats the reader over the head. As it says in the article, the shah ruled as an executive in Iran, so "when a shah was weak, the government was more democratic, but when the shah acted on his own, the democratic aspects of the government could be sidelined." In fact, the democratic aspects of Iran were always in a state of flux, with assassination, intrigue and corruption working just as effectively as democracy. Very little was accomplished by the act of voting. Your further hammering of the point puts undue weight on the idea that Iran was such a marvelous example of a democracy, when it was not. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on..." is incorrect. It implies that it was the replacement of one prime minister with another. Source 1 listed in the lede (End of British Imperialism) begins its chapter on the subject by stating "the overthrown of Musaddiq (sic) government ...". Source 3 from the New York Times begins "the Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953..." . All The Shah's Men (the definitive work on the 1953 coup which you have by now relegated to just a side-note, while listing its critique in the refs) begins with "More than half a century has passed since the United States deposed the only democratic government Iran ever had". Even the word coup d'état means to overthrow a government. Hence it is incorrect and incomplete to state that the 1953 Iranian coup d'état was the overthrown of the Prime Minister. It was the overthrow of a government as stated in the RS and as per the very definition of the word. This is also confirmed by the repeated use of the word "government" in the declassified US government documents about the coup http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/summary.pdf

Lets not pretend this is about a MoS issue Binksternet. You have now been involved in a multi-year jihad against the phrase "democratically elected government" and you have used numerous dubious means to remove the phrase. From misrepresenting the works of others (Milani in particular) to claim "democratically elected" is incorrect, to your own incorrect Original Research which claimed an appointed PM could not be democratically elected, to now, where you are claiming that the overthrow wasn't really that of a "government", this seems like a never ending story. Please end this edit-war and let the correct description of the 1953 coup (as confirmed by nearly every single reliable source on the subject) remain in place.Poyani (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Extreme POV which has been introduced to this article

I have, on previous occasions, been very amicable in including fair criticisms of Mossadeq into this article (such as his questionable behaviour on the undemocratic and unconstitutional plebiscite which he used to dismiss Majlis). However, over the last month or so, the content article has become a sad joke, with examples of outright distortions, in direct contradictions to the sources used to justify them.

One extreme case for example is the sentence regarding Khalil Tahmasebi. The new article indicates that he murdered Mossadeq's main opponent for the position of Prime Minister, suggesting underhandedly that Mossadeq and his supporters may have been involved. It further makes this suggestion by claiming that he was pardoned and freed by Mossadeq. This is an outright fabrication.

What actually happened (as even noted in the sources currently listed), Khalil Tahmasebi was captured after the assassination of Ali Razmara and quickly sentenced to death. However, due to the suspicious and speedy nature of his trial there was widespread belief among the general public that he was innocent (many to this day believe the murder was carried out by the Iranian army). Here is where the outright distortion starts. Neither Mossadeq, nor anyone in his government, freed nor pardoned Tahmasebi. THEY ONLY ORDERED A NEW TRIAL. In fact, under Tahasebi's own Wikipedia article it states (correctly) that he was tried in 1952 (when Mossadeq was in power) and sentenced to death. When was he freed? When was he "pardoned" for the assassination?

Not only was this fabrication added to the article, it is placed under the grotesque heading "Assassination attempt on the Shah, and the Appointment of Mossadegh as Prime Minister", further underhandedly suggesting that Mossadeq was killing his way to power (a huge lie).

The fabrication above is hardly the only case of bias in the article.

It seems that there has been a great effort to minimize the affect of sources which directly address the subject (the 1953 coup - such as Kitzner's book which occurs mostly in inline attributions now) and a MASSIVE increase in reliance on parsed biographical material on the Shah.

There seems to be a clear patterns of trying to lionize the Shah prior to mentioning the coup, by noting, in great detail, his achievements. Can anyone explain why the section on the breakaway Soviet Republics is included, other than to emphasize the congratulatory "the Shah's role in resolving the crisis garnered him much popularity among Iranians"? What is the link between the Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan and Mashhad (and the uprising in Gilan), all of which occured in northern Iran, with the coup which occurred 8 years later due to concerns in southern Iran (Bandar Abbas and the Gulf)?

Why has the material regarding Reza Shah been added? That has also been greatly parsed to lionize the Pahlavis. It states the Shah's achievements but goes to great lengths to minimize his faults (neither of which even belong in this article since they are irrelevant to the coup). The Shah's enemies were called "warlords" (they were tribal leaders who existed throughout Iranian history) and they were "defeated" (in reality according to the listed source, they were executed, their villages raised, and the culture and language of their tribes banned under severe punishment). The Reza Shah is noted to have been overthrown "neutral" in World War II (he was extremely pro-Nazi, even claiming Iran was part of the Aryan super-race. He did not join he war militarily because of the existence of the nearby Russian and English armies).

Dubious sources have been used to make questionable suggestions regarding the popularity of Reza Shah today (the blog section of the Wall Street Journal).

Iran's constitution has been greatly misrepresented, for example, renaming the "vote of inclination" (a phrase often used by Milani) for the totally incorrect "vote of confidence". The vote of Majlis has been redubbed "the vote of the largest party in Majlis" (totally incorrect as noted even by the stated source).

All these errors are suspiciously one-sided. They, undermine Mossadeq while lionizing the Shah. And that is not even noting the numerous instances of spelling mistakes and errors which have been introduced. Is there any reasons why we should not revert back to the version we had last month? Poyani (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you are talking about this series of edits starting from 19 August to now, one week later. The quick answer to your question asking for reasons not to revert is that quite a few editors have been working on this new material in the last week, from various new accounts to an anonymous IP in Hartlepool Borough Council government in the UK, and especially established editors such as Partridgeinapeartree, MakeBelieveMonster, Harel, Mohamed CJ, ClarkF1, Arjayay, Lbeaumont, Magioladitis, Egeymi, Modest Genius, M2545, Spencer, Mar4d, Matt Heard, Bender 235, Tpbradbury, Bo Basil, Chris.ennen, Kaldari, EamonnPKeane, Geraldshields11, Wikimucker, Arthur Rubin, Rjwilmsi, and myself. All of these editors, several of them administrators, have been working with the article to improve it.

The new text introduces a reference authored in 1991 by Wolfgang K. Kressin who was a captain in the US Air Force writing his master's thesis about the interaction of Mossadegh and Kashani. It also greatly increases the reliance on Abbas Milani who was previously used as a reference but now is more heavily cited, especially his new book The Shah. Another new source is the book Oil Kings by Andrew Scott Cooper, published in 2011. Yet another new source is the book Iran at War: 1500-1988 by Kaveh Farrokh, published in 2011. So the new version of the article continues to be based on reliable sources, but newer ones. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your specific concerns which are identified in your post, I encourage you to edit the article to address those inaccuracies. I disagree with your assessment that an "extreme POV" has been applied to the article, but I acknowledge that there is disagreement among our reliable sources regarding many of the facts about the coup. This article should attribute its sources where the facts are disputed. With attribution, the main versions should each be described. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Even though I share some of your concerns Poyani I will agree (on the narrower point of best policy for the short to medium term) with that Binksternet said - is to suggest you find citations to correct, or add to/augment, etc. In the longer term, if several of us find a general overall tone corrected or needing adjustments (based on such citations) to what Binksternet or anyone else has put, we can discuss this together and how to adjust (I fully admit I have not had time to delve into details in most sections of the article in current form) I trust all concerned will their their best to avoid such tilt. I will agree and repeat one thing Poyani said - we should keep in mind this is not an article about the Shah, so mentions should be limited, and, what many may see as "defending" the Shah coup versus "critical" should be (factual, cited and) balanced. Hope everyone has had a good week. Harel (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Poyani,

Although you did not directly address me, I wanted to briefly write something. To the best of my knowledge, the information in this article has been written according to the sources. If there are discrepancies (which there could be), feel free to fix them. Like I said, while new facts have been added, it is still clear that ultimately whatever occured, Mossadegh was the supporter of parliamentary democracy, the Shah was an absolute monarch, and the CIA supported the coup.

I used "vote of confidence" in order to use a more understandable term, and it makes no difference either, as they all are practically synonymous. As for the "vote by the largest party", the National Front was the largest party, and their votes were the majority, like in any other parliament in the world, so how does that misrepresent Iran's constitution?

I highly doubt Mossadegh personally ordered the death of Razmara. He may had been aware of the plans to do it though. Either way, he benefited from it. Even the sources I added agree that a good chunk of National Front "support" came with the fear of assasination. One can debate the details of Razmara's death, but the facts are clear. On top of that, Razmara wasn't the only victim. Days later, Iran's minister of education was also killed by the Fadaian as well. When the oil bill was passed, an angry Majlis member said "Eight grains of gunpowder brought this bill about".

Yes, Khalil Tahmasebi was arrested and sentenced to hang. But the National Front came to the rescue. In mid 1952 (a year and a half after the assasination) they voted on an urgent emergency bill which authorized Tahmasebi's freedom. The triumphant Tahmasebi declared that he did not expect to live after killing the prime minister (thus admitting his guilt), and even took proud tour of the country. After Mossadegh was overtrown, he was rearrested and hanged.

It was certainly NOT a retrial, as you said. Even if Mossadegh did not personally order Razmara's killing (which I doubt he did order), the bill to release Tahmasebi was a shameful act especially for a prime minister that preaches democracy, and thus Mossadegh was morally guilty for Razmara's death. Denial or dodging the issue is not going to change history either.

The section about Reza Shah is needed. Since the article goes in depth into the historical aspect of the coup, a mention of Reza Shah is necessary (as well as a mention of the Constitutional Revolution). Had Reza Shah not carried out his reforms, I doubt Iran would have had the capacity to resist the British and nationalize its oil. Before he came to power, the British has a sphere of influence over southern Iran. But eventually, Iran under his rule got to a point where they could challenge them in 1951 (something Steven Kinzer himself has stated).

The breakaway Soviet republics and the Shah is simply a brief, one line mention, and makes little difference in this article.

The whole issue of Reza Shah and "Nazism" was largely a failed attempt by the British to justify their invasion of Iran in 1941. I don't know why those allegations are still being repeated over 70 years later. Reza Shah was the first Iranian leader to publicly recognize the Jews, and both his government and his son's government resuced over 1,500 Jews from occupied Europe by giving them Iranian passports and allowing them to settle in the country.

I had orginally written that Reza Shah was a harsh man who dealt violently with dissent. After reading a few more sources, I believe I was wrong. According to Ervand Abrahamian, there were 200 political prisoners in Iran at that time, and none had faced torture. Several died, but virtually none were executed. Prison interrogations were more like those in the 21st century United States, and prisoners had even cordial relations with interrogators. Torture and political imprisonment in Iran began during the 1970's under the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule against armed opponents, and under the Islamic Republic against everybody. Please separate the account of Reza Shah from his son; Reza Shah was a relatively good man and leader, his son was the one that caused all of the trouble.

The people who divided Iran up during the early 20th century were warlords. While a percentage were tribal leaders, others were corrupt governors, landowners, European backed insurgencies, etc. They had divided a completely undeveloped and impoverished Iran, and the central government only really ruled Tehran. I do not know about villages being burned, it is possible, and if so it was a very harsh and cruel act.

Since when have native languages been banned? Farsi has always been taught at schools (whether under the Pahlavis or the current government), and used as the official language. The regional (native) languages are widely spoken by the people living in those regions (such as Gilaki, Mazandarani, Azeri Turkish, etc.) They certainly haven't been banned.

But enough about him, this article is not about Reza Shah. Whatever one's criticisms of him (and there were plenty), he is widely seen as the creator of modern Iran, and respected as such, like Ataturk. Even several hardline supporters of the Islamic Republic that I know agree that he was a profound leader who helped mold Iran into a modern nation state.

Anyway, the edits are not one sided at all, they are simply bringing some balance to the article. Mossadegh still is clearly (whatever his flaws) shown a relatively democratic leader whose intention was democratic constiutional monarchy, the Shah is still portrayed as an absolute monarch (which more or less, he was) and the CIA coup is accepted as fact.

Cheers. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Partridgeinapeartree, so you are the one who added all this nonsense to the article. Lets start with a clear concept. Do not add your own analysis to the article. Your own analysis, until published in a peer-reviewed source, is just original research and irrelevant. Whether you "highly doubt Mossadegh personally ordered the death of Razmara" is not relevant. Unless there is a consensus among academics that says "(Mossadeq) benefited from (the death of Razmara)" and shows that this is somehow related to the 1953 coup, don't add it.

A "vote of confidence" and a "vote of inclination" are not synonyms as you seem to believe (they mean exact opposite things; one is used to put a person in power and the other is used to remove a person from power). Unless you find a source stating that Mossadeq was put in power via a "vote of confidence", then don't add it. Unless you have a source which says "Khalil Tahmasebi was freed by Mossadeq" and clearly shows that this is related to the 1953 coup, do not put it in this article. Whether you think it is important is not relevant. For the record, Tahmasebi was tried in 1952 (when Mossadeq was Prime Minister) and sentenced to death. The death penalty was carried out in 1955. If you already know that the lionization of Reza Shah for recapturing Gilan "makes little difference in this article" then don't add them. If you feel that Reza Shah's pro-Axis stance was "largely a failed attempt by the British to justify their invasion of Iran in 1941", then keep it to yourself. The academic consensus is that Reza Shah was in fact pro-Axis. You claimed that Ervand Abrahamian has written that "Prison interrogations were more like those in the 21st century United States". I am familiar with Abrahamian's work and I know for a fact he has made no such claim. If you are making the claim, provide the citation so I can look it up. If you feel that Iran's early 1910/1920s century tribal leaders are "warlords", then great, discuss it with your family and friends. Unless you have a source which connects this classification directly with the 1953 coup, don't put it in this article. Similarily, if you feel that Reza Shah is "widely seen as the creator of modern Iran, and respected as such, like Ataturk" then feel free to discuss your theories with friends or publish them at your first opportunity. Unless you have a source which backs your claim and connects it to the 1953 coup, keep it out of this page.

Despite your claims, your edits do not "bring balance to the article". Stating that Mossadeq benefited from the murder of previous Prime Ministers (hinting his involvement) is a gross misrepresentation of facts. Lionizing Reza Shah by stating he was the creator of modern Iran and equal to Ataturk, does not bring any balance to the article; it is irrelevant. Misrepresenting Abrahamian does not bring any balance to the article; it hurts Abrahamian's reputation.

Please do not add any information to this page that is not consensus among RS on both validity and its direct relation to the 1953 coup. Poyani (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Poyani,

I have attempted to be very even-handed and reasonable with you, so I do not appreciate being addressed rudely as you have done above. Even though you have revived this nearly year-old discussion in such a manner, I will still attempt to be cordial with you.

First, one of your major faults with my edit stems from your accusations that I "lionized" Reza Shah. First of all, I resent the way you repeatedly use the term "lionize". Based on your writing, if someone puts something even remotely non-negative about a government that you clearly dislike, they are doing something wrong and must defend themselves. This "lionization", as you put it, took up a very small portion of the article, far less than the additions I made about Mossadegh's reign. Yet it is quite vital. As I previously explained to you, those reforms of Reza Shah strengthened Iran enough in order for Mossadegh to resist the British the way he did. He made Iran a centralized state, crafted modern nationalism, and began the development of the economy. Here is a article from Stephen Kinzer himself where he explains much of what I am referring to (see pages 2 & 3): http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/inside-irans-fury-11823881/?no-ist=&page=3

Nobody denies that Reza Shah had controvertial leanings towards the Axis powers, the enemies of the British. But as you can clearly see from my writing, I wrote of Reza Shah and Nazism. Please do not misrepresent what I have written.

You are absolutely right, Dr. Abrahamian never wrote that Reza Shah's prisons were like 21st century American ones. Guess what, I never wrote that he did either! That is my own commentary, based on the reading on the book. Here is the sentence I wrote: According to Ervand Abrahamian, there were 200 political prisoners in Iran at that time, and none had faced torture. Several died, but virtually none were executed. Prison interrogations were more like those in the 21st century United States, and prisoners had even cordial relations with interrogators. My quote about Abrahamian was referring specifically to 200 political prisoners, with none facing torture. The rest of it was my own description of his writing, including my belief based on his writings that interrogation in Reza Shah's political prisons were more like those in the 21st century United States. Not explicitly included in my statement, but clearly obvious, was the allusion to contemporary dictatorships of the 1930's (aka. Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, etc.). There was no torture of political prisoners under his reign. His human rights record can clearly be seen as being superior to most contemporary authoritarian states.

About Razmara's murder: All I wrote in the article was that it was carried out by the Fadaian-e-Khalq, which Kashani supported. Then I wrote that Kashani was appointed Speaker of Parliament by Mossadegh, and that the convicted murderer was freed soon after by Mossadegh's party. If one draws a conclusion that Mossadegh personally either benefited from it, then they are probably right, even if I did not mention it in the article. Dr. Abbas Milani apparantly thinks so as well, as described on page 243 of his book Eminent Persians.

Here is one source describing the release of Tahmasebi (not counting the ones already on the article):

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,817453,00.html (by this time Mossadegh and Kashani were already having problems, but Kashani remained the main clerical leader of the nationalists). Page 483 of Eminent Persians also refers to it as well. The sources on Tahmasebi's Wiki page should give you additional detail. The WK Kressin article describes the impact the assasination had on the oil nationalization vote (describing a fear of death for those who voted "no"). Another source: http://www.fouman.com/Y/Get_Iranian_History_Today.php?artid=1242,

As for the "vote of confidence" vs "vote of inclination", if I made a mistake with the names in the article, feel free to correct it. And as I have previously written, if there are discrepencies between my sources and what I have written, feel free to correct them.

Unfortunately, I cannot please everybody. I have added relevant and reliable information into this article. It is clear that what you and I consider to be relevant and reliable information differs greatly. I have dealt with you in the past politely and cordially, attempting to address your concerns point by point, yet you have become increasingly hysterical and rude, dismissing my contributions "nonsense" and not "relevant", and misrepresenting what I have written (ex. Abrahamian's quote).

Perhaps you should evaluate yourself before judging others, and find out what your own motives are for trying to edit this article. My sources on the article are not in dispute, my edits at all times were clearly related to the subject matter, and what I have written previously on this talk page was written in an honest attempt to address your points.

I have neither the time nor the interest to reply to any more of these unproductive and insulting comments, which clearly seem motivated not by any desire to actually improve the article, but simply to make it conform to your political views. If I wish to edit this article, or any other article, I will do so at any time, in compliance to the policies of Wikipedia. You are entitled to your own personal opinions, but if you wish to play a constructive role here then you need to act in an unbiased manner. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Partridgeinapeartree, I did not mean to insult you. However, please note that there is a time and place for everything. Wikipedia is not a place for Original Research. This article is about the 1953 Coup. Yet, if you take a look at the article, there is about 730 word written about the coup, and an additional 2500 words of historical context. You can make the argument that if it was not for the actions of Reza Shah, there would be no Iran at all for Mossadeq to become Prime Minister. Likewise, if it was not for the actions of Cyrus, there may never have been a Persia to turn into Iran, so that Mossadeq could become Prime Minister. It is arguable, that if it was not for Ferdowsi, there would not have been a unique Iranian culture and hence no Iranian nation, which means Mossadeq would never come to power. None of that has ANY PLACE in this article. They are not cited by other reliable sources (and even if they are cited by one, that makes this interpretation a marginal view which should not have equal weight here).

As for the issue of lionizing Reza Shah: I did not say that if you put anything non-negative, you are lionizing Reza Shah. Please feel free to add all the positive aspects of Reza Shah in his article. They DO NOT belong here. In this article, discussions of how Reza Shah was a cunning and noble ruler, serves no purpose other than to make the Pahlavis look in a better light. Reza Shah's actions in Gilan have no bearing whatsoever on the 1953 coup (the subject of this article) and even if they do, unless there is a consensus among RS on the issue, it is irrelevant.

The "historical background" section of this article should be a concise and brief section which deals only with the history of the AIOC in Iran. Having said that, I admit that the current Historical Background section of the article, is still significantly better than the one I criticized at the beginning of this thread. My main problem now is with the lead, where the phrase "democratically elected government" which is critical to this article's essence, has been repeatedly removed (for several years now) without any serious explanation. Poyani (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

False flag operations

Binksternet it was a False flag operations, why did you reverted the edit?--Setareh1990 (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Because nobody describes it as a false flag operation. Binksternet (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

They are... just read what false flag operation mean, and you'll see that it describes exactly how the coup happened.--Setareh1990 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is some video-material about the Iranian coup de etat, please integrate into the article

because I can not do it properly. Due to the time stamp the Youtube video should begin at exactly the right time. If not adjust please. The video-Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpnOX4l7XA&t=2m19s Mocvd (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mocvd: I'm sorry but Zeitgeist is generally considered a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory source, and therefore shouldn't be used in Wikipedia articles. Bosstopher (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of coup

The coup - or more accurately counter coup - was not to remove a democratically elected PM (since Mossadegh was by this stage a dictator), or for "strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi", it was to remove a leftist dictator who was seen as a threat to the USA and UK, and was opposed by the majority of Iranians. He had been a popular figure, by his popularity had declined as he became more dictatorial.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did the Americans support it?

I don't understand why the Eisenhower administration supported British imperialism/colonialism in Iran when it opposed the Suez operation just three years later? (217.35.237.85 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC))

You'd probably have better luck finding an answer for this question if you go to the WP:Reference Desk. Always been something I never understood either Brustopher (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Simply: it was in their mutual interest to have an ally against the Soviet Union in the Middle East. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Article is inaccurate, and reversal of edits is a violation

Disparaging and insulting remarks against participants at Wikipedia, such as deleting my edits because I am "hysterical" as YeOldeGentleman claims, are a violation of the rules of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, it is per se vandalism under Wikipedia rules to merely delete edits and revert to a previous version without improving or editing the content.

YeOldeGentleman simply undid my edits by calling me "hysterical"

Since neither the United States nor the CIA had any soldiers, troops, or forces in Iran during the 1953 coup, the Wikipedia article is absolutely false and in conflict with the original sources.

Furthermore, the Wikipedia article appears on its face to be nonsensical, given the extensive discussion of the United Kingdom and the UK's interest, but then making purely anti-American false charges against the United States.

How does one read the extensive interests of the United Kingdom in motivating the 1953 coup, and then read the anti-American conclusions that the United States over-threw the Iranian government?

What happened to the United Kingdom? How did the United Kingdom disappear in all of this?

So someone reading the Wikipedia article is to see that (1) The UK had all the motivation, but (2) it was the United States' fault? What sense does that make? It is not only false and in conflict with the original sources, but also troubling and in conflict on its face.

How many US troops were on the ground in Iran? Answer: Zero.

How many CIA forces or soldiers or agents were on the ground in Iran, other than as non-combatant advisers? Answer: Zero.

So can anyone make heads or tails out of Wikipedia's article, such as HOW exactly the United States did this?

I would love to know HOW the United States overthrew a government with NO troops, NO soldiers, NO forces?

If we did in 1953, why aren't we doing it today?

Answer: We did not do it in 1953, which is why we cannot do it today, either.

Yes, the CIA provided some of the funding. Yes, the CIA gave its nod of approval. No, the CIA did not over-throw the Iranian government.

The Iranians over-threw their own government. Those are the facts. The CIA and the United States gave diplomatic cover, encouragement, and funding.

But there was not 1 single pair of "boots on the ground" from the United States. Not one.

Now, to be fair -- which is more than I can say for the article -- the article does describe a process of CIA funding being used to hire mobs of criminals.

No, the CIA did not KNOW WHO to hire inside Iran.

The CIA provided funding. That was wrong. That is a serious issue. That is controversial and important.

But the CIA gave the money to the Iranian coup-plotters, and the Iranians hired mobs of criminals and thugs using the CIA money.

Notwithstanding unreliable third-hand, tenth-hand, twentieth-hand accounts, from original sources can anyone identify HOW the CIA would even know WHOM to hire inside Iran, much less hundreds of thugs and criminals?

The CIA was created in 1947. It was less than 6 years old in 1953, consumed with just getting organized from its 1947 creation.

James Bond movies aside, the 1953 CIA was barely an infant during the 1953 Iranian coup.

The CIA couldn't even find Soviet agents inside the U.S. State Department (confirmed by post-Soviet release of Soviet archives) during the 1953 time period.

-- Jon Moseley

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.193.39 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) 

You are making points that I vaguely recall seeing in a few sources. Can you point to a high quality source that backs up one or more of your assertions? For starters, how would you support the notion that the CIA had nobody on the ground in Iran? Lots of accounts describe the American CIA team packing hurriedly after the first attempt at coup failed, before the successful coup a couple of days later. So it appears that the CIA had people there. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Had U.S. sent boots on the ground the event would have been called "1953 U.S. Invasion of Iran" and not "1953 U.S.-backed coup in Iran".Nightdevil (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The point about not giving the infant CIA too much credit is well taken: Mossadegh was not deposed according to any sort of organized plan. After the August 15 coup attempt failed, the CIA was ordered to evacuate, and undersecretary of state Walter Bedell Smith proposed "a new look at policy towards Persia"—possibly including American aid for Mossadegh. However, M16 delayed Kim Roosevelt's evacuation order, and Kim continued urging the army to take action against Mossadegh while fomenting anti-Mossadegh propaganda. Finally, on August 19, a mob of ordinary citizens marched on Tehran. They were eventually joined by army units loyal to the Shah, capturing Radio Tehran ("Zahedi ... went on air declaring himself the rightful prime minister"), ransacking Mossadegh's home, and ultimately driving the premier into hiding. The CIA doesn't seem to be directly implicated in the actions of the mob. As noted by Hugh Wilford in the single best book on the CIA's activities in the Middle East during the early Cold War period, "it is striking that neither of the two main American sources about the Iran coup—Kim Roosevelt's own memoir, the 1979 Countercoup, and a 1954 internal CIA report on the operation by Donald Wilber leaked to the New York Times in 2000—explicitly claim that Kim played any part personally in the raising of the bazaar crowd or the royalist army units." "The Mysterious Doings of CIA," an authorized account published in the Saturday Evening Post on November 6, 1954, was probably correct when it asserted: "The physical overthrow of Mossadegh was accomplished by the Iranians themselves." To be clear, it's unlikely that any of this would have occurred if not for the Shah's order to dismiss Mossadegh and subsequent dramatic flight from the country—actions which the CIA played no small role in instigating—so I am not claiming to completely absolve the Agency. However, as in Guatemala, the exact circumstances by which the operation succeeded were not known in advance and can be attributed at least partially to luck.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I also note that Wilford does not fall for the canard that Mossadegh was "elected," although I understand that Binksternet lost that RfC, and that POV-pushers will always be able to find innumerable sources claiming he was via the wonders of citogenesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Belligerents

@Binksternet: Expressions like "Mohammed Reza Pahlavi supporters" and "Mohammad Mosaddegh supporters" are vague, and they are not organized entities. Government of Mosaddegh is what really was toppled, not National Front. Many cabinet members were not members of the front, and at the time some factions in the National Front not only were not allied with Mosaddegh anymore, but even opposed to him, like followers of Mozzafar Baghai. On the other side, it was the court that led its henchmen and loyals to overthrow the government, the only legal personality in Iranian insurgents. Pahlevun (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The National Front took to the streets, battling with other belligerents to force their viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

National Front was a political umbrella organization made up by several groups and had no militia troops. It was the "government" that controled armed Shahrbani (police) and some Army commanders loyal to the prime minister, not the front. And the front did not had a single point-of-view, Toilers Party, led by Mozzafar Baghai was one of the National Front elements supporting the coup. It's not right to consider it as a whole supporting government. Pahlevun (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I summarized the lead and removed the tag. I nominated the article for OTD. Saff V. (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Shah's Iran had "worst human rights record in the world"

Come off it, Pahlevun. If you're really Iranian you should have no problem identifying that statement as false. The Shah supposedly executed some 300 people, with fewer than 3,000 individuals dying in clashes between protesters and police during the Iranian Revolution. (This article gives a slightly different estimate that "nearly 100 people were executed for political reasons during the last 20 years of the Shah's rule," when SAVAK was alleged to be at its most fearsome.) As the body of this article makes clear: "The Shah generally dealt with dissent in a relatively mild manner compared to most autocratic leaders." To suggest that the Shah was somehow worse than the likes of Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein—sourced to some fringe author who has no expertise on Iran, is not widely cited on the topic, and whose book was originally published by Common Courage Press, red link very much intended—is an outrageous POV-push, particularly for the lead, and particularly when it is contradicted by the body of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked up the Amnesty Report the writer cites, and it doesn't seem to be saying what he's claiming at all. Agree with TTAC.Brustopher (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brustopher and TheTimesAreAChanging: The claim is no doubt absurd so this hardly matters, but it seems that Bloom is not be citing a "report". Here's his actual citation:

• Martin Ennals, Secretary-General of Amnesty International, cited in an article by Reza Baraheni in Matchbox (Amnesty publication in New York) Fall, 1976.

Is this report you're talking about available on-line? (I assume no, but just asking)Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Guccisamsclub: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/MDE13/001/1976/en/ Brustopher (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Again

User:Binksternet, why would you revert so much and then only address two points? Not even argue, just address them. I have repeatedly explained why the current image is unfit, there is no reason to remove the "military" from "military government", and there was no reason whatsoever to undo all the mentions of the US being the mastermind, not the UK. This can not be omitted. If you want I could put all these references (Guardian, NSA Archive, NY Times, Foreign Policy, Politico, US-owned RFE, CNN, BBC, USA Today, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post and many more) after every single mention of US orchestration but that seems a little excessive, no? At least use the talk page for this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The image: The coup succeeded because Iranians took to the streets and physically made it happen. The celebration photo shows their victory. On the other hand, the "Yankee go home" graffiti image doesn't show such a persuasive action shot.

The Shah's rule was not an absolute monarchy, ever, nor was it a military government. His monarchy was not restored, ever. Rather, the constitutional monarchy that he enjoyed was operating before, during and after the coup. He was aiming to gain political power in the coup, and it worked, but he was not made an absolute monarch. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian argues in The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the roots of modern U.S.-Iranian relations, that the Iranians who took to the streets in support of the Shah numbered about 4000, which in the context of Iran in the 50s was nothing. Mosaddegh, in contrast, ordered his supporters to leave the streets after being persuaded (in a much overlooked meeting, according to Ervand) by the American ambassador on the 18th of August. Many of those 4000, in turn, were paid protesters organized under the likes of Shaban Jafari. It is possible, therefore, that the "celebration" image could give a misleading impression of the support the coup had among Iranians. Uglemat (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Uglemat:. The image may _seem_ "excessively anti-American", but it a more accurate and mainstream representation of these events than "Tehran men celebrating". Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet, pleae read those references. Not only are historians in consensus over why it transpired, both the CIA and even Obama as President himself ("In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government." - 2009, Cairo) have revealed the US role. Having an image suggesting some Iranian grassroots protest is simply contrary to the modern understanding of what happened. The "Yankee go home", however, perfectly shows the anti-American sentiment that was present. And he was still a monarch. You're also going against the sources, ehiC mention a military government. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet@After the coup , Shah was typically an absolute monarch . New revisionist point of views can only replace the main stream after gaining consensus among the academic sources .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Abbas Milani stops short of calling it absolute monarchy, and so does Gholam Reza Afkhami. In their two books they describe an increasing authoritarian monarch, with its greatest extreme in the mid-1960s coming close to absolute monarchy but not quite getting there. The Shah sought absolute power but he was never able to attain it. Binksternet (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good, so change that. A lead should reflect the body and I noted what was in the body. Still doesn't give any rationale for the image, the omission of US leadership and other reversions. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Will not be declassified

History of Iran Covert Action Deferred Indefinitely, 18 April 2017 --87.159.112.146 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Why did the Americans support European colonialism in Iran in 193, yet oppose it in Egypt in 1956? Was it just because the US didn't get much oil via the Suez Canal? (EricHobner (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)) Banned editor HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109004131/http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/259/default.aspx to http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/259/default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.payk.net/politics/cia-docs/published/one-main/main.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/1953-coup-Iran-CIA.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/1953-coup-Iran-CIA.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/ekot/artikel.asp?Artikel=1392947
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.payk.net/politics/cia-docs/published/one-main/main.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707013627/http://fas.org/news/iran/2000/000317.htm to https://fas.org/news/iran/2000/000317.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Newly Declassified Documents

The US Government Office of the Historian just released a volume of official documents from 1951 to 1954 on US foreign policy in regard to Iran, including the Truman administration's attempts at understanding Mossagegh and the covert operation during the Eisenhower administration. The volume can be used to further expand this article. See here. NIGHTdevil 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Article about it: Foreign PolicyTerrorist96 (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/ekot/artikel.asp?Artikel=1392947
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104131528/http://fas.org/news/iran/2000/000321-iran1.htm to https://fas.org/news/iran/2000/000321-iran1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Misleading reference to John Foster Dulles

As of 2017-07-27, the text includes, "Worried about Britain's other interests in Iran, and (thanks to the Tudeh party)[12] believing that Iran's nationalism was really a Soviet-backed plot, Britain persuaded US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was falling to the Soviets—effectively exploiting the American Cold War mindset. Since President Harry S. Truman was busy fighting a war in Korea, he did not agree to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh." This is at best misleading, because John Foster Dulles did not become US Secretary of State until after Harry Truman left office and Dwight D. Eisenhower became president. Dean Acheson was Truman's Secretary of State.

This needs to be fixed, but I don't know enough to be confident in exactly how it should be changed. I hope someone who knows this subject better than I do will fix it. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the list of commanders in the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Figures mentioned in question are not to be listed as commanders. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Should we list Miles Copeland Jr. and Shapoor Reporter among the commanders in the infobox? Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No to both. They were staff officers but not commanders. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• No They had important roles, but were not in command. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Neither should be listed Participants, key players, important roles all seem appropriate. The folks listed in the infobox as leaders seem to fit that description well--but not these two.Horst59 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Both of these men – Miles Copeland, Jr. and Shapoor Reporter – worked as staff members in their respective intelligence agencies. Neither one is described in reliable sources as a station commander or otherwise a commander of significant forces in the 1953 coup. Rather, they were serving in a larger hierarchy. Copeland served under Kermit Roosevelt, as did Donald Wilber who is arguably more important than Copeland, since Wilber is described as the coup's operational leader while Roosevelt was the senior leader on site. Regarding the hierarchy to which Shapoor Reporter reported, the British spies had been kicked out of Iran in 1952, so Reporter, left without a local boss, started going to the US consulate with his information. Author Abolghassem Khamneipur describes Reporter as equally important to the British effort in the 1953 coup as Iran specialists Ann Lambton and Robert Charles Zaehner, with Zaehner the most important.[3] Reporter, Lambton and Zaehner supplied information. They didn't command forces. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Democratically-elected Iranian Prime Minister

Binksternet: Regarding your recent edit, in what way do you think inclusion of "Democratically-elected" is WP:UNDUE considering that many reliable sources have used the term? (See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and probably many others.) Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The term "democratically elected" already appears in the article seven times – we don't need it to be eight times. It is not appropriate to hit the reader over the head with this term, especially when the Prime Minister of Iran was never popularly elected, which many of our readers will assume from the seven repetitions of "democratically elected". Instead, the PM candidate was chosen by the Iranian Congress (Majlis) and presented to the Shah, who would then approve or refuse the candidate. This was all according to the Constitution, so it was a democratic procedure, but I am opposed to the overemphasis of the term "democratically elected" because it was not a popular vote that elected the PM. He was democratically placed in power but he was not "elected". The only reason we have the term "democratically elected" seven times in the article is because our reliable sources use it. Many of those sources use the term "democratically elected" to mean two things: that Mosaddegh was placed in power through a legitimate democratic process, and that Mosaddegh could count on the support of a majority of the people of Iran. Instead of using the term "democratically elected" eight times, you might want to use some extra prose in the article body to describe the popularity of the PM in specific terms. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I understand what you mean by 7 hits and the "democratic procedure". However I don't think your comment had anything to do with WP:UNDUE which I was expecting you to shed light on, or at least I could not make a connection between them. Anyway, we may reduce the number of "democratically elected"s in exchange for having it in the infobox. What you said largely seems logical but we need to adhere to the sources, as you said. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I found that Gasiorowski holds a different viewpoint than yours: "The government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq which was ousted in the coup was the last popular, democratically oriented government to hold office in Iran." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Gasiorowski would agree with the fact that Mosaddegh was chosen by the Majlis and approved as PM by the Shah rather than elected PM in a popular vote.

I will do everything possible to reduce the prominence of the phrase "democratically elected" since it is inaccurate, and laden with political/emotional baggage. I don't want it in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoints

• @Saff V.: I think what you already added to the article matches better in a "Viewpoints" section. What do you think? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a great idea, in this way, there are other viewpoints in Legacy. Maybe it would be better that the context of Legacy is divided between viewpoints and In popular culture.Saff V. (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Saff V.: Thanks for the new section but you'd better let this portion back to 'Legacy'. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I thought that the opinion of Imam Khomeini or Fardoust is more sutiable for Viewpoint part, but I wasn't sure.Saff V. (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You've removed the paragraph from the context it belonged to. "This allegation also is posited in the book..." is vague in the new section. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, The context was reverted !Saff V. (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better now. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Period of discontent among Iranians, climaxing in Iranian Revolution" - Reductionist?

This is a prominent piece of the infobox, implicitly drawing a direct cause-effect relationship between the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution. My main problem with this being presented in a matter-of-fact manner in the infobox, rather than as an opinion in the article's body, is that it is arguably very reductionist. While it is undeniable that the establishment of an absolute monarchy helped create the conditions of the 1979 Revolution, it seems a little unreasonable to me to bluntly state a direct A-to-B connection, especially when the two events were separated by over twenty years. The 1979 Revolution had many causes, and while a reader can click on the article to learn more, somebody who just reads this article is likely to get an incorrect impression that the 1979 Revolution was simply the result of the 1953 coup. I think this piece of text needs to be modified or removed.Jogarz1921 (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Nematollah Nasiri.jpg
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Pro-shah sympathisers (1).jpg
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Tehran rally.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

1949 Syrian Coup

This article makes the claim that the 1953 coup was "the first covert action by the United States to overthrow a democratically-elected government during peacetime". This is not true. In 1949, the CIA encouraged and facilitated an overthrow of the Quwatli government in Syria. This is outlined by Douglas Little in this article, and confirmed by declassified communications between CIA operatives and Husni al-Za'im. I would therefore encourage the removal of the misleading sentence.

83.34.163.240 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Norman Darbyshire

Norman Darbyshire's personal reminiscences about the coup are worth a read in the National Security Archive. Zero^talk 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is rather US-centric. Darbyshire was an insider and nowhere would concur with this summary in the lead:-

Judging Mosaddegh to be unreliable and fearing a Communist takeover in Iran, UK prime minister Winston Churchill and the Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government, though the preceding Truman administration had opposed a coup, fearing the precedent that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) involvement would set

In Darbyshire's eyewitness account, the British were gung-ho from the start, and raised the idea that Mossedegh being weak, he would eventually be but a transitional figure whom the Communists would manage to displace by slowly infiltrating the system. That of course was all ideological garbage spun out to justify what was outrage at losing an imperial asset. The US on the other hand were diffident, and initially assessed that Mossedegh would, to the contrary, prove an effective bulwark against the Communists. This started and ended up with Britain's desire to defend an imperial asset, - not save the world from communism. The way two different assessments eventually coalesced to destroy another emerging democracy keen to develop using its own national assets, and not being in pawn to the West, requires elaboration, and several fixes for the slanted text we have.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Problems of article

Abbas Milani is by no means a good source. He is one of Mossadegh's extremist supporters and in his book, Shah, he has a completely unfair view of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The part that says the king suppressed the Republicans is a lie. In my opinion, the article has many problems because its sources are mainly Mossadegh's supporters. Nowhere is it mentioned that it was Mossadegh who closed the parliament. In general, I think this article has a lot of work to do. Thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I challenge your very first statement. I have seen all the English-language reviews of Milani's Shah book, and they are all positive, praising Milani's scholarship. None of the reviews talk about how Milani is a biased observer, let alone "extremist", whatever that means. Milani is a researcher at the Hoover Institution which trends toward right-wing conservativism, libertarianism and even far-right reactionary screeds, so it would be very strange to place Milani at the extreme left, politically.

The book reviews were positive from the Los Angeles Times, KQED, SF Gate, Wall Street Journal, the Middle East Policy Council,[13] Kirkus Reviews, Radio Free Europe, Publishers Weekly, and the Journal of Contemporary History. The most that can be said about Milani's supposed bias is that he is a champion of democracy, not monarchy. His fellow scholar Larry Diamond said Milani "has never wavered from a liberal vision for Iran—that it should be a free and democratic society, but that it's up to the Iranian people to decide what its constitutional structure is going to be." But nobody ever said that Milani's political views colored his writings about the Shah. Radio Free Europe wrote that Milani "views both sides with skepticism" and produced a balanced book.

If you want to propose improvements to this article about the 1953 coup, you should specify exactly what you would like to change, and why, citing the published works you have been reading. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I apologize for the bad tone in the first message. See, my reference and source for what I will say is the book "Memoirs and Reflections of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh" and "Letters of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh". In one of his letters to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Mohammad Mossadegh stated that the Shah had the right to remove the Prime Minister. He also wrote in his memoirs that he closed the parliament "to maintain his position" (p. 207). Elsewhere he wrote that he wanted to use tanks to disperse the people. (P. 273) There are many such cases in Dr. Mossadegh's memoirs, and that is why I call Mr. Milani an extremist because he never mentions these points in any of his books and tries to make Mossadegh holy. Thanks Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources which provide analysis such as weighing contradictory facts. Mossadegh's letters are a primary source. You can argue for changes to this article about the 1953 coup if you cite secondary sources. If you don't want to use Milani, possible new sources include Iran and The CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited by Iranian diplomat Darioush Bayandor, published by the respected Palgrave Macmillan company in 2010. Or you can read Gholam Reza Afkhami's 2009 book The Life and Times of the Shah. Both of these are based on new interviews and recently discovered archival documents. Bayandor is not yet cited in the article; Bayandor and Afkhami both write a revisionist assessment that the CIA has covered up their confusion on the day of the coup, and that the CIA has rewritten their own department history to hide their decision to pull the plug, because they thought the coup was failing. Binksternet (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I happened to read the sources you introduced and I agree that they should be used in the article. My suggestion is to remove book the Shah by Abbas Milani as the source of the article. Because in terms of authenticity, due to the attempt to show a holy face of Mossadegh, it is written very one-sidedly and in terms of up-to-date information, it is very old. If, in terms of Wikipedia policy, Mossadegh's memoirs and letters are the primary source, then it is better not to use them. Thanks Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing Milani would be appropriate if Milani's book was widely criticized for inaccuracy or bias. This is not the case. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The role of the US

In the article it's repeatedly stated that the removal of Mosaddegh was orchestrated by the US under operation TPAJAX. But in the article this information is contradicted, stating that the CIA had little role in the 19th of August removal of Mosaddegh (operation TPAJAX was supposed to take place the 16th of August). Operation TPAJAX failed and even though it can be considered that it helped to create the situation that led to overthrow Mosaddegh (as stated in the article) I think the role of the US in other parts of the article is exaggerated with vague statements like "orchestrated by the US' later contradicted in the article. I am sure of what I'm saying since it's in the article but would like to discuss this issue before making overall not so important but important for some readers (many tend to read the first sentences that summarize the article and close the article) changes about a topic that also has a political relevance. What do you think? Castagna98 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"Aided by" definitely seems more fitting. Notably, the only source that describes it as "orchestrated by" is the Khomeini website - making it obvious POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I made that change, previously it was "Orchestrated by" and I'm also convinced it's more fitting Castagna98 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

According to this source "the CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq". So "aided by" is too lenient since U.S. had a prominent role in the coup. Some tend to say it was sponsored by the U.S..--Mhhossein ^talk 11:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. 'Sponsored' is a better phrasing still - I think that probably strikes a better balance between assistance and full-blown orchestration than 'aided'. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mhhossein We could reach a balance yes.

The real problem is that, as stated in the article, the coup attempt financed by the CIA and also organized significantly by the CIA, operation TPAJAX, failed and never took place.

It was supposed to take place the 16th of August but it was busted mainly because Mossadegh heard of it in advance and dissolved the parliament and refused the subsequent constitutionally lawful order of the Shah to be dismissed from the position of prime Minister and called in the army.

Between August the 16th and August the 19th, from the Mossadegh coup to the his remova, as we know from the 2013 declassified CIA documents, the US suspended operations in Iran and conceived of negotiating with him to gain time before a communist Tudeh takeover (the US was expecting this).

Document 278, point 2. Written on the 18th of August:

2. State Dept has indicated following tentative stand: This view on basis evidence available to it is that operation has been tried and failed and we should not participate in any operation against Mossadegh which could be traced back to US and further compromise future relations with him which may become only course of action left open to US.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Iran/d278

This is the official US government collection of all 500+ declassified documents.

The actual instance where Mossadegh was removed occurred on the 19th of August and was carried out by the Army supported by a considerable part of the population, just morally or joining in the streets.

It would be worth noting that Kermit Roosevelt Jr, an important ground organizer of CIA operations in Iran, dismissed orders to abort operations in Iran, and stayed aiding the removal of Mosaddegh financing street thugs and impersonators of pro Mossadegh-extremists to discredit Mossadegh's figure even further.

This, nonetheless, as stated in the article, played a little role, and the CIA had no plans for the 19th of August.

My conclusions are that the distinction between operation TPAJAX, that clearly had US financing and organizational backing, and the actual removal of Mossadegh, is fundamental. the CIA did not plan rhat and was quite unaware of what was going on, in fact document 273, of the 17th of August states:

While initial attempt failed several significant facts remain:

C. Mossadeq strengthened at moment. Period probably last two months.

The documents clearly show that the CIA expected Mosaddegh to last longer and was reluctant to take further action in Iran.

This shows that it's incorrect to attribute the coup that removed Mosaddegh to operation TPAJAX and the US.

It could be argued it helped create the situation in which the removal of Mosaddegh occurred, since he dismissed the parliament to avoid his removal and didn't comply to the lawful Shah order to be dismissed creting unrest in the country.

Hence I think that describing TPAJAX as the reason of the coup is very misleading, since contradicted in the article.

This is the main point I am concerned with.

I am happy to encounter such an active community, I didn't expect replies on the same day! Castagna98 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

At the same time, by dismissing the orders to abort, Roosevelt did essentially proceed with the plan as intended and mobilized the same assets. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I think it remains the fact that associating so closely the removal of Mossadegh with US operations is misleading and maybe the introduction especially should be modified.

Do you convey? Castagna98 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the two are still very closely associated. I think it is reasonable to say that the coup may well not have happened without US support. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Our job here as editors is to fairly represent the published sources, leaning heavily on WP:SECONDARY sources. We are not supposed to make critical content decisions based solely on primary documents. We are not supposed to puzzle out the timing of the coup based on CIA papers.

That said, there are historians who have challenged the narrative of a successful CIA-led coup. One is Darioush Bayandor who wrote in 2010 and 2018 that the CIA coup attempt failed, and this was quickly followed by a successful coup organized by clerics under Shia leader, Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Hossein Boroujerdi. And it's not just Bayandor saying this: Ray Takeyh wrote in The Last Shah that "many historians believe that the more esteemed members of the clergy, led by the venerable Grand Ayatollah Borujerdi" were ultimately responsible for the coup. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree and we need to be careful about giving WP:DUE weight to the POVs. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Iranian documents

All the documents of the coup are available in Farsi language. All the newspapers that covered this news and event in detail. The photos are available. In addition, our grandfathers are still alive and remember those days. Why instead of documents The CIA does not refer to Iranian documents. It is like we use our own documents for the history of America. This is the history of our country, not the history of America. Abbas Milani is not trustworthy and his story is a lie. Did Abbas Milani ever say that he was in prison for three years in Iran because of the bombing? Did he say that he was a leftist against the king? The best documents are iran newspapers, not people's memories. 5.115.110.121 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)