[eadmund]

The coup of 1953 consisted of the Prime Minister of Iran ignoring the shah's legal order dismissing him from office and attempting to seize pre-eminent power for himself. To the extent that the U.S. and the U.K. were engaged in Persian politics in 1953, they were supporting the legitimate government against a usurper.

[eternalban]

The fact that this lie -- "Shah was installed in `53 coup overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh" -- is insistently propagated by Western and Iranian propaganda machines is a very distinct clue. (Same can be said by the embrace of MKO cult by the likes of Bolton, Guilliani, and the rest of that gang. They never ever say even a single positive word about the late Shah of Iran. Verboten!)

Even wikipedia admits that:

"A referendum on the dissolution of Parliament, the first referendum ever held in Iran, was held in August 1953. The dissolution was approved by more than 99% of voters."

"99% of voters". This was the coup of Dr. Mossadegh and that ridiculous number is exhibit A.

"The balloting was not secret and there were two separate voting booths, i.e. the opponents of Mossadegh had to cast their vote in a separate tent.[7][1] Critics pointed that the referendum had ignored the democratic demand for secret ballots."

Sounds democratic to me. (Actually reminds me of the referendum of Ayatollah Khomeini -- I remember it vividly. I went with my uncle to the polling station. Two boxes in the room, clearly marked for and against, with dear "brothers" from the Komiteh with the G3s assault rifles slung over their shoulders watching over the process.)

Care to guess how many of those who virtue signal by bringing up '53 are aware of the "democratically elected" Dr. Mossadegh's "emergency powers"?

Even fewer know that the good Dr. was a member of the aristocracy of the deposed and despised Qajar dynasty.

Of course non-Iranians are welcome to their opinions, but it is entirely reassuring to this former Iranian that "Pahlavi" has become the rallying cry of Iranian youth.

[Apocryphon]

You can claim that Mossadegh was no angel, but the Shah was even worse:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1980/03/23/t...

This apologist article damns the Shah with faint praise- perhaps there had been improvements under the Pahlavis in the latter days of the regime, but there were flagrant abuses under the SAVAK secret police in the early '70s to 1976- in engaging in such brutality, and in botching the land reform of the White Revolution, Mohammad Reza tied his own noose.

[eternalban]

I have said precisely zero about the character of the late Dr. Mossadegh or the late Shahanshah of Iran. What I have pointed out is the curious case of canned narrative peddled by Western and Iranian propaganda organs.

But speaking of "angels", I'd say SAVAK was angelic compared to CIA, MI6, MOSSAD & KGB and their record of "brutality".

p.s. Regrettably you likely do not speak Farsi, but this BBC Persian show brings together a former SAVAK, National Front, and Fadeyeen Khalgh (militant terrorist Left) gentlemen including the historian who wrote a quite interesting book on Sabeti (SAVAK thinking end) and it is interesting how at the end of episode 2 they all wonder at how they agree that the poor "evil" "fascist" "puppet" Shah's regime was far far more civilized and gentle than the actual thugs of the so called Islamic Republic of Iran.

part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNFfdb-LKII

part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnMZUcAfJg

[Apocryphon]

On the contrary, you've described the governance of the short-lived rule of Mossadegh compared to Mohammad Reza.

You know, to criticize the Shah does not mean to praise the ayatollahs. Nor does to criticize the ayatollahs mean one has to praise the shah. His misrule and cruelties, no matter how nominal when compared in a fit of whataboutism, simply emboldened his enemies and led to revolution. In some ways, you can lay the atrocities of the successive regimes on his bloody follies.

[eternalban]

There is plenty to criticize about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's reign. You however are not expressing a 'critical' position. You are merely echoing propaganda.

What misrule? (Curious as to the lengths and depths of your studies of modern Iranian history.)

During the 50 years of Pahlavi dynasty, Iran went from being a basket case toy of England and Russia to a nation that was actually posing strategic problems for Western imperialists in the 70s (so he had to go).

It is not whataboutism to direct your gaze to the proverbial mirror. By what standard is this "brutality" of SAVAK measured?

Tell me: how many innocent civilians were killed during terrorist activity of leftist guerillas in the 70s in Iran? Do you have a clue?

[Apocryphon]

Again, one does not have to defend the actions of any guerrilla or terrorist organization, in order to lament the brutality of Pahlavi rule. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to cast him as a victim of Western imperialism, rather than another Fulgencio Batista or Ngo Dinh Diem who overplayed his hand and failed to carry out the sufficient land reform to appease the working classes and the peasantry.