[continuitylimit]

Your story about operation Ajax is just that - a story. Iran’s PMs were all elected by parliament and the one before Mr. Mossadeq was assassinated by Islamists allied to your “democrat” who then let the killer get off with no jail time.

You also fail to note that the PM in question had a “99%” referendum during his tenure. You also fail to mention that the said PM refused his constitutionally valid dismissal by the Shah and then proceeded to launch a COUP against the constitutional monarchy.

You fail to mention all this because NYTimes and CIA and the rest of the Western world is perfectly happy with the narrative of Kermit Roosevelt getting off the plane with a suitcase of dollars and then taking over a “99%” supported regime overnight! CIA is sure impressive!

The facts are that the PM in question began to alienate his allies — the Islamists — so they withdrew support, and very substantial chunk of the nation absolutely did not agree with his coup and his program of unilaterally changing the outcome of the 1905 Constitutional Revolution of Iran which do grant certain powers to the monarch. This includes dismissing the PM.

So, now that we have a more ‘rounded’ historic context of what actually led to ‘53 counter coup encouraged and supported by US and UK (which failed) and the next day’s Army’s counter-coup (which succeeded), the topical point remains:

Whatever CIA, or “Anglo-Saxons” or this or that evil empire has done in NO WAY excuse or elucidate the dictatorial regime of the clergy and their very open trampling the rights of women in Iran.

I am not sure what is the Islamist version of “Tankee” but you are it.

[and a ps for Iranians in the audience]

If you continue to repeat the ridiculous NYTimes/CIA version of the story you are denigrating our great people. The idea that some flunky from CIA with a suitcase of cash managed to unseat a “99%” PM overnight mainly says that Iranians are mindless chumps who are trivially manipulated. This is neither flattering or accurate.

[Qiu_Zhanxuan]

Most people today would agree with Mossadegh's initiative and the point remains that he was ousted from power for his nationalization of a western oil company and his inimity with the islamists and the Shah. The US helped in the process. And it's no disrespect to the iranians to state those facts.

[continuitylimit]

who are these “most people”?

Everyone in Iran, including the Shah, wanted Iran’s oil nationalized. It was the economic consequences that tempered others. The Good Dr. had to go hat in hand to US and beg Eisenhower to aid after oil revenues stopped. That was his bright idea.

Also your story is not the propaganda narrative that is repeated. This is the single paragraph story:

Iran did have a democratic government, but because the PM nationalized the oil, US did a coup and installed a dictator, the shah.

And that is entirely different from your “US helped in the process”. That would be accurate because that is all it was: in the main political support. Then, we in fact had a decade were Generals were powerful, until the Shah, finally in 60s (without CIA and to the great annoyance of the Kennedys) assumed all the power after having disbanded the Communist party and defanged the National Front. The “dictatorship” began 10 years later and it was far more benevolent than say a psycho killer like Mao who murdered millions. But Mao was a “great man” and the Shah is a “dictator”. Go figure.