Misplaced Pages

Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:41, 29 October 2010 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,034 edits →Improving the article: the death of WP:STABLE← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:24, 13 November 2024 edit undo188.95.125.92 (talk) →Definition of coup: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject Iran|class=B|importance=high}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2007-08-19|oldid1=152327662|date2=2009-08-19|oldid2=308771529}} {{On this day|date1=2007-08-19|oldid1=152327662|date2=2009-08-19|oldid2=308771529|date3=2011-08-19|oldid3=445605236|date4=2014-08-19|oldid4=621897551|date5=2016-08-19|oldid5=735324212}}
{{ITN talk|22 August|2013}}
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Intel=y|Middle-Eastern=y|US=y}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject Iran|importance=top}}
}}
{{USPP assignment}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 11 |counter = 15
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(20d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
{{archive box|search=yes|title=Collected resources|
*]
*]
}} }}


== Definition of coup ==
== Summary into Lead suggestion - National Geographic ==

The August 2008 issue of National Geographic had this to say about the coup:
:Oil was at the root of a 1953 event that is still a sore subject for many Iranians: the CIA-backed overthrow, instigated and supported by the British government, of Iran's elected and popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had kicked out the British after the Iranian oil industry, controlled through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP), was nationalized, and the British had retaliated with an economic blockade. With the Cold War on and the Soviet bloc located just to the north, the U.S. feared that a Soviet-backed communism in Iran could shift the balance of world power and jeopardize Western interests in the region. The coup - Operation TP-Ajax - is believed to have been the CIA's first. (Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., Teddy's grandson, ran the show, and H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Persian Gulf war commander, was enlisted to coax the shaw into playing his part. Its base of operations was the US Embassy in Tehran, the future "nest of spies" to the Iranians, where 52 US hostages were taken in 1979). Afterward, the shaw, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was returned to power, commerical oil rights fell largely to British and US oil companies, and Mossadegh was imprisoned and later placed under house arrest until he died in 1967.
I think that this would be a nice summary for the intro section. It includes/combines the diverging views on this page - the argument that only the oil was responsible and the argument that Cold War mentality was to blame. So, I think it's a nice compromise and would be my suggestion as this is really, in my opinion, how the majority of the historians view the events of the coup. --] (]) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:"the shaw"? --] (]) 21:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

== democratically elected? ==

Due to the enormously controversial nature of the Iranian/Western relationship, it is perhaps a little bit deceptive to refer to Mossadegh as the "democratically elected" prime minister without also pointing out the the previous "democratically elected" prime minister had just recently been assassinated. A cursory reading of the article could leave the reader with the impression that Mossadegh had been elected by a some kind of ground-breaking general plebiscite, which was not the case, as he had been elected by a majority parliamentary vote, as had likewise the late (pro-Western) prime minister Ali Razmara. After the parliamentary vote, Mossadegh's position had to be ratified by the Shah, and subsequently had to be again - after Mossadegh's deposal and reinstatement. ] (]) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

:You've had no response for two months, as there are POV-pushing editors here who will not tolerate having anything in the article but the story of a pure and saintly Mosaddegh who was martyred to British and American greed for oil. In their version, the democratic nature of the election must be emphasized over and over, like voices getting louder in argument after reason has quit the scene. For instance, , the phrase "democratically elected" appears five times in the article body, and twice in references. In , it appears three times in the article and once in the references. Truly, your observation that the election results should be compared to previous ones is apt. And your comment about the tone of the article giving an incorrect impression is dead on. Too much emphasis on "democratically elected", too little discussion of the context.

:To Kurdo777: I am not edit warring over the words "democratically elected". Edit warring is simple reversion with no discussion. I am discussing why it is that the words are too much emphasized when the facts are questionable and the tone is overstated. When I looked at the article on August 17 I found seven instances of "democratically elected" and . Two days later, ] without discussion and without an edit summary. ''That'' is what edit warring is, Kurdo. sifted through the article with a finer comb, looking for a better way to represent the phrase "democratically elected". I found three instances of it in the first paragraph which are two too many, so I removed two of them. I also found that Barack Obama was quoted on the same subject twice, from the same keynote address made at one Cairo appearance. I see no reason why we need to have redundant information, so I removed one of the Obama quotes and kept the longer, more inclusive one that had more context. Clearly this is improvement of the article—a simple copyediting of the work to make sure it flows correctly and does not repeat itself overmuch. I did not attempt to address Pontificateus's concerns as expressed above, as I did not have the proper references at hand.
:On my talk page ] I disagree, based on the English composition lessons I learned at 12 and 13 years of age. Good writing avoids ''unnecessary'' repetition. However, repetition can be used to good effect to establish a rhythm or make a point, but an artful rhythm is not the primary goal of a contentious summary-style encyclopedia article about Iran's history. It appears from your pushing for so many instances of the phrase "democratically elected" that you wish to make a point, but that point is a flawed one. There are expert observers who do not consider Mosaddegh to be the first democratically elected prime minister, and there are expert observers who do not think his election was a fair gauge of public opinion, that it was rigged. The repetition seems to me to be a crude attempt to shout down reliably sourced interpretations that are at variance to your idea of how the government was formed. ] (]) 17:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

:After seeing no response, I am returning the article to its non-redundant version, with fewer instances of "democratically elected". Three instances appear in the article, and one in the references. This is quite enough to satisfy those who believe the elections were legitimate. It's not like I am trying to get rid of all of them, to erase the mention. ] (]) 04:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
Okay, so I see that Kurdo777 has responded twice on my talk page rather than here. This is what has been said on my talk page:

:Once again, you're edit-warring against or without a consensus. We have gone over this issue before. There is nothing redundant about using democratically-elected as an adjective in one sentence and then mentioning that it was the ''first'' democratically-elected government in the next sentence. ] (]) 11:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, it is totally redundant to say it so many times, and twice so quickly in the lead paragraph. It is bad writing, and it is POV-pushing to try and emphasize that aspect. All that needs to be said is that it was the first democratically elected government of Iran, then the subsequent quotes can fill in the next few instances of "democratically elected". ] (]) 15:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

:::No , it is not. What is POV-pushing is your petty attempt at undermining the fact (supported by hundreds of sources) that the government in question was democratically-elected. ] (]) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
My answer is that a simple nay-saying negation is not an argument. How can you complain that the article does not fairly represent the "democratically elected" position when it states it FOUR times? ] (]) 04:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One further observation is that I do not need a consensus to edit the article. The article cries out for improvement, with its prominent tag saying that it has multiple issues, which it has. Are you saying that the article should continue in its flawed state? ] (]) 04:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
:: The issue of "democratically-elected" has been discussed many times before, the overwhelming majority of the sources refer to the government in question as democratically-elected. You opinions, synthesis of sources to prove a point that the goverment was not democratic etc, or attempts to undermine this crucial fact by calling it "repetitive" etc, have no merits, and go against scholarly consensus, and the previous consensus of the editors here. ] (]) 04:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
:::You forget that four instances of "democratically elected" remain in the article in my version. Do you think I am wiping it out, as perhaps Pontificateus might argue? You think I am undermining it? No, not me, not this time; I do not have the references about me to attempt that. What I have is good English sense, good writing sense. Your arguments do not cover that aspect at all, and your reversion has no merit. The only thing I am trying to do is prevent the article from pathetically flogging the issue, boorishly and loudly, as if there were no firm basis for it and sheer volume must replace cool logic. I am looking forward to your explanation of which once again sets a wholly redundant paragraph containing Barack Obama's Cairo speech into the article to mirror, weakly, the existing section in which Barack Obama speaks in Cairo, saying the same exact thing in greater detail. ] (]) 07:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)



The article considers the Shah's royal decree (Farman) to dismiss Mosaddegh the first coup. However, it is stated in the article that this act was legal according to Iran's constitution at that time, while Misplaced Pages's ] article defines a coup as an illegal act. This is a contradiction and needs to be addressed. ] (]) 07:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
== RfC: Democratically elected ==


:I think there is a parallel with the ]. It was, as I understand it, legal, but also made possible only by violence. It is a good point though. ] (]) 16:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
::"legal, but also made possible only by violence" ?? By violence is by definitionn not leagal! Parliament was stormed by US trained and led NAZIs with Kalashnikows and members of the parliament on gun point were urged to dismiss the president and provide several laws. There were video where you could see these guns.
::One should think about intelligence test for writers here. ] (]) 09:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Russian propaganda much comrade? What’s the going rate these days? ] (]) 21:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::It was only possible by violence because Mosaddegh unlawfully resisted his completely legal and constitutional dismissal. ] (]) 11:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:The article is a biased joke. The only coup happening was attempted by Mosaddegh, and it was thwarted by the forces loyal to the shah in accordance with the constitution. ] (]) 16:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


== Balance of presented information ==
How many instances of the descriptive phrase "democratically elected" should appear in the article? ] (]) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


IMO too much real estate in this article is dedicated to providing detailed and varied viewpoints on why the US participated in the coup. It doesn't seem to be intentional, but it creates the slight impression of apologism. By comparison, the content on the UK's motivations is less exhaustive, even though the UK was the driving force behind the coup. ] (]) 01:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:You should not begin an RfC when there is no discussion on a topic. You can make changes yourself and see if they are challenged or recommend changes and see if you find no disagreement. I suggest you cancel the RfC. ] (]) 23:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


== The CIA failed, despite their later claims ==
::The thread above this one is ] The discussion is there; the RfC stays up. ] (]) 00:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Many scholars agree that the CIA coup attempt failed on 15 August. This narrative is an irritant to the CIA which would rather be seen as successful and scheming than as unsuccessful and scheming. The CIA released documents in 2013 and 2017 to try and pull the narrative back in their direction, but these primary sources do not erase the findings of ] sources.
:::Offhand, like the Tootsie-Roll owl, I would say, ''three''. Once for the introduction, once for the description of the election itself, and once for the controversy/criticism about the election and its aftermath. Otherwise, like any descriptor, it becomes burdensome and repetitive. It should be clear from the writing which governments achieved their power which way, and once established, it doesn't need re-mentioning unless the topic substantially shifts or the issue is directly at hand. ] 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
::::: That's how it is now anyways. ] (]) 11:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC))
::::::Not true. The version up right now has three instances in the lead, two more in the "Internationally" section, and one more completely unnecessary one in the references. ] (]) 17:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am reducing the five article body instances of "democratically elected", per Ocaasi, myself, and common sense. Ocaasi recommended three, one instance occurring in the "Election" section, but there is no such section at this time. Thus, I am reducing the number to two, one in the introduction, one in the article body. ] (]) 02:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
: I have undone your edit. All those instances are needed for context in their own paragraphs. You should stop being obsessed with down-playing the fact this government was democratically-elected, you're going against academic consensus here. However, I did change one of the "democratically elected" mentions in the lead to "democracy" for better flow. ] (]) 05:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you for changing one instance of "democratically elected" to "democracy"; I think that is a good compromise. However, the RfC we have undertaken here trumps any notional "academic consensus" that you pull out of thin air. ''You'' went against wiki consensus when reverting my edit. I am restoring the essence of my work.
::You have no business telling me what I should stop being obsessed with. Have you heard of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"? You have placed the phrase "democratically elected" into the supposed title of an untitled web page, the one from www.cryptome.org. This instance of "democratically elected" is a complete fiction, as there is no such phrase in the webpage. ] (]) 14:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::: First of all, the RFC did not generate broad response, and the one editor who responded did not support you, there is no consensus. Your removals are altering the contexts of the paragraphs, in one case you're actually tempering with a direct quote from a source. This is unacceptable. Bottom line is, you have no consensus to remove an established fact supported by vast majority of historians and academics. Just look up "1953 coup + democratically elected" or "1953 coup + democracy" on Google books or scholar, and see how many results you get. ] (]) 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::The RfC is what it is. It determines our course of action here. I am not going to go out and find reasons to repeat the phrase in a poorly written English fashion. ] (]) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::: I already answered you about RFC. I was trying fix cryptome.org error, when you reverted (your 3rd revert in almost 24 hours), that's the only acceptable part of your edit, the rest qualifies as POV-pushing against academic consensus. ] (]) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, you already mentioned your interpretation of the RfC, and I understood it. That it did not generate a broad response is not my concern. It generated one response, favorable to reducing the instances of "democratically elected", and I think you can see the benefit on a purely compositional basis, using English in the best way possible. I think we are making progress here, as we have allowed "democracy" to replace one of them. However, one of the biggest headaches of the article is that it has two instances ''in the same paragraph, the first paragraph''. This is very poor composition. We either move the French news quote to somewhere else in the article, or we remove ''or modify'' the first instance of "democratically elected". ] (]) 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


Attorney and author Dan Kovalik talks about this self-serving theme at the CIA in his 2018 book ''The Plot to Attack Iran''. Kovalik, responding to the limited 2013 release, refers to a 1997 article in ''The New York Times'' in which the CIA is shown to have made false statements to the public about the Iran affair, and about how much material they were holding. Kovalik does not trust the CIA to present a clear picture of what happened. The "huge trove" of papers released in 2017 did not change the viewpoint that the CIA had failed; it ended up proving that British agents were more effective in continuing the coup effort during 16–18 August, along with Shah-friendly Iranians associated with General Zahedi.
== The lead ==


Historian ] views the CIA claims with mistrust, writing in his 2008 book ''Eminent Persian'' that "While the CIA’s account claims they masterminded every move", local Iranian sources paint a different picture.
This article's lead is way too long and loaded. It needs to be shortened substantially and remove all the quotes, as it resembles a POV-pushing miniature article in it's own right. ] (]) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


Middle-East scholar ] agrees with this stance, describing in multiple places in his 2021 book, ''The Last Shah: America, Iran, and the Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty'', about how the CIA effort failed, no matter how they would rather be attributed to a success.
== Technically, the CIA actually did not overthrow Mossadegh ==


Middle-East scholar ] says in his 2021 book, ''Oil Crisis in Iran: From Nationalism to Coup d'Etat'', that the CIA coup effort failed, and during the days when the CIA was tasked with packing to leave Iran, regular Iran citizens such as the student wing of the Tudeh were picking up the coup effort on their own initiative, organizing massive protests.
This article pretty much ignores the fact that the CIA's original plot was a complete fiasco and the only reason it actually worked in the end was because the military decided to side with the Shah. According to Reul Marc Gherect: "The coup succeeded only because Iranians who were neither on the American or British payrolls nor under foreign control or guidance seized the initiative to topple Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh."


On the other hand, I must acknowledge that Middle-East scholar ] makes a contradictory conclusion. He writes that, following the coup failure on 15 August, further activities by the CIA were a major factor in the coup succeeding. See (2018).
] (]) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
: You are advocating a fringe theory, please read ] and ]. The vast majority of the sources do not agree with that assessment. ] (]) 11:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


There is virtually no information in this article on the coup action itself, so if it is a fringe theory perhaps someone could add details so we actually know what exactly happened on August 19, 1953. ] (]) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC) The majority viewpoint is that the CIA was not successful, and I think we must favor this view in our summary. ] (]) 21:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


:For one, this does not establish that this is in fact the majority view point. It only is a few voices that say it is. I could find just as many sources that paint a different picture.
==Improving the article==
:In addition, not all are reliable. Ray Takeyh for instance argues that the American ] is pro-Khomeini. Which is obviously ludicrous and suggests that he is in fact biased.
I have been blocked for months but yesterday the Ban Appeal Subcommittee called for Khoikhio's block to be and so it has. I hope to participate in the improving the article and have asked Binksternet for ideas.
:I found one review by Iranian scholar ] of a book called The Shah, the Islamic Revolution and the United States that touches on this (the book was written by a non-academic source and a non-historian) from Cambridge University Press which states that the view that the CIA was not involved in the overthrow of Mossadegh (which to me reads more as a defence of American foreign policy than anything else) is a fringe and revisionist view. ] (]) 21:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::The view that the CIA attempt failed is not in any way saying that they had no effect on the outcome, or that US foreign policy was not terribly wrongheaded. The critical point being made by these sources is that Kermit Roosevelt padded his own part in the coup to make himself look more capable, and that the CIA adopted this same self-serving tone. ] (]) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Failed or not depends a bit what you see as the actual goal. The CIA certainly succeeded in the sense that they got Mossadegh out of office and western oil companies getting still somewhat better deals as originally feared. However how much CIA actions actually mattered for the removal of Mossadegh is another question. Clearly Iran at that point had its own constitutional crisis with various factions competing for power and pushing for the removal of Mossadegh and both Mossadegh supporters and opponents resorting to somewhat unconstitutional and undemocratic means. Whether anti-Mossadegh CIA actions had a significant influence on the events seems rather debatable and some historians rate the CIA influence as mostly insignificant not as defense of US foreign policy but more as "realistic" assessment of the actual capabilities of the CIA.


==referendum==
Despite the fact the article is rated "High-importance" by WikiProject Iran, it has had four tags (including "neutrality is disputed") for several months. --] (]) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The 1953 refendum and its 99,9% result requires some explanation. The result seems due to the way it was organized to prevent no votes.--] (]) 05:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
: Actually, the article has been pretty stable and has been steadily improved by neutral editors since you were last here. FYI, looking at your talk page, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee has not magically cleared and erased your previous blocks for disrupting Misplaced Pages, it seems that you were given the "benefit of the doubt" for the time being, and only your indefinite block was reversed. Otherwise, you're still an editor with a pretty hefty block log. I hope you learn from your mistakes this time and become a more constructive Wikipedian. Good luck. ] (]) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
::The concept of "stable" being connected to the concept of "good" is a complete farce in this case—the article has (in its supposed stable version) been carrying a stack of ugly tags for poor neutrality, poor accuracy, inappropriate citations and a need of general cleanup. It has been wrong and bad for months. Stable? That concept stopped being connected to a positive connotation some years back when the essay ] was shut down and held as a historical curiosity. Today, we understand that articles are in flux if they reflect the living world. ] (]) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:24, 13 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 19, 2007, August 19, 2009, August 19, 2011, August 19, 2014, and August 19, 2016.
In the newsA news item involving 1953 Iranian coup d'état was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 August 2013.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Intelligence / Middle East / North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Intelligence task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconIran Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program.


Definition of coup

The article considers the Shah's royal decree (Farman) to dismiss Mosaddegh the first coup. However, it is stated in the article that this act was legal according to Iran's constitution at that time, while Misplaced Pages's Coup d'état article defines a coup as an illegal act. This is a contradiction and needs to be addressed. 89.219.252.17 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a parallel with the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. It was, as I understand it, legal, but also made possible only by violence. It is a good point though. LastDodo (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
"legal, but also made possible only by violence" ?? By violence is by definitionn not leagal! Parliament was stormed by US trained and led NAZIs with Kalashnikows and members of the parliament on gun point were urged to dismiss the president and provide several laws. There were video where you could see these guns.
One should think about intelligence test for writers here. Mocvd (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Russian propaganda much comrade? What’s the going rate these days? Equinexus (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It was only possible by violence because Mosaddegh unlawfully resisted his completely legal and constitutional dismissal. 89.24.32.203 (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The article is a biased joke. The only coup happening was attempted by Mosaddegh, and it was thwarted by the forces loyal to the shah in accordance with the constitution. 188.95.125.92 (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Balance of presented information

IMO too much real estate in this article is dedicated to providing detailed and varied viewpoints on why the US participated in the coup. It doesn't seem to be intentional, but it creates the slight impression of apologism. By comparison, the content on the UK's motivations is less exhaustive, even though the UK was the driving force behind the coup. Chernorizets (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The CIA failed, despite their later claims

Many scholars agree that the CIA coup attempt failed on 15 August. This narrative is an irritant to the CIA which would rather be seen as successful and scheming than as unsuccessful and scheming. The CIA released documents in 2013 and 2017 to try and pull the narrative back in their direction, but these primary sources do not erase the findings of WP:SECONDARY sources.

Attorney and author Dan Kovalik talks about this self-serving theme at the CIA in his 2018 book The Plot to Attack Iran. Kovalik, responding to the limited 2013 release, refers to a 1997 article in The New York Times in which the CIA is shown to have made false statements to the public about the Iran affair, and about how much material they were holding. Kovalik does not trust the CIA to present a clear picture of what happened. The "huge trove" of papers released in 2017 did not change the viewpoint that the CIA had failed; it ended up proving that British agents were more effective in continuing the coup effort during 16–18 August, along with Shah-friendly Iranians associated with General Zahedi.

Historian Abbas Milani views the CIA claims with mistrust, writing in his 2008 book Eminent Persian that "While the CIA’s account claims they masterminded every move", local Iranian sources paint a different picture.

Middle-East scholar Ray Takeyh agrees with this stance, describing in multiple places in his 2021 book, The Last Shah: America, Iran, and the Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty, about how the CIA effort failed, no matter how they would rather be attributed to a success.

Middle-East scholar Ervand Abrahamian says in his 2021 book, Oil Crisis in Iran: From Nationalism to Coup d'Etat, that the CIA coup effort failed, and during the days when the CIA was tasked with packing to leave Iran, regular Iran citizens such as the student wing of the Tudeh were picking up the coup effort on their own initiative, organizing massive protests.

On the other hand, I must acknowledge that Middle-East scholar Mark J. Gasiorowski makes a contradictory conclusion. He writes that, following the coup failure on 15 August, further activities by the CIA were a major factor in the coup succeeding. See "US Foreign Policy Toward Iran During the Mussadiq Era" (2018).

The majority viewpoint is that the CIA was not successful, and I think we must favor this view in our summary. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

For one, this does not establish that this is in fact the majority view point. It only is a few voices that say it is. I could find just as many sources that paint a different picture.
In addition, not all are reliable. Ray Takeyh for instance argues that the American Democratic Party is pro-Khomeini. Which is obviously ludicrous and suggests that he is in fact biased.
I found one review by Iranian scholar Arash Azizi of a book called The Shah, the Islamic Revolution and the United States that touches on this (the book was written by a non-academic source and a non-historian) from Cambridge University Press which states that the view that the CIA was not involved in the overthrow of Mossadegh (which to me reads more as a defence of American foreign policy than anything else) is a fringe and revisionist view. Genabab (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The view that the CIA attempt failed is not in any way saying that they had no effect on the outcome, or that US foreign policy was not terribly wrongheaded. The critical point being made by these sources is that Kermit Roosevelt padded his own part in the coup to make himself look more capable, and that the CIA adopted this same self-serving tone. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Failed or not depends a bit what you see as the actual goal. The CIA certainly succeeded in the sense that they got Mossadegh out of office and western oil companies getting still somewhat better deals as originally feared. However how much CIA actions actually mattered for the removal of Mossadegh is another question. Clearly Iran at that point had its own constitutional crisis with various factions competing for power and pushing for the removal of Mossadegh and both Mossadegh supporters and opponents resorting to somewhat unconstitutional and undemocratic means. Whether anti-Mossadegh CIA actions had a significant influence on the events seems rather debatable and some historians rate the CIA influence as mostly insignificant not as defense of US foreign policy but more as "realistic" assessment of the actual capabilities of the CIA.

referendum

The 1953 refendum and its 99,9% result requires some explanation. The result seems due to the way it was organized to prevent no votes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: