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 03:55, 24 November 2010 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,500 edits →2010 book Iran and the CIA← 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 = 12 |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)
::There is no question to me that the intro is too long. It needs trimming. ]+<small>(])</small> 19:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

== edits of 10-29-10 ==

have a couple of problems.
*tags questioning it's neutrality and factual accuracy were removed with no discussion (and the assertion that "no evidence to support either tag")
*A number of references to the controversy over the constitutionality of Mosaddeq's referendum (giving him the legislative power of the Iranian parliament's) were deleted:
**"''Despite lacking constitutional authority to do so, and while controlling the voting, Mosaddegh submitted to voters a'' referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law ..." The italics words were deleted (with the criptic summary "rv POV edits")
**''Prime Minister's dismissal while he still had the confidence of the Parliament, following the conventions of the ]; however, the ] then in force only formally prescribes "ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King... ART. 49. The issue of decrees and orders for giving effect to the laws is the King's right, provided that under no circumstances shall he postpone or suspend the carrying out of such laws".<ref>Elm, Mostafu (1994). ''Oil, Power, and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath'', p 333. Syracuse University Press</ref> ''

I'm sure the wording of these passages could be improved and repetition removed but the issue is important to the article. --] (]) 16:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
: Do not title discussion page headers in a way that's directed at another editor. This is considered incivil, and you have been told this by several admins in the past. Please do not do it again. ] (]) 18:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:: As for your false claim that "tags questioning it's neutrality and factual accuracy were removed", the dispute here has always been about the neutrality of the article, and the appropriate neutrality tag remains untouched. Factual accuracy tag is a different animal, and has no place on this article, as the basic facts (ie there was a coup in Iran in 1953) are neither inaccurate nor disputed. As for the rest of you comment about the legality/constitutionality of Shah's dismissal of Mossadegh or Mossadegh's referendum , this issue was discussed in details in the past. We will not repeat ourselves here, this game that you like to play ,ie "I will just repeat/copy-paste the same stuff/arguments every week hoping/fishing for a better reception from the community", is not going to work. Every time you do that from now on, you will simply be referred to the the archives. ] (]) 18:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:::''Do not title discussion page headers in a way that's directed at another editor. This is considered incivil, and you have been told this by several admins in the past.''
:::Well you make the edits, did you not? Where does wikipedia say it is uncivil to mention the name of the editor in a header refering to the editors edits?
:::''As for your false claim that "tags questioning it's neutrality and factual accuracy were removed",''
:::My mistake. It was the citecheck tag and not the neutrality tag that was by you. Why did you remove the citecheck tag? --] (]) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:::: I did explain why the "false citations" tag is not appropriate for this article. Please pay more attention to what others have to say as well. These discussion pages are for a dialogue, not a monologue. ] (]) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::Shouldn't you at least test a few citations to check their accuracy and then say "I found nothing wrong so I removed them"? --] (]) 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::: The burden of proof is on the person placing the tag in the article. If the article does indeed "contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text", please list them one by one, and we'll either substitute the sources, or replace them with an in-line fact tag. ] (]) 00:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Does that mean you Kurdo can't place tags on articles without proof of their flaws? :-)
:::::::Here are some bad citations I've found so far, three in the lead and one in the rest of the article. They are pretty bad. Totally wrong or dishonest, not just sloppy.
:::::::*''The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.'' Source given: Kinzer, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), p.166
:::::::but page 166 makes no mention of whether Mossaddegh's regime was democratic or if "intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States"' were the ones that over threw the regime. It's only five lines long and just gives a small part of the narrative of the coup talking about Colonel Nasiri's coup failing and CIA agent Roosevelt deciding "to try again".
:::::::*''The crushing of Iran's first democracy launched 25 years of dictatorship under ], who relied heavily on U.S. support to hold on to power until he was overthrown in February 1979.'' Source given: ref>Charles Kurzman, ''The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran'',(Harvard University Press, 2005) ISBN 978-0674018433 p.122</ref>''.
:::::::page 122 describes a December 1978 demonstration and says not one word about the coup (The book cited mentions 1953 coup twice very briefly in passing).
:::::::*''With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, ] and the U.S. administration of ] decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. ] had opposed a coup.'' Source given: ref>''U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah: Building a Client State in Iran'' by Mark J. Gasiorowski (Cornell University Press: 1991) p. 74.
:::::::But a search of the book via google books http://books.google.com/books?ei=cYjZTITnFc-Snwe81b3rCQ&ct=result&id=JE3PYfjBStAC&dq=U.S.+Foreign+Policy+and+the+Shah%3A+Building+a+Client+State+in+Iran+by&q=churchill&safe=active finds no hits for Churchill, no mention of Eisenhower's role in the coup, and no mention of Eisenhower on page 74.
:::::::* ''In the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minster's dismissal without Parliament's consent.'' source ''Elm, Mostafu (1994). ''Oil, Power, and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath'', p 333. Syracuse University Press
:::::::This is stated as a fact, but the source simply states that this was Mosaddeqh's argument against the procescution at his post-coup trial. http://books.google.com/books?id=VoU4AI-yq7UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Oil,+Power,+and+Principle:+Iran's+Oil+Nationalization+and+Its+Aftermath&hl=en&ei=I4bZTI7WI6rvnQfzgdmcCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=constitution&f=false

:::::::Kurdo can you give any reason why the {{citecheck=April 2010}} tag should not be restored? --] (]) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Hearing no reply and given the high number of bad citations I've found after checking only the lead a small part of the rest of the article, I'm going to put the tag back. --] (]) 00:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

== 2010 book ''Iran and the CIA'' ==

A new book by Darioush Bayandor must be incorporated into the article. The book, ''Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited'', analyzes the coup in frank terms, and examines in great detail the unfolding historiography of the coup, how different versions, different truths and myths came into being over time. He describes how new information reached observers, each time reshaping the appreciation of what happened.

Bayandor is, according to his publishers, He is a reliable source, an expert source.

and . It was It's a notable book. ] (]) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
:I agree --] (]) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
:: No, it must NOT be incorporated into the article. Darioush Bayandor is a royalist, who worked for Shah's regime as a deputy prime minster and acting foreign minster as well as "the regional bureau for Americas in the foreign ministry". Such partisan character who fled Iran along with Shah (and for all we know, was probably a CIA asset or agent too) is by no means a neutral observer or source on this topic. No Shah or Mossadegh minster/deputy minster should be used as a source on an impartial article. ] (]) 01:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages policy does not agree with your assessment. ''We as editors'' have to be neutral but our sources do not. Your dislike of Bayandor does not reduce his notability or expertise in the matter of the coup. I will be bringing Bayandor's viewpoint into the article as appropriate per ] without replacing other viewpoints. I will be following the guideline at ] which states that conflicting expert opinions must be not be represented as facts, that each opinion must be attributed to those who hold it. ] (]) 01:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:::: Darioush Bayandor was the Condoleezza Rice of Shah's regime. Using him as a source here would be equivalent to using a book by Condoleezza Rice as an academic source on the Iraq War article. ] (]) 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Kurdo. Darioush Bayandor was a paid agent of Shah's regime. We should stick with neutral sources with no bias or conflict of interest. --] (]) 01:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::Again, it does not matter the dislike you may have for Bayandor. His highly placed positions as senior diplomat and foreign affairs adviser in and for Iran make him an expert source. This article will follow ] to the letter, and conflicting expert opnions will be attributed. ] (]) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Why can't he be identified as a "former diplomat under the Shah" or something similar? Is anyone who worked as a diplomat or equivalent level in the Shah's government a "paid agent of Shah's regime"? Was Hossein Fatemi a "paid agent of the Mosadegh regime"? As for the Condoleezza Rice analogy, Darioush Bayandor was not as high level as her, but if Rice had 30 years of post-Bush experience as an analyst and working in non-partisan areas like the UN I don't think she would be disqualified as a Reliable Source for an article on some element of American foreign policy. ] (]) 02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The source is fine - it is published by ]. While the author is not neutral (no author is), we can expect based on the publisher that the facts would be accurate and complete and that it would provide a good summary of the various interpretations of the events as well as explaining the degree to which scholars have accepted different views. We must not however give undue weight to his own interpretations. Since his book is new and challenges previous interpretations, we must wait and see what acceptance if any his views receive. The Rice example is poor - it is hard to imagine her writing a scholarly book about events in which she participated. She would have to explain how her actions were perceived by informed opinion, and find a rational argument to defend her actions that would pass ]. is a link to the book at Amazon. You can read the beginning and see that it could be useful. ] (]) 03:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

== Edits of November 12 ==

November 12 my tag was by Kurdo with the edit summary "if you removed the sources you claim do not support the citations, then why are you still adding this tag?" (i.e. ignoring my explanation above) and
the totally bogus cite (Kinzer, ''All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror'' (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), p.166) which (as explained above) says not a word about Mosaddegh government being democratically elected, or that the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States overthrew it.

== Other problems ==

===Lead===
====too long and unencyclopedic====
The lead is one of the '''longer''' leads I've seen in wikipedia and ...
<BR>reads as though it was an essay titled, "Why the 1953 coup was unjust and predatory", rather than being an encyclopedic summary of the coup in general.
*For example, AIOC's ''"Iranian workers were poorly paid and lived in squalid conditions."'' Did the poor working conditions contribute to the coup?
*''"Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953."'' Do we need to know the exact date of his execution in the lead?

====repetitive writing====
*about the Democratic-ness of the government ...
**was the ] of the ''] government''
**crushing of ''Iran's first democracy''
**underhanded methods to overthrow a ''democratically elected government''
* ... about the importance of the AIOC ...
**the British government's ''single largest overseas investment''
**Britain was unwilling to negotiate its ''single most valuable foreign asset'',


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)
====bad organization====
*Lead talks about significance of the coup in two different places -- at the beginning ... <BR>''"For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhanded methods to overthrow a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests", the Agence France-Presse reported.''<BR> ... and at the end:<BR> ''The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 ], which deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western royal dictatorship with the anti-Western ].<ref name="Middle East Studies 1987, p.261">International Journal of Middle East Studies, 19, 1987, p.261</ref>'' <BR> ... why not in the same place?


: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)
*''With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, ] and the U.S. administration of ] decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. ] had opposed a coup.'' <BR>Bad writing. This is the only mention of Truman in the lead. And why all the mention of the boycott in the lead? Did it make the coup easier? How? Could it have been by hurting the economy and undermining domestic support for Mosaddegh? Could it be there's no mention of this because it would suggest there were other reasons for the success of the coup besides CIA bribes an lies?
::"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 ==
===Bias and inaccuracy===
The worst problem with the lead is in the substance:


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)
*''The '''1953 Iranian coup d'état''', on August 19, 1953 (and called the '''28 Mordad coup d'état''' in Iran), was the ] of the ] government of ]ian Prime Minister ] by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.<ref>Kinzer, ''All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror'' (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), p.166</ref> ''<BR> The Coup was an overthrow "''by''", rather than "orchestrated by" or "organized by". It makes it sound as though CIA agents were driving the tanks and shelling Mosaddegh's house. But where is there a reliable source stating this? The use of this little preposition makes a huge difference in the article.
**The verb Kinzer uses is ''"staged"'' ("coup d'etat staged by the Central Intelligence Agency", p.ix, All the Shah's Men, ) **Gasiorowski uses ''"sponsored"'' ("the United States-sponsored coup d'etat in Iran of August 19, 1953 has emerged as a critical event in postwar world history" "The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran" ''International Journal of Middle East Studies'', Mark J. Gasiorowski, Page of 261-286) ]


== The CIA failed, despite their later claims ==
*''The U.S. spy agency tried to persuade ] ] to dismiss Mosaddegh, and at first he refused. The ] pressured the weak monarch while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and ] officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.<ref>Gasiorowski, p.237-9, 243</ref>'' <br>[''Pressured the weak monarch'' ... So what did the "weak monarch" do? Did he give in? Presumably the ''Firman'' edict appointing Zahedi is how the Shah ''did'' give in to the CIA - so why no mention of it? Could it possibly be because that might make the coup sound more legitimate, more constitutional?


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.
*''At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of August 15–16, Imperial Guard Colonel ] was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On August 19, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence.<ref>''Mohammad Mosaddegh and the 1953 Coup in Iran'', Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004, p.xiv</ref>''<br>The mob overthrew Mosadegh? No. The mob was fought off by guards at Mosaddegh's home, it was the pro-coup military that broke Moss's defenders and made the coup successful. Abrahamian talks about he tanks led by Zahedi that won the battle at Moss's house and dismisses the mob as providing "acoustical effects" for the coup.


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.
*''In the wake of the coup, Britain and the U.S. selected ] to be the next prime minister of a military government, and Shah Pahlevi made the appointment but dismissed him two years later. ''<br>Not true. According to Kinzer: "A goodly number [of mid-ranking officers supporting the coup had been persuaded to join the coup by the authority of the firman naming Zahedi as prime minister." (p.180), i.e. Zahedi was designated Prime Minister before the coup took place: <ref>Kinzer, Stephen, ''All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror'', John Wiley and Sons, 2003.</ref> <br> And BTW why no mention of the firman


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.
*''"Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. .... <br> The source for this is Kinzer's book (which is short on sources I might add. I believe it says: ''The triumphant Shah (Pahlavi) ordered the execution of several dozen military officers and student leaders who had been closely associated with Mohammad Mossadegh."''). But the Iranian-born and speaking scholar Abrahamian says: "With the exceptions of Fatemi, who was executed, and Lufti, the justice minister, who was murdered, the other National Front leaders received lenient treatment - often prison terms no longer than five years." <BR>why no mention of this? A small matter except when added to the rest of the slant.


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.
*''The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth<ref>Kinzer, Stephen, ''Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq'' (Henry Holt and Company 2006). p. 200–201</ref>'' <BR>Was this a motive of the US for the coup? If so, says who? If not, why is this in the lead?


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.
*'' ... as well as resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.''<BR>Says who? "''the slim possibility'' that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, ''although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat''". <BR> talking about fear of communism as the US motivation for the coup. One historian that I know of - Abrahamian - has questioned the seriousness of the threat. And at length in the article.


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).
===Rest of article===
Concerning the article in general I haven't had time to go through the whole thing but there are ...


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)
====Omissions====
World War II section talks about Anglo-Soviet invasion/occupation
"In 1941, after the Nazi invasion of the USSR, the British and Commonwealth of Nations forces and the Red Army invaded Iran, to secure petroleum (cf. Persian Corridor) for the Soviet Union's effort against the Nazis on the Eastern Front and for the British elsewhere"


: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.
but in the Post World War II section no mention is made of what happened to the occupation, i.e. the Iran crisis of 1946
: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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Iran_crisis_of_1946
: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==
From Kinzer: p.65:<BR>
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)
"Tudeh's growing power tempted the Soviet Union to make a daring strike against Iran. During World War II, the three Allied powers had agreed that they would withdraw their occupation forces from Iran six months after the end of hostilities, but when that deadline came in early 1946, Stalin ignored it. Citing vague threats to Soviet security, he declared that the Red Army would remain in Iran's northern province of Azerbaijan. When Tudeh activities there proclaimed a People's Republic of Azerbaijan, he ordered his troops to prevent Iranian soldiers from entering the province to reestablish their authority. Soon a local militia emerged, flush with weapons from Moscow. For a time it seemed that Azerbaijan might secede entirely, perhaps to join the Soviet Union or serve a jumping-off point for a Soviet move against Turkey. But Azerbaijanis remembered Reza Shah and rebelled at the prospect of another dictatorship. Prime Minister Ahmad Qavam, an exceptionally talented statesman, traveled to Moscow and managed to persuade Stalin to step back from the brink of confrontation. He withdrew his soldiers as General Schwarzkopf's gendarmes marched into Tabriz, the provincial capital. ... Jubilant Azerbaijanis celebrated by summarily executing all the Tudeh leaders they could find." (p.65-66 All the Shah's Men)

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: