Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shervink (talk | contribs) at 23:25, 15 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Isn't Coup a more accurate representation of what happened in 1954 than "plot"

I'm just a bit confused about the heading of this section. All the sources that I have read including "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinser and a New York Times article seem to indicate that the Eisenhower administration along with Churchill's government orchestrated a Coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadegh. So shouldn't we reflect this by providing a more appropriate and accurate heading?

69.196.106.158 07:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Kinster

Template:Bounty

Mohammad Mosaddegh was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 19 selected anniversary.

reference to plot "orchestrated" by British and US intelligence services

The self-congratulatory claims of Messieurs Wilber and Kim Roosevelt, with respect to their roles in the events of 1953, which led to the ousting of Dr. Muhammad Mossaddeq from his position as Prime Minister, need to be viewed with due caution. Serious historical analyses have found contradictions, gross exaggerations and blunt lies in the portrayal of their roles. Numerous pundits have felt compelled to proliferate (unreflectedly) the tale of the "CIA" coup, e.g. The Iranian activists in the uprisings as well as counter coup instigation are minimized unrealistically to bit-part players, while it is undisputed from a rational point of view and factual eyewitness accounts that two foreign individuals can have hardly steered a few thousand (conservative and mostly xenophobic) Iranians, in the narrated fashion. For example, Kim Roosevelt's claim that he supposedly communicated with General Fazlollah Zahedi in German, is mere nonsense, as General Fazlollah Zahedi spoke only Russian and Turkish, beside his native Persian (Farsi). Others cite the "memoirs" of General Fardust, which have been written by the Mullah Regime, based on propagandistic diction. The CIA today claims to have lost its entire documented coverage of the events of 1953 in a FIRE! It is easy, therefor, to claim anything in anybody's fancy, without documented facts backing those claims.

Just wondering if this confused anyone?

"After negotiations for higher oil royalties failed, on March 15, 1951 the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry, and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Prime minister General Haji-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. He was assassinated on March 7, 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam. A while later, the Majlis voted for Mossadegh as new prime minister. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets."

In this paragraph i found myself wondering who the young shah was. Now im assuming father and son had the same name and when the elder abdicated in 1944 the younger one took over?

Just wondering if this confused anyone? ==

The "Young Shah" was indeed the son of the previous one, Reza Shah Pahlavi. But he succeeded his father in 1941, not 1944.

--206.246.81.183 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Alee 06/19/05

Assisting the Head of State defend against violent overthrow is not a "Coup".

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was named head of state, i.e Shah, of Iran in 1941 and remained head of state (Shah) until the revolution of 1979. As the article states, Mohammed Mossadegh attempted to overthrow him in 1953 but his attempt failed (with or without help from the CIA). The curious thing is that since 1979 or 1980 the Shah's efforts to thwart Mossadegh and retain his position has been labelled a "Coup". In fact it was Mossadegh's actions that was the coup, or attempted coup. This reverse-speak was given official sanction by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000 when she referred to President Eisenhower's suppoort of the legitimate government of Iran as a "Coup".

The overthrow of Mossadegh was a "Coup" as it was executed in violation of legality and against the will of the Iranian people - organized through a democratically elected parliament. You are wrong, the legitimate government was not represented by the Shah. You should read up on Jefferson. Mossadegh was the head of the Executive branch, the majlis represented the legislative branch. The Shah was the legitimate head of State, as Juan Carlos is in Spain for instance, but not the head of the Government.

I am curious as to how Mossi's actions were a Coup or violent. Does our poorly versed Iranian scholar know anything about how the Pahlavi's came to power in the first place?

--206.246.81.183 15:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)Alee 06/19/05

The unsigned comment is to some extent, true. Dr. Mossadegh was an extraordinary, truly great man and an outstanding politician. His extraordinary patriotism, however, resulted in his making several mistakes. It is really not all wrong to say that it was him, not the Shah, who actually staged a coup. The Shah was, by constitution, head of state, and head of the three branches of government. Thus it is correct to say that he was head of government. One point of caution which is due, is that he made sure this was explicitly added to the constitution after Mossadegh's overthrow, however, it was already common practice, and common understanding of the constitution (which I think was not clear on this), before Mossadegh as well. As you may have noticed, by law, the Shah appointed the Prime minister, who had then to be also approved by the parliament. However, it is clear that a monarch with the power of appointing prime ministers has also the right to ask them to resign, which is what the shah did, few days before he fled Iran in that year. It was Mossadegh, who, having gained -not entirely legitimately - control over the armed forces, refused to resign. Before, by threating Shah with the same armed forces, he had already sent his family to exile, thus it was Mossadegh, not the Shah, who used the military to step-by-step push back the constitution and prevent the Shah from exercising his constitutional rights and duties. The shah's attempt was, at best, a counter-coup, not a coup. That is how I see it. Commonly, however, it is nowadays referred to as a coup, which I beleive is not entirely fair towards the Shah. Mossadegh's moves, although popular at that time, and probably democratically legitimate, were not according to constitution and were illegitimate from a legal point of view. I think he as a great lawyer knew that best of all. It is strange how politics brings two great people to such opposite positions at times. It is in fact sad. Shervink 13:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

By the way, let's not refer to Dr. Mossadegh as Mossi, it is not a very nice nickname. Shervink 13:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

You are completely wrong and I cant believe you are suggesting that Mossadegh staged a coupe and that the Shah was the victim. It sends shivers down my spine when people, to this day, try to defend what was done. Mossadegh did resign in protest and the Shah gave him and the parliament control over the armed forces as a result. What is "not entirely legitimate" about that? And I am a bit confused. What constitutional rights and duties was Mossadegh preventing the Shah from doing? And dont forget. The Shah was described as a coward by the CIA. He didn’t have the guts or the support to stage the coup himself. The Shah was just a puppet and the coup was done for him by American and British intelligence agencies.

I don't think I am completely wrong. At least in our admiration of Mossadegh (in which I am very sincere) we certainly agree. However, I am a bit more fair than you, I beleive. As I said, it is a matter of point of view, for now at least. And I am making no attempt to reflect my view in the main article either. However, a brief response to your points: - Control of the armed forces, by law, was the Shah's responsibility. And you must see the context as well. Mossadegh's action in demanding that control was a signal to the British that Iran is willing to fight a war with them, which would leave Iranians in hunger and despair and the country in ruins. - That Mossadegh did not resign few days before 28 mordad, when the Shah asked him to, was unconstitutional. The Shah had the right to dissolve parliament and to change prime-minister. That is what I mean when I say Dr. Mossadegh didn't adhere to law, although in good faith. - The Shah was not described as a coward by CIA during that stage (Maybe in 1979, it could be you heard it in that connection). Moreover, Roosevelt's report clearly mentions that they had counted on the Shah's polpular support and that similar things in other countries would not work because their leaders are not as popular as Iran's Shah! - Anyhow, How come we are talking about a coup when military was controlled by Mossadegh? I really don't want to argue this further here simply because such an issue cannot be resolved on a wikipedia discussion page. It is too complicated and our views are probably too far apart. Shervink 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

I doubt that the British or anyone in their right mind believed that Mossadegh would go to war with Britain. That would be suicide since Britain was a superpower at the time.

I am referring to the CIA report about the coup written by Dr. Donald N. Wilber, one of the leading planners. Here is a recap from the NYT article that first published the report: "The document shows that the agency had almost complete contempt for the man it was empowering, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, whom it derided as a vacillating coward". The Shah's "popular support" (which was at best very small) had very little to do with the success of the coup. Read the report: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-intro.html

What does control over the military by Mossadeqh have to do with the coup? And for future references if you dont want to argue dont write dubious statements.

Let's be fair. What a great man the Shah was for our (am I right in assuming you are Iranian?) country should, at least by now, be clear to everybody. Same holds, by the way, for Mossadegh. Refering to a NY Times article to suggest otherwise is a bit strange, to say the least. This coward, as you call him, picked up a ruin and, well we saw what he made of it. Let's be fair. just fair. Shervink 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

===========================================================================

If we are going to "be fair" about this whole saga... perhaps it would be wise to contextualize the goals of each leader. Mossadeq's main goal was to nationalize the oil and bring a more "fair" share of the $ to the Iranian people. By most accounts, Iran was getting a horrible percentage of the oil $, and the people were seeing very little of that. Mossadeq was trying to lift up Iran as a country. What was the Shah doing? Whatever it was, he was NOT fighting the Brittish for the good of his country!

BTW, not once have I seen anyone mention that post-Mossadeq Iran was getting more US aid than any other country at the time. Is it coincidence that Mossadeq, one of the first Iranians to stand up to the UK and fight for the people, falls from power and short order the Shah is getting $ and guns to shore up his position.... ? While Mossadeq was in power, every aid request he made to the US was denied... go figure.

And as far as the supplemental article written by the General Zahedi's son... I see absolutely no independent sources cited to back his claims. I wouldn't say his view of history is objective, either.

But, as far as who overthrew who, that's not the point so much as what each leader's intentions were. Mossadeq sought to use Iran's resources to lift the country out of poverty, while the Shah.... ? - C. Davis

My view is that they both had good intentions. The Shah was never really opposed to the nationalization of the oil. The point was that he was more pragmatic than Mossaddegh. What good is nationalized oil if nobody buys it from us, we are under sanctions and the people are starving? Mossaddegh 'planned to' lift Iran as a country, the Shah actually did it (at least economically, but also in many other ways), undoubtedly with the help of foreign countries, who saw their interests preserved by that. Due to what Mossaddegh had done, the Shah could get much more money out of the oil sells for Iran, money which was desperately needed. Ardeshir Zahedi is obviously very biased in his assesment, I completely agree with that, and with a lot of what he says I don't agree anyhow. But I think including it gives the reader an opportunity to see what the other side is thinking about the whole matter, and his opinion is noteworthy to mention not because it's correct, but because he was one of the most influential politicians of the Shah times and his views can lead to insight into how these people thought when they were making those policies. Shervink 01:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

In discussions about the "intentions" of the Shah and Dr. Mossadegh regarding Iran's well-being, isn't a comparison of their personal wealth, the amount and sources, a relevant indicator? Tampacajun, 14 May 2006

=

I agree with your point about the uselessness of oil when there are no buyers. But, Mossadeq is less to blame for that than the Brittish are, as well as the US. Mossadeq was expressing the popular will of the Iranian people - he was trying to fix a horrible situation brought about by the Shahs' "negotiations" with the UK. It is easy to say that perhaps Mossadeq would have been more successful if he hadn't taken such a hard line, but it is just as easy to say that the US would have a much different relationship with the region if they had chosen to help a representative of the people (instead of taking sides with an imperial giant and a monarch).

But, when it comes to the Shah, it seems his intentions revolved around self-preservation more than anything else. He only warmed to the idea of oil nationalization when it was clear his authority was in jeopardy. A strong case can be made that if he had initially ruled with the intention of helping his people lift themselves out of poverty, then Mossadeq wouldn't have been the popular politician he became.

As a citizen of the U.S., I am astonished how little this period of history is discussed or remembered (by the US population, that is). My opinion is that the actions of the U.S. during this time are related to the current tensions between Iran and the U.S. - at least as much as any religious or political differences.

BTW, Stephen Kinzer wrote an excellent book on the coup of '53, "All the Shah's Men." Just a suggestion for anyone who is reading this. I am sure you (Shervink) have read it, or are familiar with it. Thank you - C.Davis

I do not agree with your point that the Shah acted mainly on selfishness. As for the relation to the current tensions between the US and Iran, I think the 1953 actions are completely unrelated. It is a popular myth among a number of intellectuals that the Iranian people never have forgiven the Americans for ousting a democratic leader, Mossadegh. First and foremost, Mossadegh was only as democratic as any other prime minister of the monarchy era. He was never elected, but appointed by the Shah himself. Second, he violated the constitution several times to obtain extra powers. It was the Shah who held firm to the constitution, to preserve which was his most important duty as a monarch. Third, Iranians are friends of America, and the most important reason for that is the prospeous times they had under the Shah with the support of the US. You would never, never, hear the average Iranian say he would be angry over the US for what they did in 1953. The problem with people such as Ahmadinejad is also different. They are extremists who would never care about democracy, nor about Mossadegh for that matter. They despise Mossadegh just as much as they despise any American president. As for the issue of American intervention, there is no reason for the Americans to feel guilty. For whatever reason they acted as supporters of the Shah in 1953, it was the right decision. Shervink 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)shervink

Right.. I guess then that Madeleine Albright regretted the coup and said sorry for no reason on public tv? --- Melca 21:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What I said was that the current problems are not due to those of 1953. Albright didn't say otherwise, as far as I know. She apologized for an American role in the 1953 plot, which was nothing to apologize for, in my opinion. If she thought she should apologize, that's her problem, not mine. Shervink 22:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) shervink

"nothing to apologize for"? To say this is pure "Negationism". Even Dr. Kissinger implied American wrong doing with regards to Mossadegh, claiming that what Dulles did in America was the best route given the perception of Mossadegh at the time, and given the morbid fear of communism prevalent in Washington. Albright did not apologize b/c she felt bad, she apologized as the Secretary of State for actions perpetrated by American diplomacy against the sovereignty of a nation. Truth be told she apologized to the Islamic Republic which certainly didn't deserve to be the recipient of American empathy.168.187.0.35 08:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)HAF

No, There isn't anything to apologize for. Maybe jimmy carter but not Ike. Sorry! Iran was becoming a bad guy in 1953. We stopped it! Ever since carter and 1979, they have been bad!!! (68.227.211.175 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

"Iran was becoming bad guy" I suppose we will never know. The whole Mossadegh era and its possible successes and ramifications in today's situation are just fluff at this point. Nonetheless, American diplomacy cannot claim its relationship with Iran from 54 to 79 as a success. And in light of the Shah's brutality, and failure, and the bigotry witnessed since 1979, it is only logical and legitimate to take another look at Mossadegh and the men who worked with him. After all, they went to the same schools, read the same books and appreciated the same art as their european counterparts... 168.187.0.34 13:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)HAF

reason why

Mossadegh's Tudeh party was officially Stalinist; why would the US support him? BTW, it was the evil shah who set Iran on the course to modernization, women's rights etc. until the Ayatollah overthrew his gov't and murdered 30,000 people (I'm aware of the abuses by the SAVAK secret police, but their crimes pales in comparison to theocratic Iran). Explain to me how the US was in the wrong here. --70.189.32.215 16:10, 13 December 2005

"Mossadegh's Tudeh party"? Are you implying or asserting that Mossadegh was part of Tudeh? Get your facts straight. Mossadegh was the head of the Iranian National Front (Jebbeh Melli), not the Tudeh. Iran's modernization was certainly not his sole doing and selling the country away to foreigners or disturbing the mores of millions doesn't make the Shah an enlightened despot. BTW, saying that the Mullahs are worse really doesn't say much about the Shah. 168.187.0.35 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)HAF

Docteur Mossadegh

Mossadegh is maainly known in France as "Docteur Mossadegh". But why ? For a long time I believe he was a physician... Did he wrote a doctoral dissertation at the IEP ? Ericd 19:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

He was a doctor of law, as far as I know. However his son, Dr. Gholam-Hossein Mossadegh was a physician. Shervink 21:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

He probably eraned his doctoral degree at the IEP in France ? Ericd 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Collective farming?

Is it true that he introduced collective farming? To what extent?

Death date is Wrong

I changed to 5th march http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/

Picture

Is the second picture really from August 1953? The uniforms of the soldiers seem to be winter coats, August in Tehran would be way too hot for such clothing! Can anybody clarify this somehow? Shervink 17:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

That picture could not have been taken in August in Tehran, precisely for the reason you mentioned. --Houshyar 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

transliteration

I don't know if this has been brought up, but his name should be written as "Mossadeq". Transliterating the qaf as "gh" is not very standard. Likewise, it should be "Muhammad" or "Mohammad", but not "Mohammed". Cuñado - Talk 19:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no standard transliteration, but we should try to use the most common spelling we can. See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Arabic) for a proposed policy that would apply Misplaced Pages-wide. Below is a chart of possible name combos, and how many Google hits each returns, with relevant footnotes.

• This version of the first name is Misplaced Pages's preferred spelling of the Prophet's name, and has the most Google hits as a single name.
• This is Misplaced Pages's current title, so the Google hit number may be somewhat inflated by the inclusion of Misplaced Pages mirrors and other sites using Misplaced Pages's spelling as a reference. This spelling is also used by the U.S. State Department about half the time, and Time Magazine's famous 1927 cover of Mossadegh used this spelling. Also, the New York Times prefers this spelling.
• This spelling is used by the State Department the other half of the time.
• The Encyclopedia Britannica uses this spelling.
• The Columbia Encyclopedia uses this spelling, for some reason.

Based on all this, I'd say we should keep the article with it's current name, but there's certainly room for debate. – Quadell 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good research. If you look at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Arabic) there is a "standard version" which does use for transliterating 'qaf'. But it is only a proposal right now. Likewise, is clearly the most used and more proper version of the Prophet's name. I have been working on several pages working to standardize the different transliterations of Arabic script. It seems that there are a lot of people opposed to standardization which either quote two things: 1)the transliteration is not phonetic, and in Persian cases, they pretend that it's pronounced differently in Persian (although the exact same word); 2) the non-standard version has become 'English', as in the case of Mecca, which properly transliterated should be .

Persian pronunciation really does differ from Arabic pronunciation. Why do you say "they pretend," anyway? Μost speakers of Arabic and Persian will agree that names that are spelled the same way using Arabic letters end up being pronounced quite differently by Iranians and Arabs. Shall we start calling the Ottoman Empire the `Uthman Empire, even though the Ottomans, who lacked the letter `ayn in their sound system, pronounced what was spelled in Arabic as `Uthman (عثمان) as "Osman"? The short vowels "a" "i" and "u" of Arabic sound like "æ" "e" and "o" in Persian. Iranians pronounce not only the vowels but also the "h" (ح)in Mohammed (محمد) quite differently from Arabs. And the "q" (ق) of Arabic invariably gets pronounced like "gh" (same sound as for ghayn (غ) in Persian) by Iranians. It is strange that you insist on Arabic transliteration (which reflects Arabic, not Persian pronunciation) for the spelling of this Iranian leader's name. Just because my Korean name CAN be written in Chinese characters doesn't mean I have to go around transliterating using a Chinese standard (I'm not sure what it would be exactly, but i'm guessing it's "Xin Zhifan" (申基範)). It makes a LOT more sense for me to use the Korean spelling, "Shin Kibum" (신기범). And in any case most people call me by my American name, which is Tony. Shall I start spelling it in Greek, since my name is originally from Greek Αντώνιος? Standardization is a fine goal, but don't impose an Arabic standard on this Iranian leader.

I am in favor of standardization, because currently a wide and chaotic array of transliterations are used by people that don't realize a standard exists. I don't give much credit to google searches as proof of the common English name. In the case of Fatimah Zahra, someone wanted it to be , but google searches were predominantly references to the town in Spain where an apparition of the virgin Mary appeared (the lady of Fatima). Cuñado - Talk 05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think a standard transliteration system is badly needed, not just for Misplaced Pages but for the West in general. The whole project could certainly use a jumpstart from a dedicated Wikipedian. – Quadell 15:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

date correction for me or author

"Iran Senate Votes Oil Nationalization" Published: May 1, 1951 Written: April 30 New York Times By Michael Clark

Addition needed.

New York Times "Text of Mossadegh Letter to Truman" June 29, 1951 Pg. 5

New York Times "Mossadegh Offer on Oil is Reported" By Albion Ross July 21, 1952 Pg. 1

New York Times "Iran Stands Firm on Oil Case Rights" Special to the New York Times May 10, 1951 Pg. 4

Although Mossadegh may have violated past agreement which he explained was under extrenuating circumstances of occupation by the British which left no choice in so far as deciding oil or independence, he did agree to continue the flow of oil to western countries and provide compensation to the British for their loss in the AIOC.

extra addition to author

Regardless of the mention of this addition, the article is not too left or right in political concerns which means you took a intelligent and fair approach in writing this article. Good Job.

M. Mossadegh

Hello,

your text is very good, however there is a mistake : Dr Mossadegh got his PhD from Neuchâtel University, in Switzerland, in 1914 (and not from Paris). I have his thesis in front of me entitled "Le testament en droit musulman (secte Chyite, précédé d'une introduction sur les sources du droit musulman". Thèse présentée par M. Mossadegh à la faculté de droit de l'université de Neuchâtel le 1er mai 1914 pour obtenir le grade de Docteur. (Paris, Librairie Ancienne & Moderne, Georges Crès et Cie éditeurs, 116 boulevard Saint-Germanin, 116) 1914

Thanks for making the correction Yours Claudine Faehndrich University of Neuchâtel Switzerland claudine.faehndrich@unine.ch

Fixed. Aucaman 10:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "Reasonable Assistance"a more accurate representation of what happened in 1954 than "plot"

I'm confused about something. Here we have an apparently insane guy who was creating a dictatorship, falsfying elections, dissolving parliament, dissolving the Supreme court, socializing the economy, crippling the oil industry, and because the U.S. cooperated in his removal by the head of state, it's considered a "plot"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex7777 (talk • contribs) .

Yes he was insane, because he nationalized the oil, how dared he take away take away all that free money from the brittish. And then he boldly tried to sell the oil to feed his uncivilized countrymen! But our brave soldiers and mighty navy stopped his small boats from getting out from the persian gulf and sell it. Long live the Queen --Darkred 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mossadegh systematically neglected the constitution of Iran. He dissolved the parliament, and didn't resign when asked to do so by the Shah. Both were violations of the constitution. What he did in nationalizing the oil industry was a remarkable achievement, but nevertheless it is technically wrong to talk about a coup here. The whole thing was totally legal and legitimate, in fact it preserved the constitution, and Mossadegh himself achknowledges that in his book "Khaterat Va Taalomate Dr. Mossadegh". He clearly states that he didn't accept the constitution and that he knowingly violated it. Shervink 15:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Yes but he had a good cause for doing so. He was trying to not let the country fall into the brittish hands again. In my opinion he had the right to do whatever necessary to achieve that. --Darkred 20:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that is true. I also think that he acted in good faith. But the fact of the matter is, as he himself has written, that he was not willing to adhere to the constitution. The Shah, on the other hand, did. Fact is, also, that Mossadegh was never really elected. The common version of the story believed by most people states the exact opposite. It has been advertised that it was the Shah who, violating the constitution, removed the elected Mossadegh from power. In fact, however, the Shah used his constitutional right to remove the unelected Mossadegh (who himself had violated the constitution by dissolving the parliament) from power. What the intentions were is speculation, but the factual state of affairs is very clear. Shervink 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear Shervink. Please dont remove sourced material. The following independent and published sources () all refer to Mossadegh as democratically elected and the actions of the CIA and MI5 as a coup. And i am also sure you have heard of Stephen Kinzer's well written book, All the Shah's Men, which also backs this up. If you can find published sources however, that explicitly state why it is "technically wrong to talk about a coup" feel free to merge that into the text. Melca 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Melca, I'm glad to see you're back after such long time. I remember we had a similar discussion on the Mohammad Reza Shah talk page, and I offered you several sources there, namely two books, several articles, and interviews. What I only recently realized was that Mossadegh himself admitted that he was in breach of the constitution, you can take a look at his memoirs for that. (It's Khaterat va Taalomate Dr. Mossadegh in Persian, I'm not sure about the English traslation, if any.) Shervink 11:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Yes i remember that. But none of the sources, such as Ardeshir Zahedi, explain why it is technically wrong to talk about a coup. They just flat out deny that a coup ever took place. I guess that could qualify as an explanation but that would put the word of a small minority against what's been reported in the mainstream media. More specifically i was asking for a independent scholar that has done some research and published his finding's in for example a peer reviewed academic journal.

I was not aware that Mossadegh wrote that in his memoirs. But if he did i find it strange since he did not accept the charges against him and defended himself in the subsequent trials. If you can provide the name of the publisher, isbn number and what page he states that, i will gladly look into it. But even if he did admit being in breach of the constitution it does not change that the media has reported him as being democratically elected. --- Melca 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Shervink you have removed sourced material again. More specifically you have removed the text "democratically elected". The very mention of a coup necessitates a mention of a democratic election. If democratic elections were common place in Iran at the time and went without saying it would not have been explicitly stated in the sources provided. --- Melca 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

source?

is there a source for this statement?

"The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears."

if no one can come up with a source for it i'm going to take it out. it's one thing for whomever to claim that they were misinformed.... quite another to state it as fact. it's kind of hard to believe the line that the cia, state department etc were unwitting dupes and somehow victims of cold war manipulations. much of the historical evidence points towards the concern in the region was more over independant arab or in this case persian nationalism.

yeah ok i looked this up and the view that the U.S. was duped by british intelligence is interpretive and not a fact.

"ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think oil is the central issue. But of course this was done at the height of the Cold War, so much of the discourse at the time linked it to the Cold War. I think many liberal historians, including of course Stephen Kinzer's wonderful book here, even though it's very good in dealing with the tragedy of the '53 coup, still puts it in this liberal framework that the tragedy, the original intentions, were benign.--that the U.S. really got into it because of the Cold War and it was hoodwinked into it by the nasty British who of course had oil interests, but the U.S. somehow was different. U.S. Eisenhower's interest, were really anti-communism. I sort of doubt that interpretation. For me, the oil was important both for the United States and for Britain. It's not just the question of oil in Iran. It was a question of control over oil internationally. If Mossadegh had succeeded in nationalizing the British oil industry in Iran, that would have set an example and was seen at that time by the Americans as a threat to U.S. oil interests throughout the world, because other countries would do the same."

what is the source for this?

"Inside Iran, Mossadegh's popularity was eroding as promised reforms failed to materialize and the economy continued to suffer due to heavy British sanctions. The Tudeh Party abandoned its alliance with Mossadegh, as did the conservative clerical factions."

i haven't read any evidence that his popularity ever eroded

___________________________ ""The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears."

This jars with me also.

See also... http://www.theglitteringeye.com/?p=1424

Dispute tag

Shervink could you please state here why you put up the dispute tag and what it is specifically you want sourced? --- Melca 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not a shortage of so-called sources. The problem is that the article is totally one-sided, praising Mossadegh out of proportions. The article selectively only picks up a certain point of view on the topic, which is very much disputed, although very loudly present in the bulk of media. Moreover, what you call sources are mostly from media rather than academia, which is not very reliable. Unless the counter arguments (of which I have given you many sources before) are presented in an equal manner (For example by changing words like coup and led by to plot and assited by, or discussing both views at length), I do not see a chance to consider the article neutral. Moreover, factually Mossadegh was in no way differently elected than others. That is a very simple historical fact. He became prime minister only because the Shah, constitutionally, dismissed the previous prime minister, and suggested Mossadegh to parliament instead. Mossadegh never had a problem with getting to power in this manner. How come he had a problem when it was his turn to leave office? I'm not judging his motives or whatever, but stating the words democratically elected here and not in other prime ministers' articles, creates a false impression that for him the procedure was different. Moreover, in its current way it implies, for many readers, a direct election, which is why it is better to mention the exact procedure, i.e. approved by parliament on the Shah's suggestion. It would be more specific and accurate. For a start, can you tell me you opinion on these issues please? Shervink 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

The sources in the article are both from the media and academia. Furthermore Misplaced Pages does not advocate one over the other as long as they are both published and verifiable . Sources such as the New York Times and the BBC are respected sources and reliable. The BBC for example even admits to have played a role in the coup , and uses the words coup and democratically elected explicitly. The CIA has called it a coup and so has Madeline Albright . There can therefore be no doubt that a coup took place. Misplaced Pages policy states that "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" (exceptional claim being that no coup ever took place).

Last but not least Mossadegh was elected differently than others after him, such as his successor Zahedi. The Shah's role before the coup was mostly ceremonial, like the queen in Britain. It was only after the coup that he was granted absolute powers and ruled through a one-party state in autocratic fashion and could thus dismiss prime ministers, at his will, without the consent of the parliament. You can read about this in e.g. these to well researched books . --- Melca 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Melca, you should get your facts straight. The one-party system you mention was established only during the last four years of the Shah's rule, more than twenty years after Mossadegh. The Shah constitutionally already had the power to dismiss prime ministers in 1953, and Mossadegh acknowledged that in his memoirs. Also Shapour Bakhtiar, for example, who was a close ally of Mossadegh, in his memoirs only criticizes the disrespectful manner in which Mossadegh was dismissed, but never questions the Shah's legal right to do so. It is true that the Shah changed the constitution after 1953 to get more powers, but dismissal of prime ministers and dissolving parliamnet already were among his rights before that. Mossadegh also acknowledged himself that constitutionally he didn't have the right to dissolve parliament through a referrendum, but that he did not accept those parts of the constitution. Unfortunately the book seems to be out of print, and I don't know of any english translation either. Anyway this is the link, in case you like to search for it yourself . Shervink 10:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

The main thing is that what you write does not coincide with the two books i referred to. Before the coup, only parliament had the right to fire prime ministers and Kinzer, the author of one of the books, also discusses this in the following interview by Democracy Now . As for mossadeghs memoir i have already commented on that here. But i will try to see if i can digg it up. --- Melca 08:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kinzer is wrong . Shervink 05:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Well you can believe what you want but Kinzers version of the events is the same as the one reported in the media, which most articles in WP are based on. --- Melca 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Most articles in WP are based on the media? I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. Anyhow, when you use the word media you usually only seem to mean those which you choose to read. Those inconvenient facts which you choose to ignore are somehow magically not included, be they books, articles, interviews, or official documents! I gave you several sources which necessitate a review of the article to make it NPOV.Shervink 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

• Delisted good articles