![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
A recent article published in the CIA's Studies in Intelligence journal and posted on the CIA Web site. The author argues that the main impulse behind the coup was Britain's financial issues, but Britain emphasized the possibility of a Communist takeover to encourage U.S. action. Interesting reading.
The Economics of Overthrow
The United States, Britain, and the Hidden Justification of Operation TPAJAX Torey L. McMurdo
Studies in Intelligence Vol. 56, No. 2 (Extracts, June 2012)
"This essay examines the differing views of the United States and Britain on the postwar situation in Iran. In it I argue that although the US government justified the coup as an effort to turn Iran from the path of communism, the United States, in fact, was led to intervene on behalf of the British government, which emphasized the communist threat in order to encourage US action. The British concerns were less political, however. They were primarily economic and centered on the threatened loss of currency reserves that would follow nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). This, in turn, threatened a rapid depletion of British dollar reserves, a loss of international purchasing power, and a further drop in London’s international economic standing." 173.81.167.53 ( talk) 05:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've been reading Three Kings : The Rise of an American Empire in the Middle East After World War II
What it looks like so far is the Eisenhower administration believed that attempting to overthrow the government is what might lead to a communist takeover. They decided to send in the CIA after being pressured by the oil companies who argued that if Iran got away with nationalizing their oil it would embolden other countries to do the same. It was the domino theory. Washington had to make an example out of Mossadegh to send a message to others that using their resources for their own purposes would not be tolerated.-- Public Intelligence Analyst ( talk) 18:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Nah, pretty much all the principles in the administration believed that attempting to overthrow the government was risky. They viewed Mossadegh as someone who would prevent a communist takeover but they also believed that if the coup failed he might have joined the Soviet bloc for protection. The oil companies and Brittain werent worried about it. The oil companies and some in the administration just wanted him gone before the "virus" spread to other countries. The primary concern was "losing Saudi Arabia" to an internal revolt by "radical pan-Arab nationalists".-- Public Intelligence Analyst ( talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The President's view is the least important of all the principles. The people behind the President are the ones that run policy. Presidents come and go, the national security complex remains. The financial institutions, oil companies, military industrial complex and so on will always be there. Pretty much the same administrations are recycled with every new president. So, even if Eisenhower authorized the coup, believing Mossadeq was Martian armed with a death ray, who cares..-- Public Intelligence Analyst ( talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The U.S. Motives section was fairly obviously copied from somebody's essay. Should be edited to make it less partial and colloquial. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.5.27.138 (
talk)
17:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is to an excessive degree biased in favour of Mossaddegh. I see that a few editors have put their grips on this article, stopping any changes not in favor of this man. Let me remind you that wikipedia is not your own propaganda platform, enough of trying to make Mossaddegh look like a saint. I see that for more than a year there have been a group of people who wanted to make it more neutral and bring more theories into the article about how it could have been. Sadly that did not seem to work as some people are trying to spread propaganda through wikipedia. What can be done? -- Vahriz ( talk) 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is very detailed, but mainly is written from a Western (non-Iranian) perspective. It fully covers the oil nationalization issue, but ignores another equally important issue that Iran was facing at that time.
Iran was at a crossroads at that time. The two paths it had to choose was "parliamentary democracy" or "absolute monarchy". The 1906 Constitution of Iran was very ambiguous. It allowed for a popularly elected parliament and a prime minister. But at the same time, it gave the king (shah) power to act on his own through royal "firmans", in other words completely sidelining the democratic parts of the government at will. Whenever the king was weak (like during the 1940's), the democratic aspects reigned supreme. But whenever the Shah stepped up to assume his powers, those democratic aspects were sidelined. In 1949, when the Shah attempted to rule, Mossadegh created his political coalition (the National Front) and used the popular oil nationalization issue to prevent the Shah from acting on his own. He was successful in his endeavour, and by 1953, Mossadegh was able to effectively turn the Shah into a ceremonial monarch.
But the oil nationalization issue was completely intertwined with democracy. When the British embargoed Iranian oil it resulted in economic setbacks, and in declining support for Mossadegh among Iranians (ironically to this day, most Iranians look at the Mossadegh era not as an era of peace and democracy, but as an era of political chaos and poverty, while the "autocratic" Shah's era is looked at as an era of stability and wealth!). As a result when the foreign backed coup d'etat occured, there was little popular protest.
Iran had been forced to chose absolute monarchy over parliamentary democracy by a foreign backed plot, but at the same time, it was indirectly the people's choice as well. They supported a short term decision (prosperity) over a long term one (democracy). Neither the Shah nor Mossadegh were bad, they both loved Iran in their own way. But the Western interference in the delicate affairs of Iran helped indirectly create the Iranian Revolution in 1979, ironically resulting in both the destruction of both absolute monarchy and parliamentary democracy.
I am overhauling this article and this new information will be added to the article. Partridgeinapeartree ( talk) 22:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. [1] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government." [2]
Cheers. And once again, I apologize for accidentally deleting your work. Partridgeinapeartree ( talk) 06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, CIA documents were released today, which may change the historiography [1] We might want to wait a few days for news sources to comment on them. TFD ( talk) 00:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Some CIA-related text was removed today, the text added by User:Harel but removed by User:Partridgeinapeartree, possibly by accidental edit conflict. Here is the removed text:
In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."
The references are as follows:
Again, I don't think these revelations are very important for facts related to the case. I agree with TFD that we will need to wait until topic scholars have digested the new evidence and fitted it into the rest of the picture. The CIA is too conflicted on the subject to be accepted as an independent observer. Binksternet ( talk) 01:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This user has disputed this article's accuracy. In their edit summary, they linked this YouTube channel discussion page ( the actual channel). Note that people are claiming the user is "drumming up hatred with your biased view of the world" and that these are not facts. IsraphelMac ( talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It was not just Mossadeq who was overthrown in the 1953 coup. It was his whole government. This is my attempt to create an incomplete list of ministers who were removed from office by the coup.
Poyani ( talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Partridgeinapeartree,
There are a few issues you pointed out above which I think require some reconsideration.
You wrote:
First, a side note: the British did not just "boycott" Iranian oil. They sabotaged and sanctioned it, placing their military in the Persian Gulf and preventing the oil tankers from leaving (an act of war). That is a BIG difference.
But more importantly, what is it that is leading you to believe that Iranians preferred the Shah to Mossadeq? I have seen some sources which state this position (based on, IMHO very weak arguments) and many more which state the opposite. The 'autocratic' Shah's era was certainly not seen as an era of "stability and wealth". Almost immediately after Mossadeq's overthrow there were constant upheavals in Iran until 1979 when the Shah was overthrown outright. This movement began after a short lull following the Shah's execution and torture of Mossadeq's key advisers (for example see Hossein Fatemi, the architect of Mossadeq's nationalization program was executed immediately). In fact, student protests were organized immediately after the overthrow. The student leaders were promptly arrested and tortured, some killed (one of those student leaders who was tortured happens to be my father).
Another clear indication that this is false, is the fact that the Shah banned the National Front outright and turned Iran's elections into a one-party, Royalist system. If there was any truth to the notion that the Shah was popular, he would have never required such actions. The reality is that he and his regime feared that the National Front would have been reelected, possibly with an even larger majority, should they had the chance.
But after that short lull, caused by the executions/torture/repression, began a popular movement to overthrow the Shah outright, lead primarily by Mossadeq's living colleagues in the National Front (who used Khomeini as their symbolic figure). In fact, Mossadeq's head of NIOC, Mehdi Bazargan, would go on to become Iran's first post-revolutionary prime minister, before he, along with other members of the NF, were removed from power by the Islamists. Another nationalist, Abolhassan Banisadr, was elected president (Iran's first democratically elected president), before he too was removed by Islamists.
These notions that "most or many Iranians indirectly chose the coup over Mossadeq" or "Iranians preferred the stability of the Shah to democracy" are just Orientalist myths. They directly contradict a whole slew of facts, such as what happened after Mossadeq's overthrow and years of struggle before, from the Tobacco revolution to Mossadeq's election. It is absolutely incredible in my opinion to claim that the military coup was popular, when one considers that when in 1979, the Shah fled, the first act of the disorganized groups which lead the revolution was to execute the generals of the army. The second act was to over-run the American embassy (which was wide believed, correctly, to have been the central HQ for the coup). All these actions clearly indicate that the 79 revolution was the people's direct response to the 53 coup.
Today, the notion that Iranians prefer the Shah to Mossadeq holds absolutely no water. I am not saying that based on second-hand research. I am saying that from a first-person perspective, of an Iranian who has discussed this exact issue with literally hundreds of other Iranians (both expats and in the country). I have yet to meet 1 person (ONE single person), who has shown any inclination toward these views. They are nonsense. It is based on absolute fantasy (along with the myth of the possibility of the popular return of the Shah's son to power or the notion that the MEK are a democracy movement with support within Iran). In fact, these views are so wildly unpopular, that even the Shah's son distances himself from such views, criticizing his own father (generally a heresy among Royalists) in order to MAINTAIN support within his own small network.
The reality is that to this day, the vast majority of Iranian (myself included) see Mossadeq as a lost opportunity to achieve the elusive goal of democracy in Iran, which Iranians have been fighting for, for at least 100 years. This is precisely why Mossadeq is an important figure in Iranian history and not afforded the same status as the hundreds of other Prime Ministers that preceded and followed him (arguably with the notable exception of perhaps Amir Kabir and Mehdi Bazargan).
In fact, I can make my argument with a simple comparison.
If your argument that "No major protests were held after the 53 coup, therefore the coup must have been popular" is true; then it must be equally true that the 2009 election fraud and subsequent crushing of dissent was also popular, since from 2010 to today there were no major protests in the streets of Iran. Both arguments have the same structure, logic and predicate. Poyani ( talk) 16:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. Cheers. Partridgeinapeartree ( talk) 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an unending effort to remove the phrase "democratically elected government" from the lede of this article. This has been the subject of numerous discussions, all ending with a plurality of editors agreeing that the phrase is appropriate, since it has been used, word for word, in numerous peer-reviewed works pertaining to the coup. Please refrain from removing it again. Poyani ( talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I have, on previous occasions, been very amicable in including fair criticisms of Mossadeq into this article (such as his questionable behaviour on the undemocratic and unconstitutional plebiscite which he used to dismiss Majlis). However, over the last month or so, the content article has become a sad joke, with examples of outright distortions, in direct contradictions to the sources used to justify them.
One extreme case for example is the sentence regarding Khalil Tahmasebi. The new article indicates that he murdered Mossadeq's main opponent for the position of Prime Minister, suggesting underhandedly that Mossadeq and his supporters may have been involved. It further makes this suggestion by claiming that he was pardoned and freed by Mossadeq. This is an outright fabrication.
What actually happened (as even noted in the sources currently listed), Khalil Tahmasebi was captured after the assassination of Ali Razmara and quickly sentenced to death. However, due to the suspicious and speedy nature of his trial there was widespread belief among the general public that he was innocent (many to this day believe the murder was carried out by the Iranian army). Here is where the outright distortion starts. Neither Mossadeq, nor anyone in his government, freed nor pardoned Tahmasebi. THEY ONLY ORDERED A NEW TRIAL. In fact, under Tahasebi's own Wikipedia article it states (correctly) that he was tried in 1952 (when Mossadeq was in power) and sentenced to death. When was he freed? When was he "pardoned" for the assassination?
Not only was this fabrication added to the article, it is placed under the grotesque heading "Assassination attempt on the Shah, and the Appointment of Mossadegh as Prime Minister", further underhandedly suggesting that Mossadeq was killing his way to power (a huge lie).
The fabrication above is hardly the only case of bias in the article.
It seems that there has been a great effort to minimize the affect of sources which directly address the subject (the 1953 coup - such as Kitzner's book which occurs mostly in inline attributions now) and a MASSIVE increase in reliance on parsed biographical material on the Shah.
There seems to be a clear patterns of trying to lionize the Shah prior to mentioning the coup, by noting, in great detail, his achievements. Can anyone explain why the section on the breakaway Soviet Republics is included, other than to emphasize the congratulatory "the Shah's role in resolving the crisis garnered him much popularity among Iranians"? What is the link between the Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan and Mashhad (and the uprising in Gilan), all of which occured in northern Iran, with the coup which occurred 8 years later due to concerns in southern Iran (Bandar Abbas and the Gulf)?
Why has the material regarding Reza Shah been added? That has also been greatly parsed to lionize the Pahlavis. It states the Shah's achievements but goes to great lengths to minimize his faults (neither of which even belong in this article since they are irrelevant to the coup). The Shah's enemies were called "warlords" (they were tribal leaders who existed throughout Iranian history) and they were "defeated" (in reality according to the listed source, they were executed, their villages raised, and the culture and language of their tribes banned under severe punishment). The Reza Shah is noted to have been overthrown "neutral" in World War II (he was extremely pro-Nazi, even claiming Iran was part of the Aryan super-race. He did not join he war militarily because of the existence of the nearby Russian and English armies).
Dubious sources have been used to make questionable suggestions regarding the popularity of Reza Shah today (the blog section of the Wall Street Journal).
Iran's constitution has been greatly misrepresented, for example, renaming the "vote of inclination" (a phrase often used by Milani) for the totally incorrect "vote of confidence". The vote of Majlis has been redubbed "the vote of the largest party in Majlis" (totally incorrect as noted even by the stated source).
All these errors are suspiciously one-sided. They, undermine Mossadeq while lionizing the Shah. And that is not even noting the numerous instances of spelling mistakes and errors which have been introduced. Is there any reasons why we should not revert back to the version we had last month? Poyani ( talk) 17:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. Partridgeinapeartree ( talk) 23:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet it was a False flag operations, why did you reverted the edit?-- Setareh1990 ( talk) 07:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
because I can not do it properly. Due to the time stamp the Youtube video should begin at exactly the right time. If not adjust please. The video-Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpnOX4l7XA&t=2m19s Mocvd ( talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The coup - or more accurately counter coup - was not to remove a democratically elected PM (since Mossadegh was by this stage a dictator), or for "strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi", it was to remove a leftist dictator who was seen as a threat to the USA and UK, and was opposed by the majority of Iranians. He had been a popular figure, by his popularity had declined as he became more dictatorial. Royalcourtier ( talk) 08:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why the Eisenhower administration supported British imperialism/colonialism in Iran when it opposed the Suez operation just three years later? ( 217.35.237.85 ( talk) 11:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC))
Disparaging and insulting remarks against participants at Wikipedia, such as deleting my edits because I am "hysterical" as YeOldeGentleman claims, are a violation of the rules of Wikipedia.
Furthermore, it is per se vandalism under Wikipedia rules to merely delete edits and revert to a previous version without improving or editing the content.
YeOldeGentleman simply undid my edits by calling me "hysterical"
Since neither the United States nor the CIA had any soldiers, troops, or forces in Iran during the 1953 coup, the Wikipedia article is absolutely false and in conflict with the original sources.
Furthermore, the Wikipedia article appears on its face to be nonsensical, given the extensive discussion of the United Kingdom and the UK's interest, but then making purely anti-American false charges against the United States.
How does one read the extensive interests of the United Kingdom in motivating the 1953 coup, and then read the anti-American conclusions that the United States over-threw the Iranian government?
What happened to the United Kingdom? How did the United Kingdom disappear in all of this?
So someone reading the Wikipedia article is to see that (1) The UK had all the motivation, but (2) it was the United States' fault? What sense does that make? It is not only false and in conflict with the original sources, but also troubling and in conflict on its face.
How many US troops were on the ground in Iran? Answer: Zero.
How many CIA forces or soldiers or agents were on the ground in Iran, other than as non-combatant advisers? Answer: Zero.
So can anyone make heads or tails out of Wikipedia's article, such as HOW exactly the United States did this?
I would love to know HOW the United States overthrew a government with NO troops, NO soldiers, NO forces?
If we did in 1953, why aren't we doing it today?
Answer: We did not do it in 1953, which is why we cannot do it today, either.
Yes, the CIA provided some of the funding. Yes, the CIA gave its nod of approval. No, the CIA did not over-throw the Iranian government.
The Iranians over-threw their own government. Those are the facts. The CIA and the United States gave diplomatic cover, encouragement, and funding.
But there was not 1 single pair of "boots on the ground" from the United States. Not one.
Now, to be fair -- which is more than I can say for the article -- the article does describe a process of CIA funding being used to hire mobs of criminals.
No, the CIA did not KNOW WHO to hire inside Iran.
The CIA provided funding. That was wrong. That is a serious issue. That is controversial and important.
But the CIA gave the money to the Iranian coup-plotters, and the Iranians hired mobs of criminals and thugs using the CIA money.
Notwithstanding unreliable third-hand, tenth-hand, twentieth-hand accounts, from original sources can anyone identify HOW the CIA would even know WHOM to hire inside Iran, much less hundreds of thugs and criminals?
The CIA was created in 1947. It was less than 6 years old in 1953, consumed with just getting organized from its 1947 creation.
James Bond movies aside, the 1953 CIA was barely an infant during the 1953 Iranian coup.
The CIA couldn't even find Soviet agents inside the U.S. State Department (confirmed by post-Soviet release of Soviet archives) during the 1953 time period.
-- Jon Moseley
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.193.39 ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Binksternet: Expressions like "Mohammed Reza Pahlavi supporters" and "Mohammad Mosaddegh supporters" are vague, and they are not organized entities. Government of Mosaddegh is what really was toppled, not National Front. Many cabinet members were not members of the front, and at the time some factions in the National Front not only were not allied with Mosaddegh anymore, but even opposed to him, like followers of Mozzafar Baghai. On the other side, it was the court that led its henchmen and loyals to overthrow the government, the only legal personality in Iranian insurgents. Pahlevun ( talk) 17:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I summarized the lead and removed the tag. I nominated the article for OTD. Saff V. ( talk) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Come off it, Pahlevun. If you're really Iranian you should have no problem identifying that statement as false. The Shah supposedly executed some 300 people, with fewer than 3,000 individuals dying in clashes between protesters and police during the Iranian Revolution. (This article gives a slightly different estimate that "nearly 100 people were executed for political reasons during the last 20 years of the Shah's rule," when SAVAK was alleged to be at its most fearsome.) As the body of this article makes clear: "The Shah generally dealt with dissent in a relatively mild manner compared to most autocratic leaders." To suggest that the Shah was somehow worse than the likes of Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein—sourced to some fringe author who has no expertise on Iran, is not widely cited on the topic, and whose book was originally published by Common Courage Press, red link very much intended—is an outrageous POV-push, particularly for the lead, and particularly when it is contradicted by the body of the article. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 17:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Binksternet, why would you revert so much and then only address two points? Not even argue, just address them. I have repeatedly explained why the current image is unfit, there is no reason to remove the "military" from "military government", and there was no reason whatsoever to undo all the mentions of the US being the mastermind, not the UK. This can not be omitted. If you want I could put all these references ( Guardian, NSA Archive, NY Times, Foreign Policy, Politico, US-owned RFE, CNN, BBC, USA Today, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post and many more) after every single mention of US orchestration but that seems a little excessive, no? At least use the talk page for this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ervand Abrahamian argues in The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the roots of modern U.S.-Iranian relations, that the Iranians who took to the streets in support of the Shah numbered about 4000, which in the context of Iran in the 50s was nothing. Mosaddegh, in contrast, ordered his supporters to leave the streets after being persuaded (in a much overlooked meeting, according to Ervand) by the American ambassador on the 18th of August. Many of those 4000, in turn, were paid protesters organized under the likes of Shaban Jafari. It is possible, therefore, that the "celebration" image could give a misleading impression of the support the coup had among Iranians. Uglemat ( talk) 07:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
History of Iran Covert Action Deferred Indefinitely, 18 April 2017 -- 87.159.112.146 ( talk) 15:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Why did the Americans support European colonialism in Iran in 193, yet oppose it in Egypt in 1956? Was it just because the US didn't get much oil via the Suez Canal? (
EricHobner (
talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)) Banned editor HarveyCarter.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
20:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The US Government Office of the Historian just released a volume of official documents from 1951 to 1954 on US foreign policy in regard to Iran, including the Truman administration's attempts at understanding Mossagegh and the covert operation during the Eisenhower administration. The volume can be used to further expand this article. See here. NIGHTdevil 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/ekot/artikel.asp?Artikel=1392947When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
As of 2017-07-27, the text includes, "Worried about Britain's other interests in Iran, and (thanks to the Tudeh party)[12] believing that Iran's nationalism was really a Soviet-backed plot, Britain persuaded US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was falling to the Soviets—effectively exploiting the American Cold War mindset. Since President Harry S. Truman was busy fighting a war in Korea, he did not agree to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh." This is at best misleading, because John Foster Dulles did not become US Secretary of State until after Harry Truman left office and Dwight D. Eisenhower became president. Dean Acheson was Truman's Secretary of State.
This needs to be fixed, but I don't know enough to be confident in exactly how it should be changed. I hope someone who knows this subject better than I do will fix it. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Should we list Miles Copeland Jr. and Shapoor Reporter among the commanders in the infobox? Binksternet ( talk) 00:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Binksternet: Regarding your recent edit, in what way do you think inclusion of "Democratically-elected" is WP:UNDUE considering that many reliable sources have used the term? (See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and probably many others.) Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"The government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq which was ousted in the coup was the last popular, democratically oriented government to hold office in Iran."-- Mhhossein talk 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a prominent piece of the infobox, implicitly drawing a direct cause-effect relationship between the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution. My main problem with this being presented in a matter-of-fact manner in the infobox, rather than as an opinion in the article's body, is that it is arguably very reductionist. While it is undeniable that the establishment of an absolute monarchy helped create the conditions of the 1979 Revolution, it seems a little unreasonable to me to bluntly state a direct A-to-B connection, especially when the two events were separated by over twenty years. The 1979 Revolution had many causes, and while a reader can click on the article to learn more, somebody who just reads this article is likely to get an incorrect impression that the 1979 Revolution was simply the result of the 1953 coup. I think this piece of text needs to be modified or removed. Jogarz1921 ( talk) 04:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This article makes the claim that the 1953 coup was "the first covert action by the United States to overthrow a democratically-elected government during peacetime". This is not true. In 1949, the CIA encouraged and facilitated an overthrow of the Quwatli government in Syria. This is outlined by Douglas Little in this article, and confirmed by declassified communications between CIA operatives and Husni al-Za'im. I would therefore encourage the removal of the misleading sentence.
83.34.163.240 ( talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Norman Darbyshire's personal reminiscences about the coup are worth a read in the National Security Archive. Zero talk 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Judging Mosaddegh to be unreliable and fearing a Communist takeover in Iran, UK prime minister Winston Churchill and the Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government, though the preceding Truman administration had opposed a coup, fearing the precedent that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) involvement would set
Abbas Milani is by no means a good source. He is one of Mossadegh's extremist supporters and in his book, Shah, he has a completely unfair view of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The part that says the king suppressed the Republicans is a lie. In my opinion, the article has many problems because its sources are mainly Mossadegh's supporters. Nowhere is it mentioned that it was Mossadegh who closed the parliament. In general, I think this article has a lot of work to do. Thanks. Amir Ghandi ( talk) 18:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
In the article it's repeatedly stated that the removal of Mosaddegh was orchestrated by the US under operation TPAJAX. But in the article this information is contradicted, stating that the CIA had little role in the 19th of August removal of Mosaddegh (operation TPAJAX was supposed to take place the 16th of August). Operation TPAJAX failed and even though it can be considered that it helped to create the situation that led to overthrow Mosaddegh (as stated in the article) I think the role of the US in other parts of the article is exaggerated with vague statements like "orchestrated by the US' later contradicted in the article. I am sure of what I'm saying since it's in the article but would like to discuss this issue before making overall not so important but important for some readers (many tend to read the first sentences that summarize the article and close the article) changes about a topic that also has a political relevance. What do you think? Castagna98 ( talk) 00:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
"the CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq". So "aided by" is too lenient since U.S. had a prominent role in the coup. Some tend to say it was sponsored by the U.S..-- Mhhossein talk 11:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
All the documents of the coup are available in Farsi language. All the newspapers that covered this news and event in detail. The photos are available. In addition, our grandfathers are still alive and remember those days. Why instead of documents The CIA does not refer to Iranian documents. It is like we use our own documents for the history of America. This is the history of our country, not the history of America. Abbas Milani is not trustworthy and his story is a lie. Did Abbas Milani ever say that he was in prison for three years in Iran because of the bombing? Did he say that he was a leftist against the king? The best documents are iran newspapers, not people's memories. 5.115.110.121 ( talk) 06:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
A recent article published in the CIA's Studies in Intelligence journal and posted on the CIA Web site. The author argues that the main impulse behind the coup was Britain's financial issues, but Britain emphasized the possibility of a Communist takeover to encourage U.S. action. Interesting reading.
The Economics of Overthrow
The United States, Britain, and the Hidden Justification of Operation TPAJAX Torey L. McMurdo
Studies in Intelligence Vol. 56, No. 2 (Extracts, June 2012)
"This essay examines the differing views of the United States and Britain on the postwar situation in Iran. In it I argue that although the US government justified the coup as an effort to turn Iran from the path of communism, the United States, in fact, was led to intervene on behalf of the British government, which emphasized the communist threat in order to encourage US action. The British concerns were less political, however. They were primarily economic and centered on the threatened loss of currency reserves that would follow nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). This, in turn, threatened a rapid depletion of British dollar reserves, a loss of international purchasing power, and a further drop in London’s international economic standing." 173.81.167.53 ( talk) 05:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've been reading Three Kings : The Rise of an American Empire in the Middle East After World War II
What it looks like so far is the Eisenhower administration believed that attempting to overthrow the government is what might lead to a communist takeover. They decided to send in the CIA after being pressured by the oil companies who argued that if Iran got away with nationalizing their oil it would embolden other countries to do the same. It was the domino theory. Washington had to make an example out of Mossadegh to send a message to others that using their resources for their own purposes would not be tolerated.-- Public Intelligence Analyst ( talk) 18:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Nah, pretty much all the principles in the administration believed that attempting to overthrow the government was risky. They viewed Mossadegh as someone who would prevent a communist takeover but they also believed that if the coup failed he might have joined the Soviet bloc for protection. The oil companies and Brittain werent worried about it. The oil companies and some in the administration just wanted him gone before the "virus" spread to other countries. The primary concern was "losing Saudi Arabia" to an internal revolt by "radical pan-Arab nationalists".-- Public Intelligence Analyst ( talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The President's view is the least important of all the principles. The people behind the President are the ones that run policy. Presidents come and go, the national security complex remains. The financial institutions, oil companies, military industrial complex and so on will always be there. Pretty much the same administrations are recycled with every new president. So, even if Eisenhower authorized the coup, believing Mossadeq was Martian armed with a death ray, who cares..-- Public Intelligence Analyst ( talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The U.S. Motives section was fairly obviously copied from somebody's essay. Should be edited to make it less partial and colloquial. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.5.27.138 (
talk)
17:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is to an excessive degree biased in favour of Mossaddegh. I see that a few editors have put their grips on this article, stopping any changes not in favor of this man. Let me remind you that wikipedia is not your own propaganda platform, enough of trying to make Mossaddegh look like a saint. I see that for more than a year there have been a group of people who wanted to make it more neutral and bring more theories into the article about how it could have been. Sadly that did not seem to work as some people are trying to spread propaganda through wikipedia. What can be done? -- Vahriz ( talk) 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is very detailed, but mainly is written from a Western (non-Iranian) perspective. It fully covers the oil nationalization issue, but ignores another equally important issue that Iran was facing at that time.
Iran was at a crossroads at that time. The two paths it had to choose was "parliamentary democracy" or "absolute monarchy". The 1906 Constitution of Iran was very ambiguous. It allowed for a popularly elected parliament and a prime minister. But at the same time, it gave the king (shah) power to act on his own through royal "firmans", in other words completely sidelining the democratic parts of the government at will. Whenever the king was weak (like during the 1940's), the democratic aspects reigned supreme. But whenever the Shah stepped up to assume his powers, those democratic aspects were sidelined. In 1949, when the Shah attempted to rule, Mossadegh created his political coalition (the National Front) and used the popular oil nationalization issue to prevent the Shah from acting on his own. He was successful in his endeavour, and by 1953, Mossadegh was able to effectively turn the Shah into a ceremonial monarch.
But the oil nationalization issue was completely intertwined with democracy. When the British embargoed Iranian oil it resulted in economic setbacks, and in declining support for Mossadegh among Iranians (ironically to this day, most Iranians look at the Mossadegh era not as an era of peace and democracy, but as an era of political chaos and poverty, while the "autocratic" Shah's era is looked at as an era of stability and wealth!). As a result when the foreign backed coup d'etat occured, there was little popular protest.
Iran had been forced to chose absolute monarchy over parliamentary democracy by a foreign backed plot, but at the same time, it was indirectly the people's choice as well. They supported a short term decision (prosperity) over a long term one (democracy). Neither the Shah nor Mossadegh were bad, they both loved Iran in their own way. But the Western interference in the delicate affairs of Iran helped indirectly create the Iranian Revolution in 1979, ironically resulting in both the destruction of both absolute monarchy and parliamentary democracy.
I am overhauling this article and this new information will be added to the article. Partridgeinapeartree ( talk) 22:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. [1] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government." [2]
Cheers. And once again, I apologize for accidentally deleting your work. Partridgeinapeartree ( talk) 06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, CIA documents were released today, which may change the historiography [1] We might want to wait a few days for news sources to comment on them. TFD ( talk) 00:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Some CIA-related text was removed today, the text added by User:Harel but removed by User:Partridgeinapeartree, possibly by accidental edit conflict. Here is the removed text:
In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."
The references are as follows:
Again, I don't think these revelations are very important for facts related to the case. I agree with TFD that we will need to wait until topic scholars have digested the new evidence and fitted it into the rest of the picture. The CIA is too conflicted on the subject to be accepted as an independent observer. Binksternet ( talk) 01:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This user has disputed this article's accuracy. In their edit summary, they linked this YouTube channel discussion page ( the actual channel). Note that people are claiming the user is "drumming up hatred with your biased view of the world" and that these are not facts. IsraphelMac ( talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It was not just Mossadeq who was overthrown in the 1953 coup. It was his whole government. This is my attempt to create an incomplete list of ministers who were removed from office by the coup.
Poyani ( talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Partridgeinapeartree,
There are a few issues you pointed out above which I think require some reconsideration.
You wrote:
First, a side note: the British did not just "boycott" Iranian oil. They sabotaged and sanctioned it, placing their military in the Persian Gulf and preventing the oil tankers from leaving (an act of war). That is a BIG difference.
But more importantly, what is it that is leading you to believe that Iranians preferred the Shah to Mossadeq? I have seen some sources which state this position (based on, IMHO very weak arguments) and many more which state the opposite. The 'autocratic' Shah's era was certainly not seen as an era of "stability and wealth". Almost immediately after Mossadeq's overthrow there were constant upheavals in Iran until 1979 when the Shah was overthrown outright. This movement began after a short lull following the Shah's execution and torture of Mossadeq's key advisers (for example see Hossein Fatemi, the architect of Mossadeq's nationalization program was executed immediately). In fact, student protests were organized immediately after the overthrow. The student leaders were promptly arrested and tortured, some killed (one of those student leaders who was tortured happens to be my father).
Another clear indication that this is false, is the fact that the Shah banned the National Front outright and turned Iran's elections into a one-party, Royalist system. If there was any truth to the notion that the Shah was popular, he would have never required such actions. The reality is that he and his regime feared that the National Front would have been reelected, possibly with an even larger majority, should they had the chance.
But after that short lull, caused by the executions/torture/repression, began a popular movement to overthrow the Shah outright, lead primarily by Mossadeq's living colleagues in the National Front (who used Khomeini as their symbolic figure). In fact, Mossadeq's head of NIOC, Mehdi Bazargan, would go on to become Iran's first post-revolutionary prime minister, before he, along with other members of the NF, were removed from power by the Islamists. Another nationalist, Abolhassan Banisadr, was elected president (Iran's first democratically elected president), before he too was removed by Islamists.
These notions that "most or many Iranians indirectly chose the coup over Mossadeq" or "Iranians preferred the stability of the Shah to democracy" are just Orientalist myths. They directly contradict a whole slew of facts, such as what happened after Mossadeq's overthrow and years of struggle before, from the Tobacco revolution to Mossadeq's election. It is absolutely incredible in my opinion to claim that the military coup was popular, when one considers that when in 1979, the Shah fled, the first act of the disorganized groups which lead the revolution was to execute the generals of the army. The second act was to over-run the American embassy (which was wide believed, correctly, to have been the central HQ for the coup). All these actions clearly indicate that the 79 revolution was the people's direct response to the 53 coup.
Today, the notion that Iranians prefer the Shah to Mossadeq holds absolutely no water. I am not saying that based on second-hand research. I am saying that from a first-person perspective, of an Iranian who has discussed this exact issue with literally hundreds of other Iranians (both expats and in the country). I have yet to meet 1 person (ONE single person), who has shown any inclination toward these views. They are nonsense. It is based on absolute fantasy (along with the myth of the possibility of the popular return of the Shah's son to power or the notion that the MEK are a democracy movement with support within Iran). In fact, these views are so wildly unpopular, that even the Shah's son distances himself from such views, criticizing his own father (generally a heresy among Royalists) in order to MAINTAIN support within his own small network.
The reality is that to this day, the vast majority of Iranian (myself included) see Mossadeq as a lost opportunity to achieve the elusive goal of democracy in Iran, which Iranians have been fighting for, for at least 100 years. This is precisely why Mossadeq is an important figure in Iranian history and not afforded the same status as the hundreds of other Prime Ministers that preceded and followed him (arguably with the notable exception of perhaps Amir Kabir and Mehdi Bazargan).
In fact, I can make my argument with a simple comparison.
If your argument that "No major protests were held after the 53 coup, therefore the coup must have been popular" is true; then it must be equally true that the 2009 election fraud and subsequent crushing of dissent was also popular, since from 2010 to today there were no major protests in the streets of Iran. Both arguments have the same structure, logic and predicate. Poyani ( talk) 16:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. Cheers. Partridgeinapeartree ( talk) 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an unending effort to remove the phrase "democratically elected government" from the lede of this article. This has been the subject of numerous discussions, all ending with a plurality of editors agreeing that the phrase is appropriate, since it has been used, word for word, in numerous peer-reviewed works pertaining to the coup. Please refrain from removing it again. Poyani ( talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I have, on previous occasions, been very amicable in including fair criticisms of Mossadeq into this article (such as his questionable behaviour on the undemocratic and unconstitutional plebiscite which he used to dismiss Majlis). However, over the last month or so, the content article has become a sad joke, with examples of outright distortions, in direct contradictions to the sources used to justify them.
One extreme case for example is the sentence regarding Khalil Tahmasebi. The new article indicates that he murdered Mossadeq's main opponent for the position of Prime Minister, suggesting underhandedly that Mossadeq and his supporters may have been involved. It further makes this suggestion by claiming that he was pardoned and freed by Mossadeq. This is an outright fabrication.
What actually happened (as even noted in the sources currently listed), Khalil Tahmasebi was captured after the assassination of Ali Razmara and quickly sentenced to death. However, due to the suspicious and speedy nature of his trial there was widespread belief among the general public that he was innocent (many to this day believe the murder was carried out by the Iranian army). Here is where the outright distortion starts. Neither Mossadeq, nor anyone in his government, freed nor pardoned Tahmasebi. THEY ONLY ORDERED A NEW TRIAL. In fact, under Tahasebi's own Wikipedia article it states (correctly) that he was tried in 1952 (when Mossadeq was in power) and sentenced to death. When was he freed? When was he "pardoned" for the assassination?
Not only was this fabrication added to the article, it is placed under the grotesque heading "Assassination attempt on the Shah, and the Appointment of Mossadegh as Prime Minister", further underhandedly suggesting that Mossadeq was killing his way to power (a huge lie).
The fabrication above is hardly the only case of bias in the article.
It seems that there has been a great effort to minimize the affect of sources which directly address the subject (the 1953 coup - such as Kitzner's book which occurs mostly in inline attributions now) and a MASSIVE increase in reliance on parsed biographical material on the Shah.
There seems to be a clear patterns of trying to lionize the Shah prior to mentioning the coup, by noting, in great detail, his achievements. Can anyone explain why the section on the breakaway Soviet Republics is included, other than to emphasize the congratulatory "the Shah's role in resolving the crisis garnered him much popularity among Iranians"? What is the link between the Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan and Mashhad (and the uprising in Gilan), all of which occured in northern Iran, with the coup which occurred 8 years later due to concerns in southern Iran (Bandar Abbas and the Gulf)?
Why has the material regarding Reza Shah been added? That has also been greatly parsed to lionize the Pahlavis. It states the Shah's achievements but goes to great lengths to minimize his faults (neither of which even belong in this article since they are irrelevant to the coup). The Shah's enemies were called "warlords" (they were tribal leaders who existed throughout Iranian history) and they were "defeated" (in reality according to the listed source, they were executed, their villages raised, and the culture and language of their tribes banned under severe punishment). The Reza Shah is noted to have been overthrown "neutral" in World War II (he was extremely pro-Nazi, even claiming Iran was part of the Aryan super-race. He did not join he war militarily because of the existence of the nearby Russian and English armies).
Dubious sources have been used to make questionable suggestions regarding the popularity of Reza Shah today (the blog section of the Wall Street Journal).
Iran's constitution has been greatly misrepresented, for example, renaming the "vote of inclination" (a phrase often used by Milani) for the totally incorrect "vote of confidence". The vote of Majlis has been redubbed "the vote of the largest party in Majlis" (totally incorrect as noted even by the stated source).
All these errors are suspiciously one-sided. They, undermine Mossadeq while lionizing the Shah. And that is not even noting the numerous instances of spelling mistakes and errors which have been introduced. Is there any reasons why we should not revert back to the version we had last month? Poyani ( talk) 17:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. Partridgeinapeartree ( talk) 23:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet it was a False flag operations, why did you reverted the edit?-- Setareh1990 ( talk) 07:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
because I can not do it properly. Due to the time stamp the Youtube video should begin at exactly the right time. If not adjust please. The video-Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpnOX4l7XA&t=2m19s Mocvd ( talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The coup - or more accurately counter coup - was not to remove a democratically elected PM (since Mossadegh was by this stage a dictator), or for "strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi", it was to remove a leftist dictator who was seen as a threat to the USA and UK, and was opposed by the majority of Iranians. He had been a popular figure, by his popularity had declined as he became more dictatorial. Royalcourtier ( talk) 08:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why the Eisenhower administration supported British imperialism/colonialism in Iran when it opposed the Suez operation just three years later? ( 217.35.237.85 ( talk) 11:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC))
Disparaging and insulting remarks against participants at Wikipedia, such as deleting my edits because I am "hysterical" as YeOldeGentleman claims, are a violation of the rules of Wikipedia.
Furthermore, it is per se vandalism under Wikipedia rules to merely delete edits and revert to a previous version without improving or editing the content.
YeOldeGentleman simply undid my edits by calling me "hysterical"
Since neither the United States nor the CIA had any soldiers, troops, or forces in Iran during the 1953 coup, the Wikipedia article is absolutely false and in conflict with the original sources.
Furthermore, the Wikipedia article appears on its face to be nonsensical, given the extensive discussion of the United Kingdom and the UK's interest, but then making purely anti-American false charges against the United States.
How does one read the extensive interests of the United Kingdom in motivating the 1953 coup, and then read the anti-American conclusions that the United States over-threw the Iranian government?
What happened to the United Kingdom? How did the United Kingdom disappear in all of this?
So someone reading the Wikipedia article is to see that (1) The UK had all the motivation, but (2) it was the United States' fault? What sense does that make? It is not only false and in conflict with the original sources, but also troubling and in conflict on its face.
How many US troops were on the ground in Iran? Answer: Zero.
How many CIA forces or soldiers or agents were on the ground in Iran, other than as non-combatant advisers? Answer: Zero.
So can anyone make heads or tails out of Wikipedia's article, such as HOW exactly the United States did this?
I would love to know HOW the United States overthrew a government with NO troops, NO soldiers, NO forces?
If we did in 1953, why aren't we doing it today?
Answer: We did not do it in 1953, which is why we cannot do it today, either.
Yes, the CIA provided some of the funding. Yes, the CIA gave its nod of approval. No, the CIA did not over-throw the Iranian government.
The Iranians over-threw their own government. Those are the facts. The CIA and the United States gave diplomatic cover, encouragement, and funding.
But there was not 1 single pair of "boots on the ground" from the United States. Not one.
Now, to be fair -- which is more than I can say for the article -- the article does describe a process of CIA funding being used to hire mobs of criminals.
No, the CIA did not KNOW WHO to hire inside Iran.
The CIA provided funding. That was wrong. That is a serious issue. That is controversial and important.
But the CIA gave the money to the Iranian coup-plotters, and the Iranians hired mobs of criminals and thugs using the CIA money.
Notwithstanding unreliable third-hand, tenth-hand, twentieth-hand accounts, from original sources can anyone identify HOW the CIA would even know WHOM to hire inside Iran, much less hundreds of thugs and criminals?
The CIA was created in 1947. It was less than 6 years old in 1953, consumed with just getting organized from its 1947 creation.
James Bond movies aside, the 1953 CIA was barely an infant during the 1953 Iranian coup.
The CIA couldn't even find Soviet agents inside the U.S. State Department (confirmed by post-Soviet release of Soviet archives) during the 1953 time period.
-- Jon Moseley
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.193.39 ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Binksternet: Expressions like "Mohammed Reza Pahlavi supporters" and "Mohammad Mosaddegh supporters" are vague, and they are not organized entities. Government of Mosaddegh is what really was toppled, not National Front. Many cabinet members were not members of the front, and at the time some factions in the National Front not only were not allied with Mosaddegh anymore, but even opposed to him, like followers of Mozzafar Baghai. On the other side, it was the court that led its henchmen and loyals to overthrow the government, the only legal personality in Iranian insurgents. Pahlevun ( talk) 17:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I summarized the lead and removed the tag. I nominated the article for OTD. Saff V. ( talk) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Come off it, Pahlevun. If you're really Iranian you should have no problem identifying that statement as false. The Shah supposedly executed some 300 people, with fewer than 3,000 individuals dying in clashes between protesters and police during the Iranian Revolution. (This article gives a slightly different estimate that "nearly 100 people were executed for political reasons during the last 20 years of the Shah's rule," when SAVAK was alleged to be at its most fearsome.) As the body of this article makes clear: "The Shah generally dealt with dissent in a relatively mild manner compared to most autocratic leaders." To suggest that the Shah was somehow worse than the likes of Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein—sourced to some fringe author who has no expertise on Iran, is not widely cited on the topic, and whose book was originally published by Common Courage Press, red link very much intended—is an outrageous POV-push, particularly for the lead, and particularly when it is contradicted by the body of the article. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 17:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Binksternet, why would you revert so much and then only address two points? Not even argue, just address them. I have repeatedly explained why the current image is unfit, there is no reason to remove the "military" from "military government", and there was no reason whatsoever to undo all the mentions of the US being the mastermind, not the UK. This can not be omitted. If you want I could put all these references ( Guardian, NSA Archive, NY Times, Foreign Policy, Politico, US-owned RFE, CNN, BBC, USA Today, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post and many more) after every single mention of US orchestration but that seems a little excessive, no? At least use the talk page for this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ervand Abrahamian argues in The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the roots of modern U.S.-Iranian relations, that the Iranians who took to the streets in support of the Shah numbered about 4000, which in the context of Iran in the 50s was nothing. Mosaddegh, in contrast, ordered his supporters to leave the streets after being persuaded (in a much overlooked meeting, according to Ervand) by the American ambassador on the 18th of August. Many of those 4000, in turn, were paid protesters organized under the likes of Shaban Jafari. It is possible, therefore, that the "celebration" image could give a misleading impression of the support the coup had among Iranians. Uglemat ( talk) 07:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
History of Iran Covert Action Deferred Indefinitely, 18 April 2017 -- 87.159.112.146 ( talk) 15:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Why did the Americans support European colonialism in Iran in 193, yet oppose it in Egypt in 1956? Was it just because the US didn't get much oil via the Suez Canal? (
EricHobner (
talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)) Banned editor HarveyCarter.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
20:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The US Government Office of the Historian just released a volume of official documents from 1951 to 1954 on US foreign policy in regard to Iran, including the Truman administration's attempts at understanding Mossagegh and the covert operation during the Eisenhower administration. The volume can be used to further expand this article. See here. NIGHTdevil 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/ekot/artikel.asp?Artikel=1392947When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
As of 2017-07-27, the text includes, "Worried about Britain's other interests in Iran, and (thanks to the Tudeh party)[12] believing that Iran's nationalism was really a Soviet-backed plot, Britain persuaded US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was falling to the Soviets—effectively exploiting the American Cold War mindset. Since President Harry S. Truman was busy fighting a war in Korea, he did not agree to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh." This is at best misleading, because John Foster Dulles did not become US Secretary of State until after Harry Truman left office and Dwight D. Eisenhower became president. Dean Acheson was Truman's Secretary of State.
This needs to be fixed, but I don't know enough to be confident in exactly how it should be changed. I hope someone who knows this subject better than I do will fix it. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Should we list Miles Copeland Jr. and Shapoor Reporter among the commanders in the infobox? Binksternet ( talk) 00:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Binksternet: Regarding your recent edit, in what way do you think inclusion of "Democratically-elected" is WP:UNDUE considering that many reliable sources have used the term? (See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and probably many others.) Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"The government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq which was ousted in the coup was the last popular, democratically oriented government to hold office in Iran."-- Mhhossein talk 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a prominent piece of the infobox, implicitly drawing a direct cause-effect relationship between the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution. My main problem with this being presented in a matter-of-fact manner in the infobox, rather than as an opinion in the article's body, is that it is arguably very reductionist. While it is undeniable that the establishment of an absolute monarchy helped create the conditions of the 1979 Revolution, it seems a little unreasonable to me to bluntly state a direct A-to-B connection, especially when the two events were separated by over twenty years. The 1979 Revolution had many causes, and while a reader can click on the article to learn more, somebody who just reads this article is likely to get an incorrect impression that the 1979 Revolution was simply the result of the 1953 coup. I think this piece of text needs to be modified or removed. Jogarz1921 ( talk) 04:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This article makes the claim that the 1953 coup was "the first covert action by the United States to overthrow a democratically-elected government during peacetime". This is not true. In 1949, the CIA encouraged and facilitated an overthrow of the Quwatli government in Syria. This is outlined by Douglas Little in this article, and confirmed by declassified communications between CIA operatives and Husni al-Za'im. I would therefore encourage the removal of the misleading sentence.
83.34.163.240 ( talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Norman Darbyshire's personal reminiscences about the coup are worth a read in the National Security Archive. Zero talk 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Judging Mosaddegh to be unreliable and fearing a Communist takeover in Iran, UK prime minister Winston Churchill and the Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government, though the preceding Truman administration had opposed a coup, fearing the precedent that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) involvement would set
Abbas Milani is by no means a good source. He is one of Mossadegh's extremist supporters and in his book, Shah, he has a completely unfair view of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The part that says the king suppressed the Republicans is a lie. In my opinion, the article has many problems because its sources are mainly Mossadegh's supporters. Nowhere is it mentioned that it was Mossadegh who closed the parliament. In general, I think this article has a lot of work to do. Thanks. Amir Ghandi ( talk) 18:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
In the article it's repeatedly stated that the removal of Mosaddegh was orchestrated by the US under operation TPAJAX. But in the article this information is contradicted, stating that the CIA had little role in the 19th of August removal of Mosaddegh (operation TPAJAX was supposed to take place the 16th of August). Operation TPAJAX failed and even though it can be considered that it helped to create the situation that led to overthrow Mosaddegh (as stated in the article) I think the role of the US in other parts of the article is exaggerated with vague statements like "orchestrated by the US' later contradicted in the article. I am sure of what I'm saying since it's in the article but would like to discuss this issue before making overall not so important but important for some readers (many tend to read the first sentences that summarize the article and close the article) changes about a topic that also has a political relevance. What do you think? Castagna98 ( talk) 00:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
"the CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq". So "aided by" is too lenient since U.S. had a prominent role in the coup. Some tend to say it was sponsored by the U.S..-- Mhhossein talk 11:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
All the documents of the coup are available in Farsi language. All the newspapers that covered this news and event in detail. The photos are available. In addition, our grandfathers are still alive and remember those days. Why instead of documents The CIA does not refer to Iranian documents. It is like we use our own documents for the history of America. This is the history of our country, not the history of America. Abbas Milani is not trustworthy and his story is a lie. Did Abbas Milani ever say that he was in prison for three years in Iran because of the bombing? Did he say that he was a leftist against the king? The best documents are iran newspapers, not people's memories. 5.115.110.121 ( talk) 06:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)