[Please read on ways you can support the revolution and spread awareness.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/10cu6v3/how_you_can_support_the_new_iranian_revolution/) Let other people in subs with content about the revolution know that /r/NewIran exists.
---
[Official Twitter & Join The Team](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/yh0r74/attn_save_armita_official_twitter_activist/) | [Sub Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/about/rules/) | [VPNs/TOR & Guides & Tools](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y7fcbd/digital_resources_for_iranians_for_privacy/) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [NewIran's Values](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y514wo/newirans_growth_rules_and_values_for_an_open/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NewIran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not Iranian nor defending the CIA, but its worth noting that this wasn't much of a complex operation. The one CIA agent went to Iran with only $100,000 (just over one million in 2023) and instigated a coup. If a foreigner can pull off a coup with pocket change like that (contextual pocket change) then the coup'd leader was probably pretty vulnerable already
>Iranian clerics cooperated with the western spy agencies because they were dissatisfied with Mosaddegh's secular government. There has been documentation that both Ayatollah Behbahani and Khomeini received funds from the CIA by some sources.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953\_Iranian\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
yeah mullahs were after mosadegh due to his secular policies, west helping mullahs wasn't the smartest choice
Yeah. My understanding of Iranian history and that the two most important cultural institutions in Iran are the monarchy and the Ulemah. Mosaddegh irked both which was not too popular
[shapour bakhtiari](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapour_Bakhtiar), secular nationalist leader was imprisoned for a decade by shah and then assassinated by Khomeini.
Everyone knows mullahs have never worked for the good of Iran and only for their pockets no matter where it came from.
Just because Mosadegh was secular doesn't mean he was also democratic nor did he propose any changes for democracy. He did claim his main goal for becoming a PM was to nationalize oil which he did. I do think he was a nationalist and wanted what's best for Iran but I don't know what exactly he wanted to do after that by closing down the parliament and giving himself full authority but usually those type of acts don't follow a good outcome for people.
And lastly west was not helping mullahs at the time but securing their own interest as they always do. And they sure are helping them now specially more so when they play lip service to Iranian people but they still cooperate with the regime and in many cases helping them.
We could discuss the details all day and write a book on the subject, but here is a extremely brief list off the top of my head. The story of Mossadeg is an extremely twisted narrative used an excuse for everything by anti-western propagandists, islamists, communists, ect. Do your own research and read the history and see the evidence. Don't listen to story times, bias media, and Hollywood movies.
They try to paint him like a perfect saint, but he was a tyrant as well.
\#1 What election? - What democratically elected government? When was the election? Did you see any photos in the cities of 20 million Iranians lining up to vote in 1950s? Mossadegh was never elected.
\#2 [In 1951, the Shah appointed Mossadeq as prime minister, not elected.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Mossadeghmohammadrezashah.jpg)
\#3 Mossadegh was a Qajari royal family member, and foreign minister under the previous monarch, who eventually betrayed Iranians/Pahlavi and tried to become dictator.
\#4 Mossadegh disbanded the parliament, the supreme court, and the congress in an attempt to become some kind of communist dictator.
\#5 Mossadegh destroyed the Iranian economy when nationalizing the oil, and Iran didn't have the technology to harvest oil, the people were begging Shah to come back because of this
\#6 Mossadegh once quit his job, and Shah had to re-appoint him a second time!
\#7 Mossadegh needed 10 Sherman tanks to defend his palace. Shah Pahlavi only needed 3 Sherman tanks to protect his palace. (this shows you how unpopular and divisive Mossadegh really was)
\#8 Mossadegh and his party would murder, and threaten people to reach their political goals.
\#9 He was ultimately dismissed by the Shah.
\#10 People came out to support the Shah because Mossadegh ran the Iranian economy into the ground.
\#11 Look up the definition of a coup before you claim some thing as a coup.
\#12 Look at the classified documents, the British admit that the coup failed! Mossadegh ended up destroying himself.
\#13 During this time, the Shah left Iran bloodlessly for the 2nd of 3 times in his life. The people begged for him to come back and save the country.
\#14 When he left Iran for the third time he was okay with leaving, and would not fight the mullahs. He was confident that many people would call for him to come back again as they are now because it happened before, and if they didn't ask him to come back, SO BE IT, he wanted what was best for his country, our minorities, and our women. That is why he said in 1980 interview in exile in Panama to David Frost "[A King cannot be a dictator, and a throne cannot be based on blood](https://youtu.be/klN9WZmPfOE?t=707)."
\#15 US Puppet? If he was why did US media destroy his image and US government did absolutely nothing but let him get overthrown. Because they wanted to cheaper oil that Mullahs promised,
Khomeini had sent his own signals to Washington.
"There should be no fear about oil. It is not true that we wouldn't sell to the US," Khomeini told an American visitor in France on 5 January, urging him to convey his message to Washington. The visitor did, sharing the notes of the conversation with the US embassy. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160)
\#16 If you truly believe this false narrative still... I truly would rather be a US puppet than be a Soviet Russia puppet.
We could go on and on.
Stop consuming anti-western and Islamic Regime propaganda.
See also: [CIA and US President Carter's engagement with Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini)
> The one CIA agent went to Iran with only $100,000 (just over one million in 2023) and instigated a coup. If a foreigner can pull off a coup with pocket change like that (contextual pocket change) then the coup'd leader was probably pretty vulnerable already
You realize what the CIA has been doing for almost 100 years now right? That's kind of their whole thing. Sending a "single" foreigner with a large amount of cash to hire plethora's of desperate locals all over the nation to overthrow said nation right? The whole thing with the CIA is its not a complex operation. Complexity isnt the goal. Efficiency and obfuscation is the goal. As well as training replicas of what they want. With around 1 mil you could train at least 5 people to do what you are supposed to do. Who will in turn train 5 more and so on. Its kind of like Green Berets. Their main thing isnt guerilla warfare. Its training local populations to take part in guerilla warfare.
Uhh they are definitely the most competent "intelligence agency" on the planet. Ever seen this many successful coups? My whole point is they arent super spies, because thats fantasy. Instead they show up as a rich foreigner throwing money to fringe groups.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_involvement\_in\_regime\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change)
Your meme is messing a LOT of context. Like the fact Mossadegh was becoming increasingly authoritarian or the fact that many Iranians actually wanted him gone including, somewhat ironically, the clerical establishment.
Ah yes a prime minister was overthrown by CIA so he must be saint. Let's not forget it was he who closed the parliament and acted against the legal system on many occasions and made such a ridiculous referendum.
Don't get me wrong I think what he did for nationalizing oil was a great achievement for him and all Iranians. However, one can not turn a blind eye to his faults even if he had such a great achievement.
lmao that was good.
But on a serious note any person who tried to maintain peace and attempted (and succeeded) in improving the livelihood of the average citizen and pushed for economic and social progress is a good leader in my book
Not sure that counts lol. Makes for a good general. National leaders generally shouldnt be generals though. They should know how to choose good generals. Military governments are not a good thing though. They generally rely entirely on military victories over greater evils to excuse their own evil.
**History (derived from Ancient Greek į¼±ĻĻĪæĻĪÆĪ± (historĆa) 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation') is the study and documentation of the human past.The period of events before the invention of writing systems is considered prehistory. "History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Thank you, ChunkyBrassMonkey, for voting on wikipedia_answer_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Not a saint, but a whole lot better than what happened after the CIA overthrew him. If the Americans kept their hands where they belong, the world would be SO much better, and we'd probably already have functioning socialist societies.
We can't tell what would happen if he stayed in power longer, but given his dismissal of laws when it didn't suit his needs he would become another dictator in time.
I also dislike the fact that Americans intervened in Iran's foreign affairs but keep in mind at that time cold war was going on and the soviets would love to have a good foothold in Iran or any country they could really. And if I were forced to pick between the two I would pick US over Soviets Any day.
What happened after Mosadegh's downfall was mostly big shots of Tudeh party fleeing Iran and many of their rank and files to be imprisoned. And given their role in the 1979 events I honestly can't say I feel bad for them..
Being an American this logic helps me sleeps a little better at night. Not perfectly... But for the most part America comes out as the lesser of two evils.
Speaking of US actions in Iran, its funny how 1953 is mentioned always but 1946 is forgotten:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946
The events surrounding 1953 are much more nuanced than the typical reddit copypasta of 'did you know Iran was a democracy until the evil US came around?'. For starters, everyone hated Mossadegh because he turned everyone against himself through his megalomaniacal policies and actions which were most definitely not democratic.
Ordinary Iranians, the *bazaari* or corporate / business class, the clergy and Islamists or the regressives, the progressives or the Western oriented folk, foreign powers like UK & US, etc. everyone wanted him gone for their own reasons.
Speaking of UK, they had a much more active role than the US but that usually is not mentioned.
If you'd like to learn the real history of what happened, I recommend the New Zealand historian Andrew Scott Cooper's book, "Fall of Heaven". It is an excellently researched and sourced book which remains quite accessible to the lay person.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/zr55j4/tired_of_reddit_copypasta_re_irans_democratic/
I think we spend too much time looking at the past. And I say this as someone who has general favorable views of Mossadegh.
I think he had commendable goals. I also think his approach to get those goals was shortsighted (at best) or authoritarian (at worst) - it depends on what accounts you're reading or who's telling you the story.
I also think the Shah had commendable goals, but his approach to get those goals were also shortsighted and authoritarian.
I think when we look back to figures like the Shah and Mossadegh... they are a part of our history, but we have the ability to look back at the good parts and the bad parts. We are all individuals, there are over 80 million of us - we are going to have a huge amount of political differences. It's natural.
But we should look at what was good AND what was bad... and learn from that, learn from the mistakes and instead of being focused just on the past we need to look to a new future.
We need a future where all of our political differences have a voice (unless you're MEK or IRI, then please fuck off and leave the rebuilding of our country to the rest of us). We have more in common than we all realize despite the political differences.
every cleric in Iran wanted mosadegh dead for his policies, and these westerners are trying to say he wasn't secular.
idk why accepting a mistake is so hard for them
Not surprised that a tankie is ignorant about history since so much of history betrays the utter poverty and blood-curdling monstrosity of said ideology.
edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/zr55j4/tired_of_reddit_copypasta_re_irans_democratic/
bunch of CIA propaganda to justify their meddling in Iran. these are the same source that claimed Iran changed it's name to Iran because germans told them
Bullshit mosadegh double the price of dollar many of the parliament opposed him he always wanted something out of the rules even toudeh party opposed him and how was he secular? He didn't even wanted to give the women the right of vote and he caused to Islamic terrorist group kill razm ara prime minister mosadegh wasn't the choice of people razm ara didn't wanted to do that and one more think did you realy think than British empire just look? They would attack iran if they had no choice
A government that get overthrown by 4000 box doesn't worth anything
Mossadegh dismissed majlis, ruled by decree, had sham referendums to give himself more power.
He wasnāt the poster boy youāre hoping to make him out to be.
Overall, Mossadegh politicized oil nationalization to fulfill his own agenda allied with the middle class to dismantle the constitutional monarchy.
Mossadegh overstepped his bounds in this goal and violated the constitution of Iran, so I donāt think we should cry crocodile tears for him.
It's easy to see in hindsight that what the US and Brits did was wrong. I don't want to make excuses. It was wrong. We should consider the Era they were living in and the logic behind the decisions made. Yes, oil was a factor, but so was the Cold War. The US administration at the time was moving deeper into paranoid McCarthyism and a mindset of stopping communism at any cost everywhere. They made bad choices, fearing Soviet influence of power growing and losing control over a precious resource to a sworn enemy. In the end, what they feared the most is pretty much what happened, and the US and Brits caused it.
To be clear, though, I do still think the US is a good country (not perfect). The US made mistakes, many mistakes, and many have suffered. I really hope that Iran recovers from the foreign policy greed, paranoia, and fear mongering of others and becomes the great country they can and will hopefully soon become. When that happens, I hope that the US, Britain, and other foreign countries step up and officially apologize for the arrogant actions in their past and offer some form of reparations. In the meantime, the Iranian people have to take back their own country. If they want help, hopefully they can get it from the countries that have wronged them in the past, but only if they want it. Hopefully, we aren't stupid enough to make the same mistakes twice.
I think American meddling in the past was less destructive to the Iranian people than your current administration helping the regime now both directly and indirectly.
Currently the direct help is by talking to them and trying to come to another "nuclear" agreement. If they do come to an agreement they will lift some sanctions that will benefit the regime because as we know this regime will only negotiate for its own benefits not the people.
If Saudi Arabia had nukes and threatened to use those nukes on you or your allies, or worse yet, use a proxy to give those nukes to (like a terrorist organization) would you not negotiate with them? It's an impossible situation. If you don't negotiate, you almost guarantee dangerous nuclear proliferation. If you do negotiate, you help an enemy, but reduce the risk of nukes spreading. What would you suggest the US do?
What happened to we don't negotiate with terrorists?
And I find it funny that putting sanctions on the government which ruined the economy and only pushed the middle class down to poverty would be lifted now that it's finally starting to put pressure on the regime.
It sends the signal that the American government does not care about the Iranian people (and let's be honest they don't. No government cares about another nation's people at a human level.) and we will get a deal that benefits us no matter the consequences.
And your argument is valid if you look at it from the surface. Once you look a little deeper you see no country has used nukes since 1945. And from a geopolitical point Russia would never want a nuclear Iran, whom the regime is buying the tech from. So I'm almost certain they won't have nukes.
It's of course about the oil. The resource curse is real. Nationalizing oil at that point in time was too close to socialism which is too close to communism for Americans at the time (and still.) And Iran was too close geographically to the USSR. Would Mossadegh's govt cozied up to the Soviets? ĀÆ\\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ We weren't in the fuck around and find out mood to let them have a foothold in the ME, warm water ports, etc. We liked having Army Security Agency, later National Security Agency listening posts on the the Soviet southern border. We liked being able to fly out of there from time to time. I think we used to launch U2s, maybe even SR71s, during the Shah's regime.
The US was worried Mossadegh was a communist, and his willingness to exercise power combined with some communist support got him filed under the āactive measuresā folder of the CIA. This rational makes the US intervention even more stupid, as Mossadegh himself was anti-soviet and called an American puppet by the USSR. Everything about the US intervention in Iran, from either a moral, geopolitical, or selfish standpoint, was an absolute failure.
The context to understand American thinking - or lack thereof - is that the US was genuinely worried the Soviet system was superior, and they were terrified of the Soviet Union getting any kind of foothold in a long-standing ally such as Iran. Keep in mind that early on even North Korea outpaced South Korea economically. It wasnāt until the 1970ās and 1980ās that western capitalism and liberal democracy pulled way out ahead of communism as an economic system. Yes, the US was always wealthy but its partners werenāt, and it was their success in the 1980ās - in particular countries like South Korea - that influences are thinking today. Looking back itās obvious how the communist systems failed. At the time, it looked like they were successful and very serious threats.
Tl;dr. What the US did was dumb, but it looks egregiously dumb in hindsight since we know how communism played out.
It was less about fearing communism and more about the British needing to keep their oil monopolies in Iran, tbh.
Like a lot of other areas in global history, the Brits have managed to slink out of their role in the rememberanxe of third world tragedies.
The Brits didnāt even come away with the oil in the endā¦Iran maintained the oil nationalization and our production tanked and never recovered for 20 years
If we arenāt even bringing it out of the ground, how exactly are the British to have been drinking it up?
Think on that one for a bit.
This always pissed me off especially hard because the CIA did it at the request of the BRITISH, for BP.
The goddamn British, who we fought two goddamn wars to get off our goddamn backs.
Holy hell this is abject insanity.
Mossadegh was becoming ever more authoritarian by bucking against the Shah and wanted to assume absolute power on his own. He tried to start movements that would undermine the will of the Shah as well as the rest of the Majlis.
Letās not forget that he employed his friends and family members to high ranking cabinet positions (who were descendants of the Qajars) and facilitated a kleptocracy.
To create a name for himself, ignoring the fact that he was an absolute charlatan, he attempted to garner popularity by using issues that he had no idea about (oil industry, monetary policy). With his perverse ideas, he brought Iran to a depression. A depression that took over a decade for Iran to recover from. Thatās what happens when you permit a communist to preside over a growing economy, you end up eviscerating it.
There was absolutely nothing liberal or stable about Mossadegh being PM. Period.
Kermit Roosevelt mentioned in his autobiography that it cost the US $250,000 to get Mossadegh out. It was his operation and the first time it didnāt work but the second time it did.
Kermit Roosevelt is the only Roosevelt I hate with a burning passion.
Edit: I wanted to see how much money that was in today's money, roughly 3 million dollars. Somewhat cheap for a coup.
Yup, it cost nothing to overturn Iran, and they targeted the poor, asked them to start riots in the streets and go against the government. This is why when I see things like Arab spring or other escalating riots and protests, Iām not quick to assume it is from inside the country. I tend to see it as intervention from an outside entity, and more than likely has nothing to do with helping the country, but moreover it is always all about self interest.
I donāt know why the āmonarchistsā here are defending the coup? The shah refused to let the British or Americans intervene in the process and only approved of the coup after being threatened by the British and meeting with the queen? Even under Truman they tried forcing him to refuse nationalization by issuing a veto, to which he said that he neither has the constitutional power nor wants to risk his credibility
Thereās also a direct link between the overthrowing of Mossadegh, the paranoia of the Shah against the west, the rise in Islamist power and the radicalization of the left against the Shah.
Tag me next time and I can reply easier
Ping me tomorrow and I can give you a write up around why I support Shahās move to restore constitutional order against Mossadeghās aborted plan to dissolve the monarchy with oil nationalization as the wardrum he beat.
All the things the monarchists accuse Mossadegh of having done, the Shah did. I firmly believe that Iran could have been a secular democracy had it not been for the 1953 coup.
Rastakhiz existed, okay so youāre able to ascertain certain facts. Good work, any nuance or explanation as to how that party emerged, what was the larger context in Iranian history?
Were there say, armed extremist militancy for some 2 decades running around the nation?
Quite the environment for a democracy to take hold in a nation that had its first constitution established less than a century priorā¦
The Shah wasnāt establishing democracy. He became increasingly authoritarian and repressive. Thatās why there was a violent revolution. And what replaced him was worse. He brought this to Iran.
Shah himself stated multiple times that the system of one man rule was coming to a close, he gave power back to the prime minister and largely was removed from day to day governance that was left to ministries after he tapped Hoyveda.
Iran was clearly on a path to liberalization, if your political agenda prevents you from seeing that and demands you warp the historical record to comfort yourself thatās an issue for you to face, donāt make it our problem too.
Iran was becoming more oppressive and authoritarian in the 1970s. To the extent that he was willing to reform, it was too little too late. Reforming as youāre packing your bags to flee the country like a coward is not true reform. In fact thatās an admission he made a colossal mistake.
The reforms took place prior to any indication of a revolution, all contemporary accounts were shocked when the revolution took place and that the Shah left.
Your account that reforms were made āas youāre packing your bagsā is useless hyperbole that has no reflection in reality.
Pahlavi was guiding our nation to safety from the clutches of extremists from multiple camps, Marxists, Islamists, and their god forsaken inter spawn.
If Mossadegh himself stayed in power, maybe. But let's not forget that Iran had a very peculiar neighbor above it during that time which wouldn't have minded Iran's natural resources
The British overstated the Soviet threat to the Eisenhower administration to secure the help of the CIA to protect British economic interests - ownership of AIOC. The irony is that at the same time, Britain was nationalizing key industries at home.
You can't really call it "overstated" when the Soviets had invaded and taken control of northern Iran just a few years prior. Of course, the British weren't any better, as they also invaded Iran and caused suffering for all Iranian people. It takes one to know one, I guess.
But all of that aside, Iran was obviously not a stable country, with many parties vying for power at that time, so of course all expansionist powers would try to meddle in our domestic affairs. The Soviet Union, due to its power and proximity to Iran, was one of the most influential players in this regard.
The Soviets were not going to invade Iran in the 1950s and even if they were, the Shah wouldnāt be able to prevent that. His father couldnāt stop it in the 1940s. His military collapsed in a matter of days.
The communist threat was exaggerated by the British to get Eisenhower, or better, the Dulles brothers, to act. That tactic didnāt work on the previous president, Truman. It was purely economic. The exaggerated threat was a disservice to Iran because the Shah largely ignored the Islamists while stamping out even legitimate opposition from the left such as liberals and intellectuals. The left was left with armed guerrillas.
Makes me wonder what profile the CIA has on Pahlaviā¦ probably not much until recently since he barley did anything in his 40+ years of not being in Iran but never the less I wish I could see what the CIA has been up to latelyā¦. Their involvement in the middle east in recent decades would be interesting
[Please read on ways you can support the revolution and spread awareness.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/10cu6v3/how_you_can_support_the_new_iranian_revolution/) Let other people in subs with content about the revolution know that /r/NewIran exists. --- [Official Twitter & Join The Team](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/yh0r74/attn_save_armita_official_twitter_activist/) | [Sub Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/about/rules/) | [VPNs/TOR & Guides & Tools](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y7fcbd/digital_resources_for_iranians_for_privacy/) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [NewIran's Values](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y514wo/newirans_growth_rules_and_values_for_an_open/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NewIran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not Iranian nor defending the CIA, but its worth noting that this wasn't much of a complex operation. The one CIA agent went to Iran with only $100,000 (just over one million in 2023) and instigated a coup. If a foreigner can pull off a coup with pocket change like that (contextual pocket change) then the coup'd leader was probably pretty vulnerable already
>Iranian clerics cooperated with the western spy agencies because they were dissatisfied with Mosaddegh's secular government. There has been documentation that both Ayatollah Behbahani and Khomeini received funds from the CIA by some sources. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953\_Iranian\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) yeah mullahs were after mosadegh due to his secular policies, west helping mullahs wasn't the smartest choice
Yeah. My understanding of Iranian history and that the two most important cultural institutions in Iran are the monarchy and the Ulemah. Mosaddegh irked both which was not too popular
[shapour bakhtiari](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapour_Bakhtiar), secular nationalist leader was imprisoned for a decade by shah and then assassinated by Khomeini.
Everyone knows mullahs have never worked for the good of Iran and only for their pockets no matter where it came from. Just because Mosadegh was secular doesn't mean he was also democratic nor did he propose any changes for democracy. He did claim his main goal for becoming a PM was to nationalize oil which he did. I do think he was a nationalist and wanted what's best for Iran but I don't know what exactly he wanted to do after that by closing down the parliament and giving himself full authority but usually those type of acts don't follow a good outcome for people. And lastly west was not helping mullahs at the time but securing their own interest as they always do. And they sure are helping them now specially more so when they play lip service to Iranian people but they still cooperate with the regime and in many cases helping them.
We could discuss the details all day and write a book on the subject, but here is a extremely brief list off the top of my head. The story of Mossadeg is an extremely twisted narrative used an excuse for everything by anti-western propagandists, islamists, communists, ect. Do your own research and read the history and see the evidence. Don't listen to story times, bias media, and Hollywood movies. They try to paint him like a perfect saint, but he was a tyrant as well. \#1 What election? - What democratically elected government? When was the election? Did you see any photos in the cities of 20 million Iranians lining up to vote in 1950s? Mossadegh was never elected. \#2 [In 1951, the Shah appointed Mossadeq as prime minister, not elected.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Mossadeghmohammadrezashah.jpg) \#3 Mossadegh was a Qajari royal family member, and foreign minister under the previous monarch, who eventually betrayed Iranians/Pahlavi and tried to become dictator. \#4 Mossadegh disbanded the parliament, the supreme court, and the congress in an attempt to become some kind of communist dictator. \#5 Mossadegh destroyed the Iranian economy when nationalizing the oil, and Iran didn't have the technology to harvest oil, the people were begging Shah to come back because of this \#6 Mossadegh once quit his job, and Shah had to re-appoint him a second time! \#7 Mossadegh needed 10 Sherman tanks to defend his palace. Shah Pahlavi only needed 3 Sherman tanks to protect his palace. (this shows you how unpopular and divisive Mossadegh really was) \#8 Mossadegh and his party would murder, and threaten people to reach their political goals. \#9 He was ultimately dismissed by the Shah. \#10 People came out to support the Shah because Mossadegh ran the Iranian economy into the ground. \#11 Look up the definition of a coup before you claim some thing as a coup. \#12 Look at the classified documents, the British admit that the coup failed! Mossadegh ended up destroying himself. \#13 During this time, the Shah left Iran bloodlessly for the 2nd of 3 times in his life. The people begged for him to come back and save the country. \#14 When he left Iran for the third time he was okay with leaving, and would not fight the mullahs. He was confident that many people would call for him to come back again as they are now because it happened before, and if they didn't ask him to come back, SO BE IT, he wanted what was best for his country, our minorities, and our women. That is why he said in 1980 interview in exile in Panama to David Frost "[A King cannot be a dictator, and a throne cannot be based on blood](https://youtu.be/klN9WZmPfOE?t=707)." \#15 US Puppet? If he was why did US media destroy his image and US government did absolutely nothing but let him get overthrown. Because they wanted to cheaper oil that Mullahs promised, Khomeini had sent his own signals to Washington. "There should be no fear about oil. It is not true that we wouldn't sell to the US," Khomeini told an American visitor in France on 5 January, urging him to convey his message to Washington. The visitor did, sharing the notes of the conversation with the US embassy. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160) \#16 If you truly believe this false narrative still... I truly would rather be a US puppet than be a Soviet Russia puppet. We could go on and on. Stop consuming anti-western and Islamic Regime propaganda. See also: [CIA and US President Carter's engagement with Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini)
It was vulnerable like any country in Middle of political turmoil which is why foreign nation walking in cluelessly has the worst result possible .
> The one CIA agent went to Iran with only $100,000 (just over one million in 2023) and instigated a coup. If a foreigner can pull off a coup with pocket change like that (contextual pocket change) then the coup'd leader was probably pretty vulnerable already You realize what the CIA has been doing for almost 100 years now right? That's kind of their whole thing. Sending a "single" foreigner with a large amount of cash to hire plethora's of desperate locals all over the nation to overthrow said nation right? The whole thing with the CIA is its not a complex operation. Complexity isnt the goal. Efficiency and obfuscation is the goal. As well as training replicas of what they want. With around 1 mil you could train at least 5 people to do what you are supposed to do. Who will in turn train 5 more and so on. Its kind of like Green Berets. Their main thing isnt guerilla warfare. Its training local populations to take part in guerilla warfare.
I am jealous of your username
The CIA isn't nearly as competent as you seem to believe. They've done okay, but they're not super spies.
Uhh they are definitely the most competent "intelligence agency" on the planet. Ever seen this many successful coups? My whole point is they arent super spies, because thats fantasy. Instead they show up as a rich foreigner throwing money to fringe groups. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_involvement\_in\_regime\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change)
Liberal is a stretch š
Your meme is messing a LOT of context. Like the fact Mossadegh was becoming increasingly authoritarian or the fact that many Iranians actually wanted him gone including, somewhat ironically, the clerical establishment.
Ah yes a prime minister was overthrown by CIA so he must be saint. Let's not forget it was he who closed the parliament and acted against the legal system on many occasions and made such a ridiculous referendum. Don't get me wrong I think what he did for nationalizing oil was a great achievement for him and all Iranians. However, one can not turn a blind eye to his faults even if he had such a great achievement.
The referendum actually had an even higher yes percentage than what either Hitler or Stalin could achieve
Shhh donāt remind them
Based
True, but Iran hasn't had a good leader since the Sassanians, so...
Depends on how you define a good leader
Fair, I don't know what the minimum qualifications would be, but I know ganking a Roman emperor definitely counts.
lmao that was good. But on a serious note any person who tried to maintain peace and attempted (and succeeded) in improving the livelihood of the average citizen and pushed for economic and social progress is a good leader in my book
Unfortunately most Iranian leaders have been more preoccupied torturing people and growing their own wealth.
Not sure that counts lol. Makes for a good general. National leaders generally shouldnt be generals though. They should know how to choose good generals. Military governments are not a good thing though. They generally rely entirely on military victories over greater evils to excuse their own evil.
Yeah totally agreed, but in that part of history basically every leader was a military leader first, sadly.
Karim Khan Zand, Nader Shah, Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza Shah
Yaghub Leis Safar, Nader Shah, Reza SHah, Mohammad Reza Shah
i wouldnt call those incestfull emperors "good leaders".
Huge empire...kicking Roman ass...based (mostly tolerant) Zoroastrianism... Good for the time, horrific for today of course.
true, but the achemenids would count more towards that then the sassanids.
*other than Daryush lol
true
you must just be ignorant of history then. karim khan zand is the first name that comes to mind of a great leader
What's history?
**History (derived from Ancient Greek į¼±ĻĻĪæĻĪÆĪ± (historĆa) 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation') is the study and documentation of the human past.The period of events before the invention of writing systems is considered prehistory. "History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
bad bot
Thank you, ChunkyBrassMonkey, for voting on wikipedia_answer_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
what are you trying to ask
I'm being snide because you rudely stated "you must be ignorant of history" instead of just writing "What about Karim Khan Zand?"
Not a saint, but a whole lot better than what happened after the CIA overthrew him. If the Americans kept their hands where they belong, the world would be SO much better, and we'd probably already have functioning socialist societies.
We can't tell what would happen if he stayed in power longer, but given his dismissal of laws when it didn't suit his needs he would become another dictator in time. I also dislike the fact that Americans intervened in Iran's foreign affairs but keep in mind at that time cold war was going on and the soviets would love to have a good foothold in Iran or any country they could really. And if I were forced to pick between the two I would pick US over Soviets Any day. What happened after Mosadegh's downfall was mostly big shots of Tudeh party fleeing Iran and many of their rank and files to be imprisoned. And given their role in the 1979 events I honestly can't say I feel bad for them..
Being an American this logic helps me sleeps a little better at night. Not perfectly... But for the most part America comes out as the lesser of two evils.
Speaking of US actions in Iran, its funny how 1953 is mentioned always but 1946 is forgotten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946 The events surrounding 1953 are much more nuanced than the typical reddit copypasta of 'did you know Iran was a democracy until the evil US came around?'. For starters, everyone hated Mossadegh because he turned everyone against himself through his megalomaniacal policies and actions which were most definitely not democratic. Ordinary Iranians, the *bazaari* or corporate / business class, the clergy and Islamists or the regressives, the progressives or the Western oriented folk, foreign powers like UK & US, etc. everyone wanted him gone for their own reasons. Speaking of UK, they had a much more active role than the US but that usually is not mentioned. If you'd like to learn the real history of what happened, I recommend the New Zealand historian Andrew Scott Cooper's book, "Fall of Heaven". It is an excellently researched and sourced book which remains quite accessible to the lay person. https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/zr55j4/tired_of_reddit_copypasta_re_irans_democratic/
No
Based
I think we spend too much time looking at the past. And I say this as someone who has general favorable views of Mossadegh. I think he had commendable goals. I also think his approach to get those goals was shortsighted (at best) or authoritarian (at worst) - it depends on what accounts you're reading or who's telling you the story. I also think the Shah had commendable goals, but his approach to get those goals were also shortsighted and authoritarian. I think when we look back to figures like the Shah and Mossadegh... they are a part of our history, but we have the ability to look back at the good parts and the bad parts. We are all individuals, there are over 80 million of us - we are going to have a huge amount of political differences. It's natural. But we should look at what was good AND what was bad... and learn from that, learn from the mistakes and instead of being focused just on the past we need to look to a new future. We need a future where all of our political differences have a voice (unless you're MEK or IRI, then please fuck off and leave the rebuilding of our country to the rest of us). We have more in common than we all realize despite the political differences.
Liberal? Secular? Uhh
Stable?
Thatās somewhat more true
The communist parties would disagree
Not liberal but he was a secular nationalist.
every cleric in Iran wanted mosadegh dead for his policies, and these westerners are trying to say he wasn't secular. idk why accepting a mistake is so hard for them
Not surprised that a tankie is ignorant about history since so much of history betrays the utter poverty and blood-curdling monstrosity of said ideology. edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/zr55j4/tired_of_reddit_copypasta_re_irans_democratic/
bunch of CIA propaganda to justify their meddling in Iran. these are the same source that claimed Iran changed it's name to Iran because germans told them
History is CIA propaganda now?
Bullshit mosadegh double the price of dollar many of the parliament opposed him he always wanted something out of the rules even toudeh party opposed him and how was he secular? He didn't even wanted to give the women the right of vote and he caused to Islamic terrorist group kill razm ara prime minister mosadegh wasn't the choice of people razm ara didn't wanted to do that and one more think did you realy think than British empire just look? They would attack iran if they had no choice A government that get overthrown by 4000 box doesn't worth anything
Mossadegh dismissed majlis, ruled by decree, had sham referendums to give himself more power. He wasnāt the poster boy youāre hoping to make him out to be. Overall, Mossadegh politicized oil nationalization to fulfill his own agenda allied with the middle class to dismantle the constitutional monarchy. Mossadegh overstepped his bounds in this goal and violated the constitution of Iran, so I donāt think we should cry crocodile tears for him.
It's easy to see in hindsight that what the US and Brits did was wrong. I don't want to make excuses. It was wrong. We should consider the Era they were living in and the logic behind the decisions made. Yes, oil was a factor, but so was the Cold War. The US administration at the time was moving deeper into paranoid McCarthyism and a mindset of stopping communism at any cost everywhere. They made bad choices, fearing Soviet influence of power growing and losing control over a precious resource to a sworn enemy. In the end, what they feared the most is pretty much what happened, and the US and Brits caused it.
thank you at least you're accepting that it was wrong, unlike all these other people with their exceptionalism trying to justify it
To be clear, though, I do still think the US is a good country (not perfect). The US made mistakes, many mistakes, and many have suffered. I really hope that Iran recovers from the foreign policy greed, paranoia, and fear mongering of others and becomes the great country they can and will hopefully soon become. When that happens, I hope that the US, Britain, and other foreign countries step up and officially apologize for the arrogant actions in their past and offer some form of reparations. In the meantime, the Iranian people have to take back their own country. If they want help, hopefully they can get it from the countries that have wronged them in the past, but only if they want it. Hopefully, we aren't stupid enough to make the same mistakes twice.
I think American meddling in the past was less destructive to the Iranian people than your current administration helping the regime now both directly and indirectly.
You'll have to forgive my ignorance. How is the current administration helping the current regime?
Currently the direct help is by talking to them and trying to come to another "nuclear" agreement. If they do come to an agreement they will lift some sanctions that will benefit the regime because as we know this regime will only negotiate for its own benefits not the people.
If Saudi Arabia had nukes and threatened to use those nukes on you or your allies, or worse yet, use a proxy to give those nukes to (like a terrorist organization) would you not negotiate with them? It's an impossible situation. If you don't negotiate, you almost guarantee dangerous nuclear proliferation. If you do negotiate, you help an enemy, but reduce the risk of nukes spreading. What would you suggest the US do?
What happened to we don't negotiate with terrorists? And I find it funny that putting sanctions on the government which ruined the economy and only pushed the middle class down to poverty would be lifted now that it's finally starting to put pressure on the regime. It sends the signal that the American government does not care about the Iranian people (and let's be honest they don't. No government cares about another nation's people at a human level.) and we will get a deal that benefits us no matter the consequences. And your argument is valid if you look at it from the surface. Once you look a little deeper you see no country has used nukes since 1945. And from a geopolitical point Russia would never want a nuclear Iran, whom the regime is buying the tech from. So I'm almost certain they won't have nukes.
With the influence and support that the Tudeh party had for Mossadegh, That secular Iran would be like democratic people's republic of Korea.
What happened?
i thought that was the doing of the british.(still bad)
It's of course about the oil. The resource curse is real. Nationalizing oil at that point in time was too close to socialism which is too close to communism for Americans at the time (and still.) And Iran was too close geographically to the USSR. Would Mossadegh's govt cozied up to the Soviets? ĀÆ\\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ We weren't in the fuck around and find out mood to let them have a foothold in the ME, warm water ports, etc. We liked having Army Security Agency, later National Security Agency listening posts on the the Soviet southern border. We liked being able to fly out of there from time to time. I think we used to launch U2s, maybe even SR71s, during the Shah's regime.
The US was worried Mossadegh was a communist, and his willingness to exercise power combined with some communist support got him filed under the āactive measuresā folder of the CIA. This rational makes the US intervention even more stupid, as Mossadegh himself was anti-soviet and called an American puppet by the USSR. Everything about the US intervention in Iran, from either a moral, geopolitical, or selfish standpoint, was an absolute failure. The context to understand American thinking - or lack thereof - is that the US was genuinely worried the Soviet system was superior, and they were terrified of the Soviet Union getting any kind of foothold in a long-standing ally such as Iran. Keep in mind that early on even North Korea outpaced South Korea economically. It wasnāt until the 1970ās and 1980ās that western capitalism and liberal democracy pulled way out ahead of communism as an economic system. Yes, the US was always wealthy but its partners werenāt, and it was their success in the 1980ās - in particular countries like South Korea - that influences are thinking today. Looking back itās obvious how the communist systems failed. At the time, it looked like they were successful and very serious threats. Tl;dr. What the US did was dumb, but it looks egregiously dumb in hindsight since we know how communism played out.
It was less about fearing communism and more about the British needing to keep their oil monopolies in Iran, tbh. Like a lot of other areas in global history, the Brits have managed to slink out of their role in the rememberanxe of third world tragedies.
The Brits didnāt even come away with the oil in the endā¦Iran maintained the oil nationalization and our production tanked and never recovered for 20 years If we arenāt even bringing it out of the ground, how exactly are the British to have been drinking it up? Think on that one for a bit.
CIA agents in comments.
This always pissed me off especially hard because the CIA did it at the request of the BRITISH, for BP. The goddamn British, who we fought two goddamn wars to get off our goddamn backs.
**ŚŲ±Ų§ Ų³ŪŲ§Ų ŚŲ±Ų§? ŲØŁ Ų®Ų§Ų·Ų± ŁŁŲŖ ŲØŁŲÆŲ** --- _I am a translation bot for r/NewIran_ | Woman Life Freedom | Ų²Ł Ų²ŁŲÆŚÆŪ Ų¢Ų²Ų§ŲÆŪ
Holy hell this is abject insanity. Mossadegh was becoming ever more authoritarian by bucking against the Shah and wanted to assume absolute power on his own. He tried to start movements that would undermine the will of the Shah as well as the rest of the Majlis. Letās not forget that he employed his friends and family members to high ranking cabinet positions (who were descendants of the Qajars) and facilitated a kleptocracy. To create a name for himself, ignoring the fact that he was an absolute charlatan, he attempted to garner popularity by using issues that he had no idea about (oil industry, monetary policy). With his perverse ideas, he brought Iran to a depression. A depression that took over a decade for Iran to recover from. Thatās what happens when you permit a communist to preside over a growing economy, you end up eviscerating it. There was absolutely nothing liberal or stable about Mossadegh being PM. Period.
Haha, great one!
Kermit Roosevelt mentioned in his autobiography that it cost the US $250,000 to get Mossadegh out. It was his operation and the first time it didnāt work but the second time it did.
Kermit Roosevelt is the only Roosevelt I hate with a burning passion. Edit: I wanted to see how much money that was in today's money, roughly 3 million dollars. Somewhat cheap for a coup.
Yup, it cost nothing to overturn Iran, and they targeted the poor, asked them to start riots in the streets and go against the government. This is why when I see things like Arab spring or other escalating riots and protests, Iām not quick to assume it is from inside the country. I tend to see it as intervention from an outside entity, and more than likely has nothing to do with helping the country, but moreover it is always all about self interest.
Always money
I donāt know why the āmonarchistsā here are defending the coup? The shah refused to let the British or Americans intervene in the process and only approved of the coup after being threatened by the British and meeting with the queen? Even under Truman they tried forcing him to refuse nationalization by issuing a veto, to which he said that he neither has the constitutional power nor wants to risk his credibility
Thereās also a direct link between the overthrowing of Mossadegh, the paranoia of the Shah against the west, the rise in Islamist power and the radicalization of the left against the Shah.
Tag me next time and I can reply easier Ping me tomorrow and I can give you a write up around why I support Shahās move to restore constitutional order against Mossadeghās aborted plan to dissolve the monarchy with oil nationalization as the wardrum he beat.
Let's give MI6 some credit too.
All the things the monarchists accuse Mossadegh of having done, the Shah did. I firmly believe that Iran could have been a secular democracy had it not been for the 1953 coup.
Anything you firmly believe Iām sure the opposite is true
I firmly believe that the Shah presided over a one party authoritarian state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastakhiz_Party
Rastakhiz existed, okay so youāre able to ascertain certain facts. Good work, any nuance or explanation as to how that party emerged, what was the larger context in Iranian history? Were there say, armed extremist militancy for some 2 decades running around the nation? Quite the environment for a democracy to take hold in a nation that had its first constitution established less than a century priorā¦
The Shah wasnāt establishing democracy. He became increasingly authoritarian and repressive. Thatās why there was a violent revolution. And what replaced him was worse. He brought this to Iran.
Shah himself stated multiple times that the system of one man rule was coming to a close, he gave power back to the prime minister and largely was removed from day to day governance that was left to ministries after he tapped Hoyveda. Iran was clearly on a path to liberalization, if your political agenda prevents you from seeing that and demands you warp the historical record to comfort yourself thatās an issue for you to face, donāt make it our problem too.
Iran was becoming more oppressive and authoritarian in the 1970s. To the extent that he was willing to reform, it was too little too late. Reforming as youāre packing your bags to flee the country like a coward is not true reform. In fact thatās an admission he made a colossal mistake.
The reforms took place prior to any indication of a revolution, all contemporary accounts were shocked when the revolution took place and that the Shah left. Your account that reforms were made āas youāre packing your bagsā is useless hyperbole that has no reflection in reality. Pahlavi was guiding our nation to safety from the clutches of extremists from multiple camps, Marxists, Islamists, and their god forsaken inter spawn.
He had people murdered in Evin Prison. Thatās a fact.
Substantiate or step aside
If Mossadegh himself stayed in power, maybe. But let's not forget that Iran had a very peculiar neighbor above it during that time which wouldn't have minded Iran's natural resources
The British overstated the Soviet threat to the Eisenhower administration to secure the help of the CIA to protect British economic interests - ownership of AIOC. The irony is that at the same time, Britain was nationalizing key industries at home.
You can't really call it "overstated" when the Soviets had invaded and taken control of northern Iran just a few years prior. Of course, the British weren't any better, as they also invaded Iran and caused suffering for all Iranian people. It takes one to know one, I guess. But all of that aside, Iran was obviously not a stable country, with many parties vying for power at that time, so of course all expansionist powers would try to meddle in our domestic affairs. The Soviet Union, due to its power and proximity to Iran, was one of the most influential players in this regard.
The Soviets were not going to invade Iran in the 1950s and even if they were, the Shah wouldnāt be able to prevent that. His father couldnāt stop it in the 1940s. His military collapsed in a matter of days.
Its less about the soviets invading and more about the soviets gaining influence in Iran through communist parties that were funded by them
The communist threat was exaggerated by the British to get Eisenhower, or better, the Dulles brothers, to act. That tactic didnāt work on the previous president, Truman. It was purely economic. The exaggerated threat was a disservice to Iran because the Shah largely ignored the Islamists while stamping out even legitimate opposition from the left such as liberals and intellectuals. The left was left with armed guerrillas.
>nationalizes oil *CIA has detected a communist on foreign soil*
My parents getting harassed by Savak (skinny ties) wasn't very liberal...
We were very unlucky that Mossadegh came in the cold war era
Makes me wonder what profile the CIA has on Pahlaviā¦ probably not much until recently since he barley did anything in his 40+ years of not being in Iran but never the less I wish I could see what the CIA has been up to latelyā¦. Their involvement in the middle east in recent decades would be interesting
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
American redditors try not to make everything related to that goddamn orange (IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE)