Piano Red wrote:The same democratic government that had dissolved Parliament and was increasingly becoming authoritarian and corrupt?
Actually, it was Mossadeq who dissolved the Majlis. Many members of the National Front quit their post to protest his decision. But Mossadeq only decided to dissolve parliament after he had learnt about the US plans to topple him by bribing Majlis members to vote him out. It is believed that already 1/3 of the Majlis were on the British payroll; they only needed a few more defectors. And there was more. The CIA-led coup also included:
- murdering government officials
- paying â€˜demonstratorsâ€™ to turn the streets into battlegrounds, ransacking in the name of Mossadeq
- newspapers on the CIA payroll writing slanderous articles about him, manipulating public opinion
- paying thugs to launch staged atttacks on religious leaders and make it appear they were ordered by Mossadeq ...
And under these circumstances you expect Mossadeq to do nothing and stand idle?
And corrupt? Apart from those who were already paid by the British for years, the only corrupt ones were his former allies who defected him after being bribed by the CIA/SIS, like Kashani and Bakai. Name one member of the National Front, who remained loyal until the end, who was corrupt. Mossadeq was known even by his enemies as scrupulously honest.
And increasingly authoritarian? Despite writing outright lies about him, Mossadeq allowed the press to operate freely. Despite knowing the names of those who were plotting against him, he undertook little action against them. He refused to violently crack down on the ransacking paid thugs because he firmly believed in free speech.
Why do you think the ayatollahs in Iran ignore him and his legacy? Because, just like the shah before them, they realize that allowing their subjects to honour Mossadeq would inevitably lead to calls for a government based on his principles.
But nice attempt to try to portray Mossadeq as the villain nonetheless.
Piano Red wrote:Correct, blame the mullahs for that clusterfuck. Iran's internal geo-political factionalism hasn't been the same since.
Blaming only the mullahs would be to easy. Iranâ€™s factionalism hasnâ€™t been the same since the shah immediately after the coup crushed all legitimate political parties, driving many of their supporters into the arms of opposition groups who were less inclined to use legal means in their resistance against the shah. The coup and 25 years of repression with unconditional US support paved the way for extremism with a strong anti-American character.
The CIA chief in Tehran at that time believed that this coup would be an enormous mistake and warned that Iranians would forever view the US as a supporter of colonialism. And Truman himself predicted that mishandling the Iran crisis would create a disaster to the free world. How prophetic they were.
Piano Red wrote:The US was well in it's rights to refuse to negotiate with people who had broken with every convention of international law and who had incurred upon sovereign American territory.
Fair enough, but the seizure of the US embassy wouldnâ€™t have happened if you â€˜didnâ€™t break with every convention of international law and incurred upon sovereign Iranian territoryâ€™ 26 years before the hostage crisis. The hostage takers remembered that when the shah fled in 1953 the CIA organised a coup from within the US embassy. Iranians feared that, with the admission of the shah to the US in 1979, history was about to repeat itself.
And as I implied in my previous post, your refusal to negotiate with the moderate elements of Iran's provisional government, who denounced the hostage-takers, bolstered the extremists.
You also didnâ€™t mind dealing secretly with the same extremists a few years later. I wonder what the ayatollahs did with that Bible signed by Reagan. I have to admire your principles.
Piano Red wrote:Business as usual within the great game of international relations.
So when Iranians (or others) infringe on your rights/interests, its terrorism, but when you apply the same tactics against them you call it â€œbusiness as usual within the great game of international relationsâ€. Again, I have to admire your principles and everything else that you claim to stand for.
Piano Red wrote:Last year good enough for you?
Granted, youâ€™re probably right here. How could I forget that if thereâ€™s one thing that the coup taught despots in the world is that powerful governments are willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as the despotic regimes are friendly to the West and its interests.
NetsFan wrote:The US was not doing anything threatening. Iran (or independent Iranian actors) made the choice to escalate.
Probably not. See above.