3 ms·
As most people do who talk about this online, you neglect to mention that in the lead up to the coup, Mossadegh was constitutionally dismissed and yet tried to
by oh_sigh 7y ago
As most people do who talk about this online, you neglect to mention that in the lead up to the coup, Mossadegh was constitutionally dismissed and yet tried to hold onto power. Doesn't that make him the attempted usurper? It's not like the US put their own figurehead in government after the coup. They just gave it back to the person who was literally the head of the recognized state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
> On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[14] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh Party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[53][54][55] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mosaddegh considered unfair.
"The laws not fair! I wanted to be a dictator but it wouldn't let me"
- throwlaplace 7y agobecause there are literally declassified docs that show the point was the oil and not "democracy". this is like saying the american civil war was about states rights. it's called a pretext and if it weren't for declassified docs in this case (and secessionist writing in the other case) we'd never hear the end of it (but since all that documentation does exist, it can in fact be neglected) Declassified Documents Reveal CIA Role In 1953 Iranian Coup : NPR https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-documents-reveal-cia-role-in-1953-iranian-coup https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-docume... For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states’ rights — Quartz https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/ https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-w...
- boomboomsubban 7y ago>"The laws not fair! I wanted to be a dictator but it wouldn't let me" At worst you can say he wanted to be dictator but the dictator wouldn't let him, but arguing that somehow Mosaddegh is the bad guy for resisting such an obvious power grab is ridiculous. Being constitutional doesn't excuse a coup.
- oh_sigh 7y agoMossadegh was the one who grabbed power, by not following a constitutional order.
- boomboomsubban 7y agoThis line of thinking might work if there hadn't been a coup by the Shah shortly after this incident. It's clear the Shah was aiming to be dictator, whether he could find a constitutional justification for it or not.
- TFortunato 7y agoThat is an astoundingly selective reading of the article you linked...
- oh_sigh 7y agoIs it more or less selective than OP who apparently thinks that the only reason for the coup was because Iran nationalized their oil industry?
- throwlaplace 7y agoHistorical revisionism - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism >In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved.
- jessaustin 7y agoIt's pretty shabby to argue in support of monarchy. It's much worse when the monarch in question is a wholly-owned asset of foreign spies and oil tycoons.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]