9 ms·

Iran was once democracy too, but in 1953, United States (CIA) and the United Kingdom (MI6) orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prim

by lossolo 9mo ago

Iran was once democracy too, but in 1953, United States (CIA) and the United Kingdom (MI6) orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister. Mosaddegh had nationalized Iran's oil industry in 1951, which had been controlled by the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). So in August 1953, the CIA and MI6 organized protests, bribed military officers and politicians, and spread propaganda to destabilize Mosaddegh's government. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had fled during the initial coup attempt, returned and ruled as an authoritarian monarch with strong US backing until the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In 2013, the CIA released declassified documents confirming American involvement, and in 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledged the US role, calling it a "setback for democratic government" in Iran.

Aloisius 9mo ago
"Democratically elected." Elections were about as democratic in Iran as they are in North Korea. By the time the Shah dismissed the Prime Minister, Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament, was jailing his opponents, his party had turned against him and he was ruling by decree like a dictator.
- lossolo 9mo ago
  Mosaddegh held a flawed referendum and used emergency powers, but by that point, the CIA and MI6 were actively paying off politicians, military officers, and funding mobs to destabilize his government, all while Britain was strangling Iran's economy with an oil embargo. His defensive measures didn't happen in a vacuum. Comparing Iran's elections to North Korea..? Iran had a functioning parliament, multiple parties, and real political competition. And "the Shah dismissed him" glosses over the fact that this dismissal was literally part of the coup plot coordinated with foreign intelligence agencies! Read files that CIA released. And even if you think Mosaddegh was sliding toward authoritarianism, what replaced him? 26 years of the Shah's rule backed by SAVAK, a secret police that tortured and killed dissidents. The coup made things dramatically worse, not better.
  - zozbot234 9mo ago
    Mossadegh had repeatedly asked for dictatorial powers to be granted to him and then extended, even prior to any of these events. It's misleading to call the subsequent developments a "coup" when that government was de-facto undemocratic to begin with. Genuine democracy was never even in the picture.
    - lossolo 9mo ago
      > Mossadegh had repeatedly asked for dictatorial powers to be granted to him and then extended, even prior to any of these events Mosaddegh requested emergency powers from parliament and parliament granted them. That's how constitutional systems work during crises. Many democracies have done this (FDR's wartime powers, for example). Requesting powers through legal channels isn't the same as seizing them. > It's misleading to call the subsequent developments a "coup" when that government was de-facto undemocratic to begin with This argument doesn't hold up. A coup is defined by how power is taken through force, bribery, and foreign intelligence operations and not constitutional processes. The CIA literally codenamed it Operation Ajax. Declassified documents describe it as a coup. The US government has officially acknowledged it as a coup. You're arguing against the people who planned it. > Genuine democracy was never even in the picture. You are basically settin an impossible standard. By 1953 standards, very few countries qualified as "genuine democracies" (the US still had Jim Crow). Iran had an elected parliament, multiple parties, a free press, and a prime minister chosen through constitutional processes. Was it perfect? No. Was it more democratic than most of the region? Yes Even if we accept that Mosaddegh's government was imperfect, what replaced it? An absolute monarch ruling by decree with a secret police force. If your standard is democracy, the coup objectively made things worse, which is a strange outcome to defend.
      - zozbot234 9mo ago
        > Mosaddegh requested emergency powers from parliament and parliament granted them. That's how constitutional systems work during crises. Except that there was no legitimate emergency and no crisis, in fact there was just the opposite: Mossadegh had just instigated an insurrection against the then-legitimate government and thereby forced the Shah to not only put him back in power but also to let him appoint a defense minister and a chief of staff - a clear violation of the prevailing norms at the time which delegated this appointment to the Shah. The request for an explicit grant of power of "dictatorial decree" then came immediately after that. This was a clear established pattern of trying to weaken Iran's existing institutional norms and center power on himself, not unlike the whole Germany 1933 playbook. That's very much not how democratic systems work.

by lossolo 9mo ago

Aloisius 9mo ago

"Democratically elected." Elections were about as democratic in Iran as they are in North Korea. By the time the Shah dismissed the Prime Minister, Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament, was jailing his opponents, his party had turned against him and he was ruling by decree like a dictator.

lossolo 9mo ago
Mosaddegh held a flawed referendum and used emergency powers, but by that point, the CIA and MI6 were actively paying off politicians, military officers, and funding mobs to destabilize his government, all while Britain was strangling Iran's economy with an oil embargo. His defensive measures didn't happen in a vacuum. Comparing Iran's elections to North Korea..? Iran had a functioning parliament, multiple parties, and real political competition. And "the Shah dismissed him" glosses over the fact that this dismissal was literally part of the coup plot coordinated with foreign intelligence agencies! Read files that CIA released. And even if you think Mosaddegh was sliding toward authoritarianism, what replaced him? 26 years of the Shah's rule backed by SAVAK, a secret police that tortured and killed dissidents. The coup made things dramatically worse, not better.
- zozbot234 9mo ago
  Mossadegh had repeatedly asked for dictatorial powers to be granted to him and then extended, even prior to any of these events. It's misleading to call the subsequent developments a "coup" when that government was de-facto undemocratic to begin with. Genuine democracy was never even in the picture.
  - lossolo 9mo ago
    > Mossadegh had repeatedly asked for dictatorial powers to be granted to him and then extended, even prior to any of these events Mosaddegh requested emergency powers from parliament and parliament granted them. That's how constitutional systems work during crises. Many democracies have done this (FDR's wartime powers, for example). Requesting powers through legal channels isn't the same as seizing them. > It's misleading to call the subsequent developments a "coup" when that government was de-facto undemocratic to begin with This argument doesn't hold up. A coup is defined by how power is taken through force, bribery, and foreign intelligence operations and not constitutional processes. The CIA literally codenamed it Operation Ajax. Declassified documents describe it as a coup. The US government has officially acknowledged it as a coup. You're arguing against the people who planned it. > Genuine democracy was never even in the picture. You are basically settin an impossible standard. By 1953 standards, very few countries qualified as "genuine democracies" (the US still had Jim Crow). Iran had an elected parliament, multiple parties, a free press, and a prime minister chosen through constitutional processes. Was it perfect? No. Was it more democratic than most of the region? Yes Even if we accept that Mosaddegh's government was imperfect, what replaced it? An absolute monarch ruling by decree with a secret police force. If your standard is democracy, the coup objectively made things worse, which is a strange outcome to defend.
    - zozbot234 9mo ago
      > Mosaddegh requested emergency powers from parliament and parliament granted them. That's how constitutional systems work during crises. Except that there was no legitimate emergency and no crisis, in fact there was just the opposite: Mossadegh had just instigated an insurrection against the then-legitimate government and thereby forced the Shah to not only put him back in power but also to let him appoint a defense minister and a chief of staff - a clear violation of the prevailing norms at the time which delegated this appointment to the Shah. The request for an explicit grant of power of "dictatorial decree" then came immediately after that. This was a clear established pattern of trying to weaken Iran's existing institutional norms and center power on himself, not unlike the whole Germany 1933 playbook. That's very much not how democratic systems work.