Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	1953 Iranian coup d'état is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

• Archive 1

Contents 1 more information 2 Mossadeq's Unconstitutional Actions 3 Operation Ajax 4 Elected? 5 NPOV phrasing needed in intro paragraphs 6 Weird Sentences? 7 Appropriate Picture 8 (even though he was an avowed anti-communist) 9 pronounsiation 10 Requested Move 11 Split the articles 12 Citations and rewrite needed 13 Why? 14 What's the evidence? 15 democratically-elected (again) 16 Neutrality Discussion? 17 fair 18 Neutrality Discussion? 18.1 Did Mossadeq lose support of some Iranians after taking emergency powers? Evidence 18.2 Did Mossadeq have the support of the communists? NO 18.3 What was the association of Tudeh (communist party) and Mossadeq? 19 Changes in Lead 20 timeline of the coup 21 Revert of expansion 22 Disputing accuracy 23 Suggestion : Use Historical Documents

[edit] more information

what was the result of the operation ? were other middle east countries involved ?

this article leave a lot unanswered (also there should be wikipedia links to other articles about other US ops in Iran ?)

[edit] Mossadeq's Unconstitutional Actions

The article is a bit one-sided. It sounds like the British and Americans decided independently to oust Mossadeq. The article makes no mention of what an integral part the Shah himself played. Neither does it mention the reasons why Mossadeq had to be ousted by the CIA and MI6. Mossadeq, since being elected by the Majles (Iranian parliament) and approved by the Shah, had committed many crimes against the Iranian constitution. These include attempting to assume the role of commander-in-chief of the military, assuming "emergency powers" through referendum instead of through the parliament, dissolving parliament unconstitutionally, and others. In August 1953, the Shah sent General Fazlollah Zahedi to inform Mossadeq that he was dismissed from the office of prime minister. As head of state, it was the Shah's constitutional right to dismiss prime ministers at his pleasure. Mossadeq refused to leave office and placed General Zahedi under arrest. The CIA/MI6 operation to mobilise pro-Shah elements and restore the Shah to power could be seen as a counter-coup.

sounds like you are one of those SHAHI GOONS that are infesting this wiki with your pahlavi loving rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.163.87 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe somebody could add some of this information. Or maybe I will when I get some free time.

209.195.155.198 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The coup was organised by British with US help, and they tried to get the Shah to help. He only relented when he was convinced by his sister. 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genjix (talk • contribs)

The Volume Library (Southwestern Co. Nasville, TN 1976 edition pg 2189) states "During World War II Iran declared itself neutral, but Britain and Russia occupied the country. In 1941 the Allies forced Riza Shah to yield the throne to his son, Muhammed Riza. After the war a strong Iranian nationalist movement developed, with the ending of foreign control as its primary goal. Muhammed Mossadegh, a leader of the nationalists, became prime minister in 1951 and ruled as a dicator. During Mossadegh's ministry the British-owned oil fields were nationalized. Iran was unable to market the oil without foreign help, however, and the country faced financial ruin. In 1953 the shah removed Mossadegh from office and had him arrested." Spyderman943 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mossadeq's actions being consistent or not with the Iranian constitution is an internal affair and is of no consequence in justifying a coup by an outside country.

[edit] Operation Ajax

The final two paragraphs of the Operation Ajax section could stand some rewriting and factual review. I am certainly not an expert on this, but the sentence beginning with "The 1979 overthrow of the Shah was a CIA operation..." seems ludicrous since the US government, including the CIA, was cought by surprise by the coup. This is evidenced by the hostage crisis; a knowledgable State Department would have pulled out of the embassy before it was captured. If you are an expert on this subject, please contribute. --Talinus 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elected?

Why does the introduction refer to Mossadegh as elected? He was chosen by the Shah and approved by the vote of parliament. Same holds for all other prime ministers of the Pahlavi era. The term elected creates the impression that he was actually directly chosen by people's votes, which was not the case. Therefore, it should be removed. As his way of becoming prime minister was exactly the same as all other prime ministers, no special description is necessary anyhow. Shervink 15:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

71.68.11.205 20:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Approved by the vote of parliament you say? By...the...vote...

Well, if you like, you can call this an indirect election. In usual use, however, elected means voted for in an election. The people never voted for Mossadegh. But in that way, all other prime ministers, including General Zahedi, were elected. The point is that the system remained the same throughout. If you think Mossadegh was democratically elected, then Iran was a democracy till 1979. Shervink 11:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Doolee just made a number of changes to the first two paragraphs. Many of them are highly questionable. I've changed a few. Others should review the first few paragraphs for accuracy. (Note, also, Dooloo gave some references that were formatted incorrectly, and thus didn't show up.) --Cultural Freedom talk 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. We commonly talk, do we not, of Tony Blair having been elected Prime Minister despite (as you say) it is his party that appoints him. You seem just to want democratic language to be expelled from the text, probably because you are anti-Iranian. Not that I am pro-Iranian, but I do think the coup was despicable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.209.140 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV phrasing needed in intro paragraphs

Doolee, please don't make your changes again without discussing, and justifying them, here. You did not understand my comments. The goal per se had nothing to do with totalitarianism (etc.). The first part of the sentence governs those adjectives, and results in a false claim. Non-native English speakers are welcome here, but please be careful. Look at it this way, the following statement would clearly be wrong: "Operation Ajax was a covert operation to remove a democratic government and replace it with a totalitarian dynasty." That was not the goal of the operation at all! When one names the government, and, respectively, dynasty, the statement doesn't become significally less incorrect. --Cultural Freedom talk 14:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the goal had nothing to do with totalitarism. But the only means to achieve the goal was to establish a dictatorship, since the majority of voters opposed that oil profits ended up in foreign countries, and therefore voted Mossadegh. What is controversial here? I looked at the archieve and this is what editors Quadell and GD think too, and more importantly, all sources. Why you removed it?--Doolee 15:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1) If it's about the means, then it shouldn't be described in a sentence talking about the goals. (No offense, but I think you don't quite understand English well enough to grasp how the sentence reads.) 2) Either way (and this is not relevant here), it is certainly not the only means possible to achieve the ultimate goal of the UK: a) get compensation for the nationalized company, or (preferably...) b) get the company "un-nationalized". Many other options were possible: negotiations, waiting for the next election, etc.! --Cultural Freedom talk 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird Sentences?

I just found the Paragraph "In 1917, the war allowed it to take the British arm of the German Europäische Union, which used the trade name British Petroleum. After the war ended, the company, in which the British Government now had a 51% interest, moved to secure outlets in Europe and elsewhere. However, its main concern was still Persia, following the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 the company continued to trade profitably in that country." I was wondering what that is supposed to mean. The 'Europäische Union' is the German word for European Union and I don't know why the war allowed such things. This whole paragraph doesn't make much sense, so I removed it. Feel free to clarify and reintroduce it though. --Ebralph 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is also weird: "In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States and United Kingdom encouraged the Shah to remove the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power." I know what it means, but what it says is that Dwight D. Eisenhower was the leader of both the United States and the United Kingdom. alvastarr 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate Picture

I changed the picture. The previous one was from another demonstration preceeding the Operation TPAjax. The one added is the front cover of a Tehran weekly, dated two days after the coup. aliparsa 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (even though he was an avowed anti-communist)

Well there is what people say, and there is what they do. Better historians typically favor deeds over words. Uncompensated siezure of private property is the foundational action of Communists, and has been since the Russian Revolution. The editors / authors are very generous to ignore the evidence in front of them. As the old saw goes: "Who are you going to believe, me, or your own lying eyes".

"Uncompensated siezure of private property"? There's something else that falls under that description: taxes. 71.203.209.0 08:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not uncompensated siezure, (although it was involuntary) the Nationalization was to proceed under British law at the time (britain had recently nationalized it's coal and other strategic industries) where hearings were to be held to determine fair compensation. Sorry I don't have a Citation I heard it on a great NPR special on the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.50.117 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pronounsiation

how do you prounounce Ajax? an ogg would be nice there... Towsonu2003 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

[edit] Split the articles

I recommend the articles be split into to separate ones. 1 Outlining Operation Ajax and 1 outlining the events leading up to and surrounding the reason the operation happened as well as describing the people involved.--Langloisrg 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but until someone has the time to do that, shouldn't this article be renamed? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that first this article should be renamed. If, after the renaming, there is not enough space in a single article to include also the CIA's role in the events, we can of course split it to have a more detailed article on that particular issue. Shervink 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and rewrite needed

In the 1950's section: "The newly state-owned oil companies saw a dramatic drop in productivity as a result of Iranian incompetence and also, consequently, exports; this resulted in the Abadan Crisis, a situation that was further aggravated by its export markets being closed when the British Navy imposed a blockade around the country in order to force the Iranian regime to honor its previous oil agreements. Of course, royalties to the Iranian government were significantly higher than before nationalization, since nationalization, by definition, caused oil profits to be directed into the regime's coffers rather than into the hands of oil companies; however, the British Naval blockade succeeded and the Iranian regime was brought to heel." This whole paragraph has major issues. It sounds subjective and biased. Oil was likely a central point to the whole issue of the coup and, to be credible, needs multiple citations of evidence that oil production was lower and that the Mossadegh government was corrupt. Also the paragraph makes an assumption that the oil agreements were fair to begin with. The word "coffers" has an inherently negative tone to it and should be replaced with a more neutral term. No matter what our personal views of Iran are, "The Iranian regime was brought to heel" makes Iranians sound like Western owned dogs and is not professional. I am surprised that there is no Wiki warning at the top of this article while it is being worked on. This article is very important considering the possibility that America may go to war with Iran in the near future. Given the magnitude of Wikipedia, a heavily biased tone will compound any misunderstandings we have of Iran at the present time before we even understand the culture itself. The last thing we need is popular support for another war based on social bias and misinformation. If Iran does indeed warrant an invasion it should be based on facts, not feelings. The author of this paragraph probably didn't realize his own bias when writing this. But as is, this paragraph sounds more like NorthComm propaganda than Wiki quality material. Peace out. Lakeshorebaby 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why isn't there anything about lots of other people going against all this Operation Ajax lies? It never happened according to me and thousands others.

[edit] What's the evidence?

In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States and Britain removed the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power,

There are two core claims in this article that seem, to me, to be unsupported.

In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States and Britain removed the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power

How, exactly, did the US and Britain "remove" him? By asking the Shah to remove him? That's silly.

The coup was carried out in a covert operation by Britain and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), codenamed Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX).[1] The coup installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in power in an attempt to preserve Western control of Iran's oil infrastructure

What, exactly did they do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm (talk • contribs) 23:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Since there ben no response, I'm going to correct the statments to be in line with the evidence. If anyone wants to claim that there was a coup, etc., be sure to put in some evidence of that.Heqwm 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with this particular event, but I'm pretty sure we don't have the authority to insist that it was not a coup d'état. All the resources seem to refer to it as such. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm, you are trying to distort historical facts (diff) because you are not familiar with the history of the 1953 Iranian coup, as evident from your misconception that the U.S. merely asked the Shah to remove Mosaddeq. As for proof of the obvious, take a look at Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup, or Iran Chamber of Society: A short account of 1953 Coup. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kinzer's book establishes that the Eisenhower administration overthrew Mossaddeq and re-installed the shah. Skywriter 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They did not "install" the Shah. He had been Shah for twelve years already at the time, he had not abdicated and had not been overthrown. So how could anybody have "installed" him in an office he already held?! Shervink 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This should explain it, Shervink. [1] NYTimes reporter Stephen Kinzer summarizes his book in an interview with Amy Goodman. The shah was out of power and looking for work after the first coup by Kermit Roosevelt against Mossadegh failed. (In power since 1941, as you correctly stated, the shah tried to order Mossadegh out of his position as prime minister, but since Iran was then a democracy and had been elected by the democratically elected legislature, the shah's action was illegal and Mossadegh was prepared to reject it. The shah fled to Rome, resigned to his fate of not being Iran's figure monarch any more, when he learned that the second coup by the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt had succeeded. The shah rushed back to Teheran and was re-installed in power, thanks to the CIA. This material can be incorporated into the article. I don't think Kermit Roosevelt is mentioned and he should be.Skywriter 03:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not distorting historical facts. I'm simply correcting the article to bring it in line with the cites that have been presented. You show your arrogance by referring to your position as "obvious". If you want to include a claim in the article, you have to actually present a cite.Heqwm 00:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia's policy on civility, please do not refer to other editors as arrogant. Thank you. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that another editor's position is obviously wrong, and that they are distorting history, is a violation of civility. If pointing out that someone is violating civility is also a violation of civility, then you are guilty too. Now, no cite has been presented for the claim that the Shah's actions were illegal, nor have cites been presented for the other claims. I came here and politely asked for cites for the claims, and I waited nearly a week to give people a chance to give them. No one made any response until I started editing. Rather than discussing the issue, you people are just reverting my edits and calling me "disruptive", and when I point out that you're being rude, you claim that mentioning your rudeness is a violation of civility. The fact of the matter is that ANYONE who reads the information presented in this article objectively will come to exactly the same conclusion as me, that the claims simply aren't supported. Now, you may call that ignorance. You may say that there is more information that I'm "ignoring". Well, if you refuse to properly cite it, then I'm not "ignoring" it.Heqwm 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"The coup placed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the primary position of power"

"Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup d'état briefly faltered, and the Shah fled Iran."

Wait a second. Either "the coup" refers to the events after the Shah fled, in which case he was re-installed, or it refers to events after the Shah fled, and therefore the second statement that I quoted is wrong. Which one is it?Heqwm 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if Christopher Mann McKay was uncivil in calling your position obviously wrong, that does not justify further incivility. And keep in mind that I am not Christopher Mann McKay, so you have not pointed out that I am rude. It's true that nobody responded to your questions in the talk page and perhaps someone should have (that's how it works sometimes). Like I said, I'm not familiar with the subject of this article, so I can't really say much about conclusions but it seems that both this article and the one on the Shah himself seem to provide some contradiction. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what part of my logic you're having trouble following. I don't think that it violates civility to point out that someone is being uncivil, but you apparently do. So by your own position, in claiming that I was being uncivil, you were being uncivil.Heqwm 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The part of your logic I'm having difficulty with is your inaccurate portrayal of your actions. Namecalling is not pointing out someone is being uncivil, even if it's to address incivility. It's the difference between "please be civil" and "please be don't be a dickhead." Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not name-calling.Heqwm 23:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, it's still a breach of civility. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] democratically-elected (again)

I realise that this issue has come up before (see above Elected?). I think saying 'elected administration' in the intro is fair enough but 'democratically-elected administration' seems a bit of a stretch given that women didn't have the vote at the time. Is it reasonable to describe the Iranian parliament of 1953 as 'democratically-elected' ? I don't know. It seems a little bit misleading to me. Perhaps it just needs a bit of context adding so that it's clearer what 'democratically-elected' really meant in the Iran of 1953. Having said that, I can see that Mossadegh is referred to as 'the democratically elected prime minister of Iran' in the excellent article 'Surrounded: Seeing the World from Iran’s Point of View' by Dr. Houman A. Sadri, Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Central Florida in the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center - Military Review (July-August 2007 English Edition). Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's terrible that women were not allowed to vote, however, I note that women were not allowed to vote in the U.S. until the 1920 and all of the elections in U.S. history were called democratic elections regardless. Democratically-elected has more to do, I believe, with the process than with whether every single member of the populace were able to vote. --RossF18 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pwned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.163.185 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Double pwned. 72.88.65.221 (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Discussion?

I noticed that there is a NPOV tag for this article but there doesn't seem to be an actual discussion for it. Did I miss it somewhere above? If not, then I will remove the tag. Quanticles (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at the endless discussions above, under "What's the evidence?", "Elected?", "NPOV phrasing needed in intro paragraphs", and several others in the archives, most of which really didn't get anywhere. Moreover, just look at how many controversial statements are totally uncited throughout the article. These are standing for months now.Shervink (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been resolved. The article as it is now seems NPOV to me. thx1138 (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No they haven't, at least as far as I am concerned. Unfortunately, however, the matter seems to be to emotional for some editors in order to make a fruitful discussion possible. That is the only reason those discussions stopped. Shervink (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fair

I think the topic is of prime importance--for all americans to gain as much information as possible. In our form of goverment we can not have secret over throws of soveign nations. The executive brnach did not fully ( or at the time ) even partially inform congress whos involvement was consitutionally required and the people of the US who would be asked to give their tax dollars and their lives --for operations then and now in Asia, were not included in this most important event in post WW2 foriegn policy. For it was the beginning of a policy--unknown to the people or the US senate and house. The Cia does not have the consitutional authoirty to make policy and yet has made policy by denying information tot he public. More articles like this one is needed. Those who will try to keep the information from the public--even now..should remeber we still have a consitution...no alligence to the american idea is stronger than an informed people. Secret and covert actions are for kings....it is time our government remembers that. Longwoodoh (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)LK

[edit] Neutrality Discussion?

Let me make my case that the article is strongly POV with a question: How could the CIA come to Iran, spend $30,000 in bribes (I belief that is the correct figure) and overthrow a true patriot, whose crime was working to get for his country what truly belonged to it, i.e. its oil resources?
My answer is there was more to the coup than the "orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration ... motivated by ... desire to control Iranian oil fields." Namely, Mossadeq could not have been overthrown with bribes unless he had lost crucial support from the military, from the clergy and from the "traditional middle class" (who were closely allied with the clergy). That the lead should talk about these domestic opponents and why they opposed Mossadeq.

Here is a paste from another talk page on some of the issues:

[edit] Did Mossadeq lose support of some Iranians after taking emergency powers? Evidence

Because this is such a controversial subject I've gone to the trouble to type out text from several sources to answer the question:

Quoting Amin Saikal:
The British blockade of Iranian oil and that country's intervening actions for Mossadeq's downfall resulted in serious economic hardship and polarization of Iranians into pro- and anti-Mossadeq forces. The anti-Mossedeq forces were centered around the monarchy, which had the support of a large section of the armed forces. The situation worsened when, amid increasing unrest inside and outside the Majlis, Mossedeq attempted to take over the constitutional position of the Shah as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, rule by emergency powers legitimized by a referendum and bypass the reponsibility of the Majlis. He thus isolated himself from some of the close colleagues, including Seyyed Abol Qazem Kashani, the speaker of the Majlis, and laid himself open to criticism of dictatorial rule, inviting a direct confrontation between his government and conservative forces." (Saikal, Amin, The Rise and Fall of the Shah, Princeton University Press, 1980, p.43-4)

Quoting Ervand Abrahamian:
"The easy success of this coup can be explained by two factors, the widening gap between the traditional and middle classes within the National Front; and the incraseing alienation of the whole officer corps from the civilian administration." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.273-4)

"... Mossadeq, confident that he had defeated the shah and thrown out the British, pressed ahead for fundamental social changes. When he gave the Ministries of Interior, Agriculture, and Transport to leaders of the secualr Iran party, the Ministry of Justice to Abu al'Ali Lufti, and anticlerical judge who had helped Reza Shah reorganize the judicial system, and the Ministry of Education to Dr. Mehdi Azar, a university professor from Azerbaijan sympathetic to the Tudeh party, Qonatabadi and other clerical leaders of the National Front expressed guarded fears for the future. When the minister of transport proposed to nationalize the bus companies of Tehran, Makki warned that such an act would open the way for the state to take over all small businesses, even groceries:

We would end up like the Soviet Union where the state owns everything and citizens nothing. Anyway, we all know that our bureacrats are incompetent businessmen.

When the minister of economics tried to reduce food prices by opening new bakeries, the bazaar guilds - encouraged by Kashani - protested that the government had no right to interfere with the free market. When the minister of communications recommended that the country's telephone companies be nationalized, Kashani solicited petitions from shareholders, and Haerzadeh proclaimed that `Islam protects private property and prohibits expropriations.` When Fatemi complained that the prohibition against the sale of alcohol reduced government tax revenues and increased the consumption of pure alcohol, [Shams al-Din] Qonatabadi [a preacher and leader of the Society of Muslim warriors, which was a member of the National Front] exclaimed,

I cannot believe my ears. Here is an assistant minister who considers himself a Muslim and represents a Muslim country proposing to legalize what the shari'a has clearly made illegal.

When Mossadeq's advisers proposed to enfranchize women on the grounds that the spirit of the constitution treated all citizens as equals, the `ulama, supported by theology students and guild elders, protested that `the religious laws undoubtedly limited the vote to men.` Kashani stressed that the government should prevent women from voting so that they would stay home and perform their true function - rearing children. ... One demonstrator was killed and ten were seriously wounded as theology students in Qum took to the streets to protest the proposal of extending the vote to women." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.275-6)

The conflict between the traditional and modern wings of the National Front reached a climax when Mossadeq asked Paliament from a 12-month extension of his emergency powers. Opposing the request, many of the clerical deputies left the National Front and formed their own Islamic Caucus (Franksium-i Islam). Kashani denounced the emergency powers as `dictatorial`; informed foreign journalists that true democracy in Iran needs a faithful implementation of the shari'a; and told Behbehani, the royalist ayatollah, that Mossadeq's `leftist advisers were endangering national security.` Qontatabadi claimed that the ministers of justice and education were replacing good Muslim employees with Kremlin-controlled atheists`; that he had always suspected the Iran party because of that party's alliance with the Tudeh in 1946; and that the `government's dictatorial methods were tranforming Iran into a vast prison.` Another clerical deputy suddenly discovered that Mossadeq's doctoral dissertation, written 35 years earlier in Switzerland, contained strong secular and anticlerical views. ..." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.276-7)

Quoting Vali Nasr:
Despite modernization in Iran in the 20th century, "One are where the ulama could still make their weight felt was the struggle against imperialism. Clerics supported both the nationalization of Iran's oil industry in 1951 and the popular movement that it created. ... While many in the Shia ulama supported Mossadeq's goals, at the end of the day the most senior clerics backed the restoration of the monarchy because they badly feared chaos and a communist takeover." (Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, Norton, (2005), p.124)

Quoting Sandra Mackay:
"The loss of the political clerics effectively cut Mossadeq's connections with the lower middle classes and the Iranian masses which are crucial to any popular movement" in Iran. "It was Ayatollah Kashani who quietly inflicted Shiism's mortal wound on Muhammad Mossadegh." (Mackay, Sandra, The Iranians, Plume (1997), p.203,4)

Quoting Nikki Keddie:
"The coup could not have succeeded without significant internal disaffection or indifference, but without outside aid it would not have occurred." (Keddie, Nikki R., Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, 1981, p.140)

[edit] Did Mossadeq have the support of the communists? NO

To clear up this issue:

"As the the Tudeh gradually reemerged as a major force during 1951-1953, the party leadership was confronted with the inevitable question: whether of not to support the Mossadeq administration. Not surprisingly, the leaders where sharply divided." Older members of the Central Committee "favored an alliance" Newer members did not. "The debate was won by hard-liners."

The Society of Democratic Youth sponsored teachins to "expose the conspiracy between the shah and his prime minister." (October 1951) ... The Tudeh press constantly portrayed Mossadeq as a feudal landlord, a devious old-time politician, and a stooge of the United States..... In 1951-2 the Tudeh supported the National Front only during the July uprising, when the danger from the shah appeared imminent." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.323)

[edit] What was the association of Tudeh (communist party) and Mossadeq?

Mossadeq helping Tudeh "The election of Mossadeq helped the Tudeh even [more than the liberalization under Razmara] for the new prime minister accelerated the pace of liberalisation. Although he neither repealed the 1931 law nor formally lifted the 1949 ban, he believed that police controls violated civil liberties and the constitutional laws. He argued that the royalists smeared social refomers as communists in much the same way as the Qajars had labeled their opponents `heretical Babis`. And he realized that he needed all the public support he could get in order to oust the British from the oil industry and expel the shah from politics." (p.318-9)

Tudeh helped the Nationalization fight and become stronger as a result. Comment of Hussein Fateh, "the anticommunist leader of the defunct Comrade's party":

One must admit that the Tudeh was a major force participating in the struggle to nationalize the oil company.`... although diverse elements participated in the July uprising, the impartial observer must confess that the Tudeh played an important part - perhaps even the most important part. .... If in the rallies before March 1952 one-third of the demonstrators had been Tudeh and two-thirds had been National Front, after March 1952, the proportions were reversed. [Panjah Saleh-e Naft-i Iran (p.320)

"Arsanjani, writing on behalf of Qavam, argued that the Tudeh was the chief force defeating the Shah. And Kashani, the day after the riots, sent a public letter to the pro-Tudeh organizations thanking them for their invaluable contribution toward national victory." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.320) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in Lead

I've made a lot of changes in the lead section. There is still plenty about bribery and covert action and control of oil fields, but there is now also a mention of its place in world history, the names of Iranian coup leaders and that there was/is a dispute over the motivations and causes of the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] timeline of the coup

I propose a timeline of the coup and events leading up to it be created as a separate article. A lot happened. Some of the events are not mentioned or dated in the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Created Abadan Crisis timeline. Includes both 1953 coup events and events leading up to it. altogether they're called the Abadan Crisis although that article is very short. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of expansion

CreazySuit has made a wholesale revertion of sourced material expanding the article including trimming of repetious citations and corrections in spelling of Mosaddeq's name. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You've completely re-written the article in a POV manner with selective fringe quotes which were previously disputed (like Abrahamian accusing Mossadegh of rigging elections etc). It's undo weight, and editorializing. You should get get consensus for such major changes. --CreazySuit (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue. The article has not been completely rewritten. The sources are anything but fringe. Abrahamian is a respected scholar and much of the information I posted comes from Kinzer who published the most well known work on the CIA coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For anyone with any doubts that the CreazySuit reversion was done without checking over what it was reverting, look at the rewritten Operation Ajax section has opposed to the old version (that CreazySuit reverted to). The old version has a section on Planning Operation Ajax but nothing about the failed Nasiri coup or what happened during the Zahedi coup a few days later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We had already discussed on Talk;Mossadegh about how Abrahamian's theory about election rigging is not supported by other historians, and hence fringe. As for the other changes, why don't you propose or add them one by one, so that other editors could peer-review and scrutinize them, instead of one sweeping edit which includes controversial/POV material. --CreazySuit (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You have provide no evidence in Talk;Mossadegh or anyplace else that "Abrahamian's theory about election rigging is not supported by other". The statements in my expansion are supported by reputable souces you have given no decent reason why they should be reverted, while no other editor has complained about them. It is an enormous waste of time to "propose the edits one by one" for your approval. Why don't you criticize them one by one so that other editors could peer-review and scrutinize your criticism? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputing accuracy

Complaints of accuracy of article

In 1921, a military coup, organized by the British ^{[citation needed]} no evidence given. The only evidence Kinzer gives is that the coup must have cost a lot of money and thus must have been financed by outsiders namely the British.

Oil revenues to the Iranian government were significantly higher than before nationalization, since nationalization, by definition, caused oil profits to be directed into the state's coffers rather than into the hands of foreign oil companies. No evidence and nowhere have a read that revenues went anywhere but down.

This is an article about a coup but there is next to nothing about what happened in the coup just unsourced allegations like Five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and French Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were designated to operate in the country alongside AIOC after a successful coup.

This is just a quick look. THere is much more that is factually inaccurate. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sources are available . I think it's possible to reference any sentence one by one . For the beginning I think the organization role of the British officials can be referenced here : NY times:How a Plot Convulsed Iran in '53 (and in '79), and "London draft of TPAJAX Operational plan" --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion : Use Historical Documents

There are historical Documents available on this that conflict with this entry. This entry would be improved by referring to historical documents that are available especially in areas where the historical documents and the article conflict.

The Shah was still the Shah, that is why the royal decrees were necessary. He had the legal right but lacked the power.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/082353iran-reversal.html

• April 14. Mossadegh introduced a bill in Majlis (Parliament) to transfer army control from Shah to himself.
• June 29. President Eisenhower rejected Mossadegh request for loan.
• July 11. New Soviet Ambassador appointed to Teheran.
• July 19. Unable to get army bill through Majlis, Mossadegh demanded dissolution. When Shah refused Mossadegh called for plebiscite.
• Aug. 2. Backed by Tudeh, Mossadegh won plebiscite with 99.4 per cent of vote in a nonsecret balloting.
• Aug. 10. Moscow announced bilateral talks with Iran on "all questions."
• Aug. 14. Foreign Minister Fatemi announced full agreement on Russian talks agenda.
• Aug. 15 (last Saturday). Mossadegh announced dissolution of Majlis. The stage was set for last week's events.

23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Shah was still the Shah, that is why the royal decrees were necessary. He had the legal right but lacked the power."
Due to the changes of Iranian Constitutional Revolution, in that time , the Shah was supposed to be a shah of Constitution v.s a Shah of Absolute monarchy. That means the royal decrees were only decorative and not necessary,he had no legal rights to do any political action at all ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)