Posted on 07/30/2026 7:30:56 AM PDT by Trump20162020
Two-thirds of Americans believe the war in Iran has not been worth fighting.
A new AP-NORC poll found that roughly two-thirds of U.S. adults say the war that began Feb. 28 is not worthwhile. The sentiment is shared by the vast majority of Democrats (87%) and independents (68%), as well as 37% of Republicans.
The AP-NORC poll, conducted July 23-27, surveyed 1,165 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Before I answer, if it could be shown that any of Iran’s leaders violated the constitution, would that be a valid reason for overthrowing that leader?
I’m not sure I understand this specifics of your question. Because in the context of our ongoing exchange, definitions matter.
By “any of Iran’s leaders” are you referring to the shah, or the prime minister? And by “overthrowing” do you mean by constitutional means, unconstitutional means, or either?
Furthermore, who are you suggesting would do the overthrowing based on the violation of the constitution by a leader? The people of Iran? Or outside forces?
Finally, in your scenario I would need to know how severe these violations of the constitution would be to pass judgment on the validity of a removal from office as a result of those transgressions.
I might also add that it seems only fair that you would answer my questions before you ask other questions of me.
As for answering any questions about the constitution itself, it was pretty much ignored by all leaders when it was convenient. Do you think that's any of our business, or an internal affair?
What you are attempting to do here, in debate terms, is called deflection. That is, refusing to answer the question and attempting to change the subject.
Your post 359 contain no questions to me, and I did respond to it. In that post you wrote. “No, I did my own research to verify their claims.
BTW, I would like to thank YOU for the challenge to do that.”
I have done research, and I continue to do more to make certain of the facts as we discuss them. Hence my statement that I would respond to the points you made line by line, but in the interest of keeping things going while I review numerous sources, I had hoped to establish a few facts that we can both agree on. After all, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but none are entitled to their own facts.
I think it would’ve been a waste of bandwidth, but I think I could have stated that in 1953 Muhammad Reza Palavi was the sitting shah of your Iran, Mossadegh the sitting prime minister, and that the CIA conducted covert operations inside Iran. Surely those facts would be mutually agreeable.
If we can’t agree on simple facts, then there’s no point moving on to opinions of whether or not an ouster of a regime is justified or not. After all, the revolution of 1776 is celebrated here, but the regime in London had a different opinion.
So, is it really too much to ask to agree or dispute the points I posted as facts in 360? You’ll have your chance to post examples of the shah violating the constitution, because at this time I have nothing to go on except your assertion. Again though, if the facts are not agreeable, then discussion is pointless.
I haven't changed the subject. My point all along is that our interference created this mess, I documented the reasons for that interference, and gave my opinion on why those actions for the reasons were unjust. Your response has been "It depended on what the meaning of coup is."
Even if everything the Shah did was legal, it wouldn't change the fact that we got involved in a mess that we should have let Iran handle, and we did it for no better reason than so Britain could keep their old on Iran's oil fields.
To be honest, I have no dog in their fight. We should have let Iran sort it out, and then work fairly with whatever government came from that. That couldn't have worked out any worse than what we did.
I think it would’ve been a waste of bandwidth, but I think I could have stated that in 1953 Muhammad Reza Palavi was the sitting shah of your Iran, Mossadegh the sitting prime minister, and that the CIA conducted covert operations inside Iran. Surely those facts would be mutually agreeable.
Yes, but we differ on whether it could have been considered a coup.
BTW, we also differ on what Article 46 says. I looked at the constitution, and it doesn't seem to say that the Shah made the decisions of who was hired or fired, but that he made them "effective". I'll need to go over the constitution some more as I find time to be sure of that one.
If we can’t agree on simple facts, then there’s no point moving on to opinions of whether or not an ouster of a regime is justified or not. After all, the revolution of 1776 is celebrated here, but the regime in London had a different opinion.
Just like those who support the Shah would have a different opinion from those who wanted him thrown out.
So, is it really too much to ask to agree or dispute the points I posted as facts in 360?
Those points are moot, since my point is that we interfered in their affairs, and created the mess that everyone blames Carter for. He was a lousy president, but he inherited a no win situation.
You’ll have your chance to post examples of the shah violating the constitution, because at this time I have nothing to go on except your assertion.
In case you're tempted to accuse this site as being a mouthpiece for the current regime, check out the section on women.
That's not meant as a dig at you. I had the same concern so I checked before posting it.
I have another source but it's a long read, so I should go over it before posting to be sure it's relevant.
Again though, if the facts are not agreeable, then discussion is pointless.
We can agree to disagree.
Yes, you changed the subject. I asked specific questions, which you ignored and moved the goalposts to justification for removal from office.
By the way, your link shows no violation of the constitution by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi prior to ousting Mosaddegh. The only point I’ve ever addressed is whether or not the events of 1953 were a “coup.” If they were legal, they were no more a coup than British King William IV dismissing the prime minister in 1834.
I’ve never denied that the CIA conducted influence operations in Iran. But it WAS the Iranians that sorted it out. We didn’t depose anyone. Whether or not that was wise is a matter of opinion. Louis XVI interfered in the affairs of Great Britain in 1776. Shall we tear down the statues of Lafayette?
Citing the ouster 1953 as the birthplace of today’s Islamic dictatorship in Iran is a gross distortion of history and a blatant exercise in anti-American propaganda. It ignores the Shia historic worldview and the long record of foreign intrigue and domination of Iran going back centuries. Wars, invasions, and coercion date back at least to the first war with Russia in 1651. These interventions were largely part of the rivalries between Russia, the UK, and the Ottoman Empire. The U.S. had no role prior to WWII, and really little even through Mossadegh’s tumultuous regime.
You keep throwing what that constitution said at me, but what it said or meant depended on who the monarch was at the time. We'll see an example of that later.
By the way, your link shows no violation of the constitution by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi prior to ousting Mosaddegh.
Review "1. The 1949 Constitutional Amendment: Power to Dissolve Parliament" and "2. The 1953 Coup: Overthrowing Constitutional Government". Here's the link again.
The only point I’ve ever addressed is whether or not the events of 1953 were a "coup." If they were legal, they were no more a coup than British King William IV dismissing the prime minister in 1834.
I’ve never denied that the CIA conducted influence operations in Iran.
You've just tried to hide behind "It depends on what the meaning of "coup" is."
But it WAS the Iranians that sorted it out. We didn’t depose anyone.
Whether or not that was wise is a matter of opinion. Louis XVI interfered in the affairs of Great Britain in 1776. Shall we tear down the statues of Lafayette?
Apples and oranges. We went on to form our own nation after the Revolution, and installed our own form of government. In the case of Iran, we threw out their democratically elected government.
Citing the ouster 1953 as the birthplace of today’s Islamic dictatorship in Iran is a gross distortion of history and a blatant exercise in anti-American propaganda.
The government we helped stay in power was the same government Iran overthrew in 1979. That's a fact. If it's anti-American, then the problem was with our policies at the time, not in what is said.
It ignores the Shia historic worldview and the long record of foreign intrigue and domination of Iran going back centuries. Wars, invasions, and coercion date back at least to the first war with Russia in 1651. These interventions were largely part of the rivalries between Russia, the UK, and the Ottoman Empire.
I'm aware of their past history, and thank you for admitting that the UK was part of the problem.
The U.S. had no role prior to WWII, and really little even through Mossadegh’s tumultuous regime.
Not sure why you’d repeat a link I’ve already viewed. Nonetheless, let’s look at what it says. It lists only ONE “violation” of the Iranian constitution.
“Article 48 was amended to give the Shah the right to dissolve both houses of parliament (Majles and Senate), provided he called new elections within three months.”
“The amendments were made in May 1949 by unanimous vote of the Constituent Assembly.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Iranian_Constituent_Assembly_election
So this was done through completely constitutional means. This was NOT a violation of the constitution.
Did Pahlavi lean on the majlis to do this? Did he coerce those members or offer incentives. Did LBJ lean on members of congress to pass the Civil Rights Act? Has Trump wheeled and dealed to get what he wants?
You simply have provided NO violations of the Iranian constitution by the shah prior to the events of 1953.
Let’s talk about U.S. presidents who’ve “violated the constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump all had actions ruled unconstitutional. Should they have been ousted for these transgressions? Would the speaker of the house been justified to demand the right to appoint the secretary of war, and name himself to the position? Then should the speaker have dismissed the Supreme Court and dissolved Congress? Because that’s what happened in Iran.
In regard to your second link, who was president in 2013? You think maybe that might influence how the history was portrayed?
“You’ve just tried to hide behind “It depends on what the meaning of “coup” is.”
I’m not hiding, I’m simply pointing out that words have meanings. Words like “man” and “woman” seem to have taken on vague definitions these days, so much so that some members of the Supreme Court can’t define them. But I hold to a more traditional view.
Was the resignation of Richard Nixon a coup? If Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump been removed from office after a guilty verdict in the Senate, would those have been coups? Was the removal of the British prime minister in 1834 a coup? How can a constitutional removal from office be called a coup?
“In the case of Iran, we threw out their democratically elected government.”
Who arrested Mossedegh? U.S. Marines? Nope, the shah wrote the Farman, and Iranians arrested him. There were all of two CIA operatives in Iran, Roosevelt and Wilber. That’s it. Are you going to tell me they did everything?
Now in 1911, the Russians really DID throw out their democratically elected government, tossing the Majlis out at the points of 12,000 Russian bayonets.
It’s true that we had no role in Iran prior to WWII, and really little even through Mossadegh’s tumultuous regime. The U.S. did not invade Iran in WWII. That was the UK and the USSR. Operation Ajax lasted a few months. Hardly a long history of interference.
I must say I’m amused by your linking Encyclopedia Brittanica. Let see what that renowned source says about January 6:
“Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état.”
It seems you view Brittanica like a Chinese buffet. You take what you like and leave the rest.
I’ve written numerous times that the “consensus” is as you claim. Doesn’t mean it’s true. I’ve done my own research. You support that, right? You seem to view Iranians as having no agency in the affair, that there were not competing interests for and against Mossadegh throughout his tenure, and that his support collapsed at the end. The belief that “we threw out their democratically elected government” treats Iranians as children, or dutiful servants doing only what they are told by Uncle Sam. It ignores the facts that the shah was in fact the head of the government who never abdicated, who appointed Mossadegh, and who had the constitutional authority to dismiss him as he had in 1952.
You wrote that I keep “throwing” what that constitution said at you. I’m going to use that line around here in the future if you mention that crusty old document of 1789. That should be fun.
Of course you're not. That's why I have to keep posting it.
"Article 48 was amended to give the Shah the right to dissolve both houses of parliament (Majles and Senate), provided he called new elections within three months." "The amendments were made in May 1949 by unanimous vote of the Constituent Assembly." So this was done through completely constitutional means. This was NOT a violation of the constitution.
Maybe this will help.
CIA-assisted coup overthrows government of Iran
"At this point, the Shah left the country for "medical reasons." While British intelligence backed away from the debacle, the CIA continued its covert operations in Iran. Working with pro-Shah forces and, most importantly, the Iranian military, the CIA cajoled, threatened, and bribed its way into influence and helped to organize another coup attempt against Mossadeq...The Shah quickly returned to take power and, as thanks for the American help, signed over 40 percent of Iran’s oil fields to U.S. companies."
The Shah wasn't even in the country when the coup occurred.
If you still want to argue this wasn't a coup, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You might want to look at what the Democratic Socialists intend to do in this country if they gain enough power. Part of their plans, and I quote, are to "replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress,". That will effectively eliminate the checks and balances guaranteed in our constitution, and is very similar to what the Shah did.
Did Pahlavi lean on the majlis to do this? Did he coerce those members or offer incentives. Did LBJ lean on members of congress to pass the Civil Rights Act? Has Trump wheeled and dealed to get what he wants?
Maybe, maybe, yes, and yes, but there is a big difference between Congress passing the Civil Rights Act and the president signing it, and eliminating the checks and balances in your constitution, and with foreign help usurp the other branches' power and become a dictator.
"Let’s talk about U.S. presidents who’ve "violated the constitution." Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump all had actions ruled unconstitutional. Should they have been ousted for these transgressions?
Of course not. Everything was done according to the constitution WITHOUT rewriting any of it. Going through the system in this way is part of the process of getting things done within the framework of our constitution, even when we don't agree with the rulings.
Would the speaker of the house been justified to demand the right to appoint the secretary of war, and name himself to the position? Then should the speaker have dismissed the Supreme Court and dissolved Congress? Because that’s what happened in Iran.
You probably can't even see the problem with what you just posted.
In regard to your second link, who was president in 2013? You think maybe that might influence how the history was portrayed?
Barack Obama. So what? We've had two Republican administrations since then (both Trump's), and in neither case did the CIA retract this confession.
Also, the claims were well documented with the artifacts from that time. Did Obama forge them, too?
Was the resignation of Richard Nixon a coup?
No it was a resignation. What a stretch.
If Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump been removed from office after a guilty verdict in the Senate, would those have been coups?
Would it have been done by unilaterally altering the constitution?
Was the removal of the British prime minister in 1834 a coup?
I don't know enough about that to answer.
How can a constitutional removal from office be called a coup?
Is having foreign powers instigate a coup while you're out of the country a constitutional removal?
Who arrested Mossedegh? U.S. Marines? Nope, the shah wrote the Farman, and Iranians arrested him. There were all of two CIA operatives in Iran, Roosevelt and Wilber. That’s it. Are you going to tell me they did everything?
Are you going to tell me that only two Americans did all of this?
Operation Ajax lasted a few months. Hardly a long history of interference.
So what? In conjunction with the Shah's efforts it was enough to overthrow Mossedegh. If we hadn't taken sides and interfered then they might have worked something out.
And don't forget the reason for our interference, which was to keep getting the cheap oil. How many Americans have died since 1979 as a result?
I must say I’m amused by your linking Encyclopedia Brittanica. Let see what that renowned source says about January 6: "Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état." It seems you view Brittanica like a Chinese buffet. You take what you like and leave the rest.
And I'm amused by your ability to post something without understanding it. Reread what you posted. They didn't say it was an insurrection or attempted coup d’état, but that it was WIDELY REGARDED as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état. Big difference.
You seem to view Iranians as having no agency in the affair, that there were not competing interests for and against Mossadegh throughout his tenure, and that his support collapsed at the end.
Another stretch if not downright dishonest. From one of my previous posts, "To be honest, I have no dog in their fight. We should have let Iran sort it out, and then work fairly with whatever government came from that. That couldn't have worked out any worse than what we did."
The belief that “we threw out their democratically elected government” treats Iranians as children, or dutiful servants doing only what they are told by Uncle Sam.
On the contrary, it shows the contempt we had for what we saw as weaker third word countries at the time. Our only concern was getting the best deal on oil prices. The will of the Iranian people was ignored. That blew up in our faces in 1979, and we've been living with the threat of a nuclear Iran ever since.
You wrote that I keep "throwing" what that constitution said at you. I’m going to use that line around here in the future if you mention that crusty old document of 1789. That should be fun.
Let's see how fun you think it is when the Democrat Socialists rewrite our constitution to eliminate its checks and balances, as the Shah did.
I could say I'd enjoy watching you squirm over that, but that's not true. I don't want to see that happen at all. I think that's something you and I can agree on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.