It's because I have the CIA acknowledging it was a coup of an elected leader. There are other sources below which also say that. Against that are your sources saying "it was not a coup."
Mosaddegh did just that. (ignore the constitution)
So did just about every Iranian leader including the Shah, when it suited their agenda. It's like that old joke about "The Ten Suggestions".
Mosaddegh was elected to the Majlis.
So what? How does that in any way justify our instigating a coup?
And you can stop posting that revisionist "the coup that wasn't" link. I'm not impressed.
I’m not sure how one is expected to answer “blah, blah, blah” but I guess you choose to ignore the facts I presented to you.
Let's just say that I don't consider your sources the final word on this, especially when the CIA itself says differently. Just because your sources can write a book or an article on the Internet doesn't make them accurate.
At the risk of invoking Goodwin’s Law, I will was point out that so was Hitler.
Hitler also wrote a book, but no one believes any of it beyond what he stated he planned to do.
It was the Iranians themselves who removed him.
Then why were they so angry with us afterwards? If what you say is correct, wouldn't they have thanked us for putting the Shah back in (real) power?
That nationalization led to the British pulling out their personnel and only Italy was willing to allow their people in to fill the void. Coupled with the British boycott oil production in Iran dropped drastically, with exports cratering to zero in 1953.
And you can't see the problem with that? They couldn't exploit Iran's resources anymore, so they resorted to bullying.
Here's more on that.
Iran 1953: MI6 plots with Islamists to overthrow democracy
OBTW, in addition to the CIA, these sources also refer to the incident as a coup.
Mossadegh was unwilling to negotiate and the crippling result caused his support to wane. In that context it was the fear of a communist takeover that led Eisenhower to take action.
He was unwilling to allow Iran's resources to be plundered as if they were a colony. It was Britain who refused to negotiate in good faith.
As for the communist threat, that was the CIA's justification to Eisenhower at the time, but it was the nationalization of the oil fields that triggered all of this.
No, they really became angry in 1963, when the Shah launched the so called “White Revolution.”
Maybe angrier, but that distinction doesn't help your case anyway because he was who we sided with, and supported until 1979.
The Pahlavi Dynasty tried to modernize the country. They built roads, schools, hospitals, attempted land reform and even and eventually gave women the right to vote, before Switzerland did.
Those were the "popular reforms" that Mosaddegh also tried to implement. One of those reforms was the nationalization of the Iranian oil fields, which is why he fell afoul of Britain and the US.
Yes, the CIA conducted covert operations in Iran in 1953. So did MI6 and the KGB.
Maybe if we had supported the elected government and dealt fairly with them rather than instigate a coup, again according to the CIA, we might have reached a deal that would have prevented all of that. It might not have been the sweetheart deal that we got with the Shah, but Americans wouldn't have died for it either.
So you take the CIA’s word without question? Do you accept all the sources that say, and it is the standard narrative, that January 6 was an insurrection?