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.