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.