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.