Rather than the details of how involved the CIA was or wasn’t, the premise of the piece is ignorant & naive:
“Iran’s Islamist dictators were “a predictable consequence of American imperialism,”
I think what should be understood is that the islamists were always there. Mossadeq himself felt pressure from them, before and after the Shah left. The Shah’s father upset the mullahs & clergy during his reign starting back in the 1920’s.
So, the ‘coup’ itself had nothing directly to do with the islamist revolution in Iran - Except that they used it (and continue to do so) as an excuse, a tool, a recruiting & brainwashing apparatus. They never cared about Mossadeq - they would have overthrown him themselves if they could.
The involvement of the U.S. to try to stabilize Iran by allowing the Shah to return was a good thing for Iran & us. Unfortunately, the Shah made some critical mistakes (a big one, I believe, was not killing Khomeini & instead exiling him). But it’s possible another mullah/ayatollah would have eventually risen in popularity and strength and caused an uprising and takeover. The clergy never liked the monarchy, period, because it reduced their power, wealth & significance.
That the Islamists never liked Mossadeq (to put it mildly) is part of Taheri's story as well. Let me quote the pertinent paragraph:
Clinton’s claim that the United States changed the course of Iranian history on a whim would be seen by most Iranians, a proud people, as an insult by an arrogant politician who exaggerates the powers of his nation more than half a century ago. Moreover, in the Islamic Republic that Clinton was trying to court, Mossadeq, far from being regarded as national hero, is an object of intense vilification. One of the first acts of the mullahs after seizing power ni 1979 was to take the name of Mossadeq off a street in Teheran. They then sealed off the village where Mossadeq is buried to prevent his supporters from gathering at his tomb. History textbooks written by the mullahs present Mossadeq as ”the son af a feudal family of exploiters who worked for the cursed shah, and betrayed Islam.” Clinton’s apology to the mullahs for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadeq was like begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy towards Alexander Kerensky.
However, in a more general perspective this story shows how pernicious the Cold War propaganda was, and the fact that the West very seldom was able to properly refute the lies and misinformation coming from the Soviets and their fellow travelers. The latter have now, completely unashamed, changed horses and instead of materialist Marxism they are now supporting "Third Worldism" and Islamism.
>>”a big one, I believe, was not killing Khomeini & instead exiling him).”<<
In a way, the Shah was between a rock and a hard place. I understand he was advised not to deal ‘harshly’ with Khomeini because, most probably, it might have caused further trouble & unrest inside Iran. So, the Shah chose to exile him, to cut off his direct influence in Iran. Though I think he wasn’t expecting support for Khomeini from other countries and their media, such as the BBC.
Actually, Khomeini was under tight control during the first part of his exile in Iraq when Saddam was there. But Khomeini started trouble in Iraq too, and consequently Saddam didn’t want him in Iraq either. Later, with the Shah’s permission Khomeini was exiled to France; that’s where he had a carte blanche to preach rather openly.
>>”But it’s possible another mullah/ayatollah would have eventually risen in popularity and strength and caused an uprising and takeover.”<<
Right. The mullahs should have been reined in all-around in Iran, see #74. Not that the Shah didn’t understand the mullahs mentality & history in Iran; give a mullah an inch and he’ll take a yard - traditionally they’re MOSTLY despicable hoarders; and I’m being kind.