I suppose, if you don't consider killing hundreds of thousands of people a provocation.
The U.S. didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims prior to 9-11.
Those are two very different assertions.
No they are one and the same.
The constitutional monarchy had evolved in a direction more monarchic than constitutional. Mossadegh dissolved the parliament not in order to rule by decree, but rather to establish a new parliament chosen through fair, open elections. It was a mistake, but arguably a legitimate move in a time of war.
Mossadeq dissolved parliament because Parliament refused him direct control over the military, upon dissolving parliament he began ruling by decree.
This is what's sometimes referred to as a "badge of ignorance," a false claim so outdated and overused that there's no excuse for it any more. Mossadegh's crime wasn't alignment with Russia.
And yet he did align with the Soviets.
It was his nationalist policy of non-alignment
No he began accepting arms from the Soviets.
and his effort to free Iran of undue influence from both Russia and the West. The idea that he was a communist is a myth created by the CIA, which engaged in false flag violence as part of its black propaganda operation against him.
I never claimed he was a Communist but that he aligned himself with Communists.
Wrong again. Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament after the first attempt to dismiss him had failed. True, he had already taken the referendum, but this was only because he'd learned of the plot against him.
He dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum and started ruling by decree, and you want us to believe he supported democracy. :roll:
The Shah did not dismiss Mossadeq until AFTER he had already dissolved parliament.
This attitude toward Mossadegh in general is a good example of how Americans react to Muslim democracy when they actually see it trying to get started.
lol it was already started until Mossadeq dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum and started ruling by decree.
It's a nice word and a good pretext for intervention, but it goes right out the window as soon as it conflicts with oil interests.
Dissolving parliament through a fraudulent referendum and ruling by decree =/= democracy.
Iraq is another example. Their government was established under our watch and trumpeted by us as a legitimate democracy, yet we've constantly interfered with it and even attacked some parties when they opposed our ideas on oil rights. Most of the enemies we've fought in Iraq weren't terrorists but just people who wanted to govern themselves. It would be the same way if we went into Iran now. We claim to support the reformers (even though they don't want our help), but if it came to a choice between democracy and oil, we'd do our best to crush them as well.
Iran was the most liberal democratic government in the ME until Mossadegh dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum and started ruling by decree causing a reactionary backlash by the royalists.
Of particular interest is The CIA station chief's report that "our boys in Ankara did it."
A) "Our boys" refers to who exactly? This in no way demonstrates that they were acting on the directives of the U.S. or that they had U.S. financial or logistical support, it could simply mean that they were a pro-American faction.
B) Again the sources listed in the wiki article is a book which can not be accessed and a youtube video.
There's also the communication from the Turkish military to the US embassy informing them when the coup would take place.
Source?
It's a factor, along with the station chief's admission and the history of American intervention in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, etc. It's very much part of a pattern.[/QUOTE]