Iran's Coup in 1953

[Left Now]

After the nationalization of Iran's oil industry in 1951 and its independence from Anglo-Iran oil company,people elected PM of Iran,Mohammad Mosaddegh's relations got worse with UK and with Shah following it.

Before 1950's,Iranian government was an absolute monarchy government which was ruled by the monarch or the Shah,but when Mosaddegh became the Prime Minister,he had a goal in making a democratic government in Iran and a republic.

During 1952-53 events,PM made Shah to escape from the country and when the Shah left Iran,the conditions got prepared for Mosaddegh to convince the parliament to declare that Pahlavi Shahdom exist for no more and Iran was going to be a republic.Mosaddegh needed a country as a sample of basic rules for a republic and it was US,so he started his negotiating with US politicians and tried to improve Iran's relations with America.

Meanwhile,Shah was negotiating with US and UK politicians and diplomats to gain their supports for coming back to power and promised them he would always defend their advantages in Iran.So US and UK governments planed to overthrow Mosaddegh and demolish the newly established republic of Iran via US embassy in Tehran.

In 19 August of 1953,finally a US and UK planned coup happened against Mosaddegh's government and the code of its starting was transferred via BBC radio:"The time is EXACTLY 12 o' clock..."

At the end of the day,military forces arrested Mosaddegh and besieged Parliament building,and at last,with supports of UK and US,Shah came back to Iran and established a real dictatorship upon his own people to do what he promised to UK and US and stay in power.

This Coup later consequences:
*US being hated by Iranians
1.Food Shortage of 1955
2.Genocide of June 5 of 1963
3.Genocide of Great School of Qom
4.Demonstrations against Shah during 1963-79
5.Massacre of Varamin protesters
6.Islamic Revolution
7.US embassy hostage-crisis

[britishboy]

wow thats some history, you shoul have done it all democraticly and negotiated

[Left Now]

It was a democratic government,Why should countries who call themselves the birthplace of democracy overthrow a democratic government and replace it with a complete dictatorship monarchy?Isn't it double standard?

[Harry Smith]

It just shows how unstable the country was if all it took was a couple of bribes to overthrow the government, they're were many groups who opposed Mosaddegh, such as clerics who opposed the secular natu

[Left Now]

It just shows how unstable the country was if all it took was a couple of bribes to overthrow the government, they're were many groups who opposed Mosaddegh, such as clerics who opposed the secular natu

Mosaddegh was just in first of his way.

Mosaddegh was a nationalist and great clerics like Khomeini supported him while he wanted to establish a republic and were ready to support him until he completely be successful in his work.

However,it won't let UK and US escape the situation.Why did they do this?Just answer this,nothing more,nothing else.

[Harry Smith]

Mosaddegh was just in first of his way.

Mosaddegh was a nationalist and great clerics like Khomeini supported him while he wanted to establish a republic and were ready to support him until he completely be successful in his work.

However,it won't let UK and US escape the situation.Why did they do this?Just answer this,nothing more,nothing else.

To protect our national interest, this was pre-Suez. The middle east was still our stomping ground, the oil there was actually owned by the Anglo-Persian oil company, your prime minister wanted to nationalize and take this oil away from us so we protected our national interest and took out the threat

[Left Now]

To protect our national interest, this was pre-Suez. The middle east was still our stomping ground, the oil there was actually owned by the Anglo-Persian oil company, your prime minister wanted to nationalize and take this oil away from us so we protected our national interest and took out the threat

So it means you prefer your own national interests more than democracy in a country?
The oil of Iran was only for Iranian people,it was our national resource and right.Iran was not your vassal in those times and Anglo-Persian company was stealing that oil with just a little money spent on it.The prime minister did a right work to nationalize the oil industry,because we were the rightful owners of that oil not Anglo-Persian company.

Also,you really didn't care about what would happen after that.The food shortage killed over 4,000,000 people in my country in 55's,the Shah performed over three great massacres and Capitulation...

You sacrificed a lot of my people only for your national interests?Why?Why did you really do that?How could you really let my people die to save your national interests?

[Stronk Serb]

So it means you prefer your own national interests more than democracy in a country?
The oil of Iran was only for Iranian people,it was our national resource and right.Iran was not your vassal in those times and Anglo-Persian company was stealing that oil with just a little money spent on it.The prime minister did a right work to nationalize the oil industry,because we were the rightful owners of that oil not Anglo-Persian company.

Also,you really didn't care about what would happen after that.The food shortage killed over 4,000,000 people in my country in 55's,the Shah performed over three great massacres and Capitulation...

You sacrificed a lot of my people only for your national interests?Why?Why did you really do that?How could you really let my people die to save your national interests?

People are dying for that even today. Mostly by NATO top dog countries like the UK and the US. Yeah, it is double standards.
A side question, is the Iranian Supreme Leader the de facto head of state, or it is the president/prime minister?

[Left Now]

People are dying for that even today. Mostly by NATO top dog countries like the UK and the US. Yeah, it is double standards.
A side question, is the Iranian Supreme Leader the de facto head of state, or it is the president/prime minister?

The most powerful man in Iran is now leader,and after him,the president.We do not have prime minister since 20 years ago.

However,the most powerful organization in Iran is not leadership,it is Privy Council which can choose and even fire the leader.

[Harry Smith]

People are dying for that even today. Mostly by NATO top dog countries like the UK and the US. Yeah, it is double standards.
A side question, is the Iranian Supreme Leader the de facto head of state, or it is the president/prime minister?

He's an unelected head of state who is about 100 years out of date leading a country on the basis of a magical person in sky who has not been seen

So it means you prefer your own national interests more than democracy in a country?
The oil of Iran was only for Iranian people,it was our national resource and right.Iran was not your vassal in those times and Anglo-Persian company was stealing that oil with just a little money spent on it.The prime minister did a right work to nationalize the oil industry,because we were the rightful owners of that oil not Anglo-Persian company.

Also,you really didn't care about what would happen after that.The food shortage killed over 4,000,000 people in my country in 55's,the Shah performed over three great massacres and Capitulation...

You sacrificed a lot of my people only for your national interests?Why?Why did you really do that?How could you really let my people die to save your national interests?

Because times were so different back then, christ we still had the empire. As you always say about Mohammed you can't judge us based on the past.

Also the 'legal' owner of the oil war us, it wasn't morally right, it was pretty terrible but the oil did actually belong to that company. You were the rightful owners but not the legal ones.

We didn't tell the Shah to commit those massacres, we didn't have control over his foreign policy. It was the CIA's cold war policy- if you were anti communist you were our friend. In hindsight that policy was pretty bad but we had our interests to protect. Life is cruel and harsh

[Left Now]

He's an unelected head of state who is about 100 years out of date leading a country on the basis of a magical person in sky who has not been seen



Because times were so different back then, christ we still had the empire. As you always say about Mohammed you can't judge us based on the past.

Also the 'legal' owner of the oil war us, it wasn't morally right, it was pretty terrible but the oil did actually belong to that company. You were the rightful owners but not the legal ones.

We didn't tell the Shah to commit those massacres, we didn't have control over his foreign policy. It was the CIA's cold war policy- if you were anti communist you were our friend. In hindsight that policy was pretty bad but we had our interests to protect. Life is cruel and harsh

Life was always harsh dear friend,it will even cause humans eat their children alive if they become real hungry.

Well,i have another question:You know in Iran we disagree with communist,but why the NATO members hate it?

[Harry Smith]

Life was always harsh dear friend,it will even cause humans eat their children alive if they become real hungry.

Well,i have another question:You know in Iran we disagree with communist,but why the NATO members hate it?

Because you use to be pro-western, my granddad worked out in Tehran during the 1970's as a surveyor, he said that everything was lined with gold. Iran had been very pro-israeli aswell so after the '79 revolution it pretty much broke the balance down, Iran became anti-western, anti-Israeli and wanted to spread radical Islam. Iran in the early 70's was wanting to become more Islamic.

The bottom line is because Iran has threatened Israel

[Left Now]

Because you use to be pro-western, my granddad worked out in Tehran during the 1970's as a surveyor, he said that everything was lined with gold. Iran had been very pro-israeli aswell so after the '79 revolution it pretty much broke the balance down, Iran became anti-western, anti-Israeli and wanted to spread radical Islam. Iran in the early 70's was wanting to become more Islamic.

The bottom line is because Iran has threatened Israel

That was not Iran actually.If you take a look on history of Iran after 19th century,Iranian people were always the victims of colonization of other western countries,so people disliked those countries which had colonized them.UK was the first country which invade Iran.

The governments of Iran were servants of UK in Ghajar and Pahlavi dynasties,so people wanted a government which was not based on foreign supports,so they decided to have a revolution and the first one was Mosaddegh's and the second one was Khomeini's.

I do not understand what do you really mean by radical islam,because if Iran was looking for radical Islam,then we could force Jews to leave Iran like other Islamic countries.The people didn't want the separation of state and religion in Iran and they voted for that and still the majority of people are supporting the Islamic Republic.

Iranian people hate UK and US governments(not people)because they sacrificed many iranian things for their own advantages since 100 years ago and for UK since 250 years ago.You cannot change a people's mind about UK and US.Also,We know Israel as an illegal country because of reasons,not because they are Jews and we hate Jews;You know them as a legal faction because of reasons too,but as you yourself said,first your national interests are more important.

[britishboy]

That was not Iran actually.If you take a look on history of Iran after 19th century,Iranian people were always the victims of colonization of other western countries,so people disliked those countries which had colonized them.UK was the first country which invade Iran.

The governments of Iran were servants of UK in Ghajar and Pahlavi dynasties,so people wanted a government which was not based on foreign supports,so they decided to have a revolution and the first one was Mosaddegh's and the second one was Khomeini's.

I do not understand what do you really mean by radical islam,because if Iran was looking for radical Islam,then we could force Jews to leave Iran like other Islamic countries.The people didn't want the separation of state and religion in Iran and they voted for that and still the majority of people are supporting the Islamic Republic.

Iranian people hate UK and US governments(not people)because they sacrificed many iranian things for their own advantages since 100 years ago and for UK since 250 years ago.You cannot change a people's mind about UK and US.Also,We know Israel as an illegal country because of reasons,not because they are Jews and we hate Jews;You know them as a legal faction because of reasons too,but as you yourself said,first your national interests are more important.

firstly britian governed 1/4 of the planet at one point so we didnt exactly single out iran and that's no excuse, we invaded America, we best friends were also friends with the commonwealth and were getting along with india who really had a hard time getting independence!

Israel is a new independent country, it meets the description and requirements and is recognized by the un

250 years ago britian and america were completely different countries

and yes of course a countries national interests are important, part of being independent is that we can do what we want as long as it complys with international law and human rights

[Left Now]

Anyway,now days no country has that right to intervene in a country;Neither US nor UK nor any other countries.

[britishboy]

Anyway,now days no country has that right to intervene in a country;Neither US nor UK nor any other countries.

actually we do, for any one of two reasons,
1) defense of yourself or an allie
2) human right abuse

[Left Now]

Then anyone else can do this.For example will you accept that if we intervene in a country like Bahrain or Saudi Arabia to defend our allies and let women to have works in offices and drive?(human rights)

Intervention will only make chaos and democracy will be destroyed,like what US and UK did in 53's.

[Harry Smith]

Anyway,now days no country has that right to intervene in a country;Neither US nor UK nor any other countries.

So Iran by that Theory has no right to interfere in Syria?

[Left Now]

So Iran by that Theory has no right to interfere in Syria?

Not also UK and US.When they are intervening in that country,then we do not have any other choice only stop their intervention.Like what NATO said about Libya.

[britishboy]

Not also UK and US.When they are intervening in that country,then we do not have any other choice only stop their intervention.Like what NATO said about Libya.

lol Russia is stopping NATO but I think an agreement will be made soon, NATO will not listen to Iran as they do not respect the country and I think only Russia, China or of course the UN can stop a NATO mission, Iran interfering will just spark a long awated war of Iran vs NATO

[Left Now]

lol Russia is stopping NATO but I think an agreement will be made soon, NATO will not listen to Iran as they do not respect the country and I think only Russia, China or of course the UN can stop a NATO mission, Iran interfering will just spark a long awated war of Iran vs NATO

Iran is an important ruler in middle east,Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,and Turkey as a NATO member is our friends.Also,now our president is a reformist and i am sure he will repair the relations between Iran and NATO members,but NATO is not allowed to intervene in Syria if UN doesn't let.

[Harry Smith]

Not also UK and US.When they are intervening in that country,then we do not have any other choice only stop their intervention.Like what NATO said about Libya.

But you said that countries have no right to do that, this shows the weakness of your own convictions. You can't say no-one can do it and then say that Iran has a right to do it because the west does it. That's called Hypocrisy

[britishboy]

Iran is an important ruler in middle east,Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,and Turkey as a NATO member is our friends.Also,now our president is a reformist and i am sure he will repair the relations between Iran and NATO members,but NATO is not allowed to intervene in Syria if UN doesn't let.

I doubt the UN will say no, they may not like it but the UN's biggest supporter is NATO and assad is very very bad and Turkey is also friends with the EU and NATO, hopefully war will not come between us but if something will kick it off, it will be you developing nuclear weapons

[Left Now]

But you said that countries have no right to do that, this shows the weakness of your own convictions. You can't say no-one can do it and then say that Iran has a right to do it because the west does it. That's called Hypocrisy

I still say Iran doesn't have that right,but we didn't have anything to do with Syria's civil war before the West supported rebels;Also,many of those rebels are from Jund-o-Allah which is a terrorist group in Iran-balouchistan.Supporting those groups means have a quarrel with Iran too.

[Harry Smith]

I still say Iran doesn't have that right,but we didn't have anything to do with Syria's civil war before the West supported rebels;Also,many of those rebels are from Jaish-o-Allah which is a terrorist group in Iran-balouchistan.Supporting those groups means have a quarrel with Iran too.

How come your Republican guard have been providing both assistance and Training to the Assad regime, in fact you provided training in how to deal with protestors at the start of the 2011 protest before the civil war. You trained Assad's army how to fire and combat unarmed civilians wanting democracy

[Left Now]

How come your Republican guard have been providing both assistance and Training to the Assad regime, in fact you provided training in how to deal with protestors at the start of the 2011 protest before the civil war. You trained Assad's army how to fire and combat unarmed civilians wanting democracy

As you can see now,most of the Syrian rebels are foreign terrorists from Libya,Egypt and Arabia.

However we didn't train them how to deal with civil conflicts.

We only trained Syrian army even before the civil war and since 2005,like what UK was doing for Afghan Polices,we had an agreement with Syria(2005) and Iraq(after US military went out) to train their army in defending progresses.But then the civil war happened and signs of Jundallah operations and foreign supports got appeared.

Also,better to have a look on Bahrain;UK and US Saudi trainers were training Bahraini polices after the protesting against Bahrain monarchy happened.Didn't people of Bahrain want democracy?

[Harry Smith]

As you can see now,most of the Syrian rebels are foreign terrorists from Libya,Egypt and Arabia.

However we didn't train them how to deal with civil conflicts.

We only trained Syrian army even before the civil war and since 2005,like what UK was doing for Afghan Polices,we had an agreement with Syria(2005) and Iraq(after US military went out) to train their army in defending progresses.But then the civil war happened and signs of Jundallah operations and foreign supports got appeared.

Also,better to have a look on Bahrain;UK and US Saudi trainers were training Bahraini polices after the protesting against Bahrain monarchy happened.Didn't people of Bahrain want democracy?

I never praised that, I'm not responsible for the foreign policy of my country. I think it's appalling to do that

Iran reportedly assisted the Syrian government sending it riot control equipment, intelligence monitoring techniques and oil

The Daily Telegraph has claimed in August that a former member of Syria's secret police reported "Iranian snipers" had been deployed in Syria to assist in the crackdown on protests

Mohsen Chizari, the Quds Force’s third-in-command, has visited Syria to train security services to fight against the protestors.

This really looks defensive doesn't it? I don't understand how you can ignore this, Iran is supporting a murderous tyrant. It doesn't matter if some of the groups who oppose him may be extremists,you have no right to deny democracy to Syria

[Left Now]

I never praised that, I'm not responsible for the foreign policy of my country. I think it's appalling to do that







This really looks defensive doesn't it? I don't understand how you can ignore this, Iran is supporting a murderous tyrant. It doesn't matter if some of the groups who oppose him may be extremists,you have no right to deny democracy to Syria

Your sources of news are just against Iran's policies.

"Grand Rank of Leadership of Iran,Ayatollah Khamenei suggested Assad to leave the power after the end of civil wars and leave the fate of his country to a free election"Etela'at newspaper

"Jundallah actions appeared in Syrian bombing between the anti-government protests;"Fars News

"Assad will leave the fate of his country after rebels stop their attacks"Sound of Democracy News

"US officials support Syrian rebels;Yesterday a bus full of Iranian passengers got destroyed by semi-military groups"

Commander in Chief of Iran:"If Syrian anti-government groups want to continue their actions against Iranian passengers in Syria and sacred places of Shias,then we will intervene!"Personal Site of GROL of Iran

"Chemicals found in borders of Turkey and in city of Aleppo"CCTV

"Israel is supporting Syrian rebels with training them and arming them;three Israeli battle cars have been found in recently-recaptured city of Al-Qusayr"

"Iranian victims in wild massacres of Syrian rebels"

"Syrian army massacred three families in Aleppo conflicts"Fars News

"Syrian protesters will never support armed groups":Speaker of "Free Syria" movement

"Conflicts is happening in Syria;Commander Chizari:Qods forces commander and head of training Syrian armies since 2005 has been summoned by Syrian government to establish a security base for his forces,Iranian training forces will get out of Syria as soon as possible."Fars News before the civil war being appeared

Leader of Freedom army of Syria:"UK,US and French military trainers will train syrian freedom fighters against Assad"RT News

[Capto]

It's hard to find an unbiased news source, if not impossible.

[Harry Smith]

It's hard to find an unbiased news source, if not impossible.

Even if a source is Biased doesn't mean that it isn't valid or accurate

[Left Now]

Even if a source is Biased doesn't mean that it isn't valid or accurate

Right.

Russia Today is a Biased and valid(Maybe,it is not possible for a source of news to be valid most of the times,it is why i do not trust our own medias too)source of news.But i trust none of them(BBC,CNN,RT,CCTV and even IRIB and IRINN)

I will check both sides to more enlighten a new for myself.However still it will not be completely clear.Maybe 60% or 70% of it.

[Capto]

Even if a source is Biased doesn't mean that it isn't valid or accurate

Well you'd be hard pressed to find one.

[Harry Smith]

Well you'd be hard pressed to find one.

Not really, if you look at any historical enquiry they will all have to use sources which have an element of bias.

For example I looked at Margaret Thatcher's autobiography and when she talked about the poll tax riots she was very biased against the protesters. However she presented information about the police causalities, which were in fact accurate.

[britishboy]

Not really, if you look at any historical enquiry they will all have to use sources which have an element of bias.

For example I looked at Margaret Thatcher's autobiography and when she talked about the poll tax riots she was very biased against the protesters. However she presented information about the police causalities, which were in fact accurate.

out of curiosity do you like Margaret Thatcher?

[Capto]

Not really, if you look at any historical enquiry they will all have to use sources which have an element of bias.

For example I looked at Margaret Thatcher's autobiography and when she talked about the poll tax riots she was very biased against the protesters. However she presented information about the police causalities, which were in fact accurate.

That's exactly what I said.

[Harry Smith]

out of curiosity do you like Margaret Thatcher?

I believe the term is ding dong the witch is dead

That's exactly what I said.

Ah yes, sorry I thought you meant that Id be hard pressed to find a valid source which is also biased

[britishboy]

I believe the term is ding dong the witch is dead

ill take that as a no:P

[Left Now]

Not really, if you look at any historical enquiry they will all have to use sources which have an element of bias.

For example I looked at Margaret Thatcher's autobiography and when she talked about the poll tax riots she was very biased against the protesters. However she presented information about the police causalities, which were in fact accurate.

Historical enquiries will not just use one kind of biased sources.The historians will use at least three kind of sources with three different biases and maybe against each other.

[britishboy]

Historical enquiries will not just use one kind of biased sources.The historians will use at least three kind of sources with three different biases and maybe against each other.

the facts are always right, how its presented is biased

[Left Now]

the facts are always right, how its presented is biased

But there is no media in the world which will provide good conditions for you to know what are the facts.For example i myself,I personally do not trust medias,but more i trust people.This is why i have joint this forum to know people from all over the world and also their ideas about their countries and mine.

Until now i have recognized many things;things which no media will tell them to me.No sources of news are completely valid,but the ideas of different people are always valid.

[Harry Smith]

the facts are always right, how its presented is biased

Well that's just plain wrong, they're have been many examples where news and media sources have presented facts which were in fact wrong

[britishboy]

Well that's just plain wrong, they're have been many examples where news and media sources have presented facts which were in fact wrong

no I mean how they present them is biased