1953

For Aynak information.

Below is American view from the event.

"The question of why the American government was willing to risk its international reputation in order to overthrown the Iranian government is a difficult one. It is tempting to explain US actions in purely economic terms. After all, the American companies owned a 40% share in the international oil consortium.52 Although this interpretation cannot be entirely dismissed, the more accurate interpretation is that the US genuinely feared the impact that Communism would have were it to take root in Iran and mistook Mossadegh’s nationalism for Communism. " Danial Goldsmith

Below is from Mr.Gasiorowski. Unlike Steve Kinzer, he is well informed and unbias. He did extensive research about the event of U.S intervention in 1953. He had access to all presidential files and records. He is not from Kish mish university as Arj was saying. His work is the most conclusive references we have from Mosaddeq's  era. Let's see what he is saying:

Mark J. Gasiorowski
Department of Political Science
Louisiana State University  

"What motives led U.S. policy makers to overthrow Mosaddeq? It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policy makers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production.(68) On the face of it, this argument has considerable merit. The Eisenhower administration was certainly favorable to U.S. business interests, and the Dulles brothers' law firm had often represented U.S. oil companies in legal matters. Moreover, the final agreement worked out in 1954 with the Zahedi government gave U.S. companies a 40 Iranian oil production, which had previously been controlled by the British.

While this view cannot entirely be refuted, it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring. The Cold War was at its height in the early 1950s, and the Soviet Union was viewed as an expansionist power seeking world domination. Eisenhower had made the Soviet threat a key issue in the 1952 elections, accusing the Democrats of being soft on communism and of having "lost China." Once in power, the new administration quickly sought to put its views into practice: the State Department was purged of homosexuals and suspected communists, steps were taken to strengthen the Western alliance, and initiatives were begun to bolster the Western position in Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia. Viewed in this context, and coming as it did only two weeks after Eisenhower's inauguration, the decision to overthrow Mosaddeq appears merely as one more step in the global effort of the Eisenhower administration to block Soviet expansionism. (69)

Moreover, the major U.S. oil companies were not interested in Iran at this time. A glut existed in the world oil market. The U.S. majors had increased their production in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1951 in order to make up for the loss of Iranian production; operating in Iran would force them to cut back production in these countries which would create tensions with Saudi and Kuwaiti leaders. Furthermore, if nationalist sentiments remained high in Iran, production there would be risky. U.S. oil companies had shown no interest in Iran in 1951 and 1952. By late 1952, the Truman administration had come to believe that participation by U.S. companies in the production of Iranian oil was essential to maintain stability in Iran and keep Iran out of Soviet hands. In order to gain the participation of the major U.S. oil companies, Truman offered to scale back a large anti-trust case then being brought against them. The Eisenhower administration shared Truman's views on the participation of U.S. companies in Iran and also agreed to scale back the anti-trust case. Thus, not only did U.S. majors not want to participate in Iran at this time, it took a major effort by U.S. policymakers to persuade them to become involved. (70)

The Eisenhower administration therefore seems to have been motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran rather than by a desire to promote U.S. commercial interest. It should be noted that most middle level State Department and CIA officials did not believe that a coup was necessary to avert a communist takeover. Neither Henry Byroade, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for the Middle East, not Ambassador Henderson favored a coup in early 1953. As discussed above, Iran specialists in the CIA analysts did not regard Mosaddeq as a communist and the Tudeh was not believed to be capable of seizing power at this time. Rather, the Tudeh was thought to be pursuing a "popular front" strategy by infiltrating the army and the government bureaucracy and trying to gain favor with Mosaddeq and other National Front leaders. CIA analysts had concluded in November 1952 that a Tudeh takeover was not likely before the end of 1953. Moreover, the Iranian economy had become relatively stable by this time, so a general collapse was not viewed as imminent. The fears of a communist takeover that prompted the coup therefore seem to have originated at the highest levels of the CIA and the State Department, and were not shared by lower-level Iran specialist. (71)

Below is what official document from Tudeh party says:

"

According to one observer:

although diverse elements participated in the July uprising, the impartial observer must confess that the Tudeh played an important part - perhaps even the most important part. ... If in the rallies before March 1952 one-third of the demonstrators had been Tudeh and two-thirds had been National Front, after March 1952, the proportions were reversed.[29]

All above is consistance with Winston Churchil interpretation of event in August 1953. Rapid influence of Soviet Union through Tudeh party in Iran. BTW, Beside Dr. Fatimi, none of National front received death penalty,Tudeh members did.

Now, you tell me who has close mind and doesn't want to see the reality?  you still didn't answer my question that what J.M wanted.

Siavash

Dear aynak

Good answer. It's useless discussing anything with those having lived in denial since 60 years (or almost). They'll always go on repeating the same thing over and over again, while the world has long passed...

//eu.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/tim1970/tim19700...

Aria that was a good explanation, truthful, specific.

I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks

Aria: Cho nadydand Hagheehat Rah Afsaneh Zadand.

It is clear to me you are not seeking the Truth, you have made up your mind and there is no point in discussing anything furhter.

This fundamentally is no different than a Mojahedeen supporter, where his leadership can shake hands with Saddam, have a member divorce his wife so that the leader can marry .... But the sick charlatan  are as good as saints to the supporters.

Same as Khomaneyy supporters.   He kills thousands and destroys Iran, and someone comes back and finds an excuse for the war Khomanee prologned and the people he killed, while some other fanatic supporters of Khomanee are still trying to  get us back to his Golden age!

This is all part of a brain washing mechnism that certain segments are suspectable to.   If I told you sky is blue, you would not accept that.

I summarize the depth of falacy of your argument in a single paragraph:

You write:

"Mrs. Albright’s apology

..... Please read one of my earlier posts on this blog as I specifically
commented on this matter and indicated as to how it was an act as part
of a bigger behind-the-scene attempts between Clinton and Khatami
administrations to establish official relationship between the two
countries, which was derailed by the hardliners in Iran."

With naive reasoning like the above, where a person such as yourself does not even think of the ramification of his statement before writing the above, how can I even attempt to reason?  I know THINKING in general is not a virtue of you good folks,  and is to be avoided at any cost,  but I would leave you with this (and that perhaps shows my lack of understanding of your inability for understanding, but still):

 66 years ago U.S government dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshyma and Nakazaki,  (that is 8 years Before 1953 coup).  The bombs caused hundreds of thousands of deaths (obviously including children and many innocents) and some are still dealing with the aftermath.   Yet, U.S government NEVER apologized, Why?  Because from the U.S foriegn policy prespective this was a war time strategy  that helped them win and the action was justified.  Japan is one of U.S's closest allies, and many in the world have since condmned U.S for that act.   Now some genius like yourself (perhaps with the help of the other scholar Mirfetroos) is telling us, the U.S apologized for its interfernce in 1953 coup, and critisized  its own action  just  to keep Khatami happy, and at the end it came up with nothing?   Get a grip dude.   You can believe in what you want and keep thinking 53 was a popular uprising, against the dictatorial rule of Mossadegh who was about turning iran to the communists.  That's just turning reality upside down.

Ms. or Mr. Aynak:

Had the Shah not issued the royal decree as per his constitutional power an illegal government by Mossadegh (having the parliament dissolved) would have remained in power.

It is hard to guess as to what would have happened next  had the royal decree not been issued, as it would be only speculation at this point.

A weak Mossadegh government would have been very vulnerable to a communist takeover, regardless of any specific scenario for such a takeover: e.g. political assassinations, bombings, civil war, Soviet invasion (like Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan).

Here are some facts:

The motivation behind the decision to remove Mossadegh from his post

The tension between the Shah and Mossadegh was not an instigation by U.S. and U.K.  It was long in the brewing and works.   Mossadegh, despite his great and euphoric victory of the Oil Nationalization, had been checkmated by his own actions:  1-miscalculation on the ability to sell oil (Sanctions) 2- Lack of any economic plan to move forward 3 – his stubborn attitude to step aside so that another prime-minister could take charge to pursue a new political solution, as the Shah suggested to him 4 – his refusal to work with the US through its assistance program 5 – international sanctions to purchase the Iranian oil

The above factors had created a state of chaos in the society that was only helping the Tudeh and its masters, Soviets, to benefit from.    His unwillingness or inability to curb the activities of his own foreign minister who constantly attacked the Shah and his family did not help the matters either.   The Shah, until 1953, had acted as a constitutional monarch and was popular by most segments of the society, his image was very different than the 1979 image.

So, the Shah and Mossadegh had come to the opposite ends of a political game.   Not only Shah was unhappy with the state of country but others close to him were also forces that had motivated him to take an action against Mossadegh.  The most important of them all was his young and beautiful Queen, Soraya.

Soraya’s book, “Ghasr-e-Tanhaie,” shows that despite her young age she was an extremely smart woman who did not appreciate the way the prime-minister treated her husband despite the façade of the politeness between the King and his prime-minister.  She read between the lines that at the end of the day he was a Qajar and the young Shah, the son of a Cossack officer responsible for toppling the Qajar’s dynasty.  Whether her take was accurate or not is how much we can trust her female intuition, but she definitely was an immediate, intimate and added support to the Shah’s own feelings about Mossadegh and where he was taking the country with him.  The Queen was not the only one, Shah’s twin sister, was another force who was not on friendly terms with the prime-minister and his foreign minister.  The minister of court, Hossien Ala, and the rest of the courtiers; together with high-ranking military officers who had served under Reza Shah, they were all behind the Shah on this matter.   The list goes on as members of Mossadegh’s own circle of friends began leaving him and joined the other side.   The overall atmosphere in the society wanted a change out of economic misery and social instability and political chaos.

Did the Americans at some point ask the Shah to use the military to remove Mossadegh? Yes, they did.  Did he do it?  No, he responded that it was unconstitutional.   But, he also said that if Mossadegh were to dissolve the parliament then he would use his legal powers to remove him.   It was the US policy as part of the cold war to combat Soviets.  Those policies were in-line with the Shah’s and others’ wishes for their country not fall to communism and have a way out of its current political situation ( as mentioned above).

The night Colonel Nassiri went to visit Dr. Mosssadegh, he was only a messenger of a letter, his dismissal by the Shah.  He did not storm his house by use of any force.  A military coup has a definition, Nasiri’s visit was not such a thing.

The day after the letter was delivered the Radio announced that a group of Imperial Guard officers had staged a coup.  This was a lie.  What coup?  They only delivered a letter.  Mossadegh did not reveal the letter to the public because he knew that he had exceeded his powers by violating the constitution.

 Zahedi’s selection

As dissatisfaction with Mossadegh grew and his own allies and friends began leaving him, they all gathered around General Zahedi.  Zahedi was a strong character with a great military resume: having defeated Khazzal in Khuzestan, Ismaeel-Agha-Simitgo in Kurdistan, tamed and curbed Mamasani tribes in Fars; he had also been a key Cossack officer who had fought against and defeated Mirza Kuchak Khan.  He had serious differences with Mossadegh about how to deal with the current economic and social problems.   These differences increased with time as Zahedi and others saw that Mossadegh did not have any specific plans to deal with problems, was not willing to step aside and wanted to continue by the populist method, which had been effective during Nationalization, but not an effective tool to manage the problems at hand, and dissolving the parliament. 

 The Shah was aware of all the above.   He trusted Zahehi as a nationalist, as a man who had served under his father, and knew of his abilities as a military and political leader.  He also knew that Zahedi had become like magnet for those who had been alienated by Mossadegh.   So, his decision was based on these factors.  

Did the issue of Zahedi’s appointment come between the Shah and the U.S. ambassador?  Yes, it did.  The U.S.  knew of Zahedi and his anti-communist background and also of his new rising status among those who were opposing Mossadegh.  

Did Zahedi ever meet with any U.S. official ?   No, he never did.

Money to Thugs

Did U.S. and U.K. money come to some street thugs and prostitutes?  I am sure that it did.  The Rashidian brothers benefit from this by acting as U.K. agents?  I am sure that they did.

But the magnitude of what took place on the streets was beyond two briefcases full of dollars and/or pounds.  The Iranian population, due to two years of hardship, was at the brinks of boiling.  There were  thousands who poured onto streets of Tehran.  A few hundreds were probably were organized by the U.S./U.K. money but not the thousands who wanted a sincere and better change.

Military units reactions on the streets

Due to the martial law that Mossadegh had declared the military units were already on the streets to protect the order.  With the exception of a handful of units that were connected to the officers who held meetings in Hesarak and acted on specific orders (at Bazar, Baharestan and toward Mossadegh’s house) the rest of the units were not connected to any secret plans.  But, due to the fact that this was a monarchist army it reacted in favor of the Shah organically.

Mrs. Albright’s apology

Please read one of my earlier posts on this blog as I specifically commented on this matter and indicated as to how it was an act as part of a bigger behind-the-scene attempts between Clinton and Khatami administrations to establish official relationship between the two countries, which was derailed by the hardliners in Iran.

Fanatic!

I forget who said it, but by another quote: "A fanatic is one who insists on his/her argument even when proven wrong."

...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettl...

Thats funny we are having a discussion about fanatics

on this blog.

//iranian.com/main/blog/amirparvizforsecu...

such people are even worse than the mullahs, because the not only brought them to power, but are prolonging their hold on power.

A good quote

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
~Winston Churchill

Aynak, your comment did not address the issue

The core issue for Jebhe Meli was : Shah must REIGN, not RULE. They believe in "Constitutional monarch" all of the sudden, they are saying the state should be "Democratic Republic of Iran" under hegemoney of Mosaddeq and his comrades 20,000 official member of Tudeh party back by Soviet. Is that the meaning of shah must Reign,not rule. I don't think so. The similar situation happened in 1979. Jebhe Meli was critical of shah by speaking of "democracy". Now, as soon as Khomainie returned to Iran they voted "YES" to Islamic republic by saying "that is democracy". please listen to Sanjabi's tape from those days. And please don't give credit to few C.I.A or F.B.I or K.G.B agents for Iran history. That is Kinzer trick. Please don't follow his none sense. Give credit to Iranian people. Few F.B.I, CIA, K.G.B agents don't make Iran history.  Mass of Iran make history. Something that you should always remember: shah in 1953 is different with shah in 1979.

Shah in 1953 was loved by majority of Iranian people.

Shah in 1979 was hated by everybody, even by his top paid generals.

1953 is compeletly different from what we saw in 1979.  Different era and different outcome. The question still stands: Are these people here saying shah shouldn't return and let Mosaddeq and his comrades Tudeh party 20,000 members back by Soviet Union annonouce "Democratic Republic of Iran" and lead the nation? Is that the meaning of constitutional monarch?

Thank you

Dear Aria,

Thank you for your very kind words.  I am truly humbled.

I think this has been a fruitful discussion and Ihope one day,

we can have such free expression of thoughts in the land where we all love,  Iran.

F.A.

Daer Ms. Amini:

I want to thank you for tolerating differing opinions, such as mine, about a subject matter that is very dear to your heart on different levels, including a personal one.

I cannot help but admire your grace in this regard.

With utmost respect.

Dear Aynak and Dear Amir-Parvarz

Dear Aynak:

I am heading out of town for two days, so I will respond when I come back or if I get a chance while I am on my trip. 

Dear Amir-Parvarz:

I will gladly review your blog and give you my opinion as soon as I get an opportunity.

Regards, 

Re: Confused people

Siavash, please read back the exchange.   If Shah asked for U.S intervention (and not the other way around) according to your version, why then CIA had to convince him to come back to Iran, and forced him according to the CIA doc  to even give the decree to Moosadegh?  Note, the point here:   Even though there was no lost love between Shah and Mossadegh, it was not Shah driving this, it was U.K playing U.S fear and driving the coup.

So the whole conention here is over:

a:If as some of you folks point out, Shah asked for help from U./U.K to supposedly counter the issues Mossadegh created (i.e Nationalization of oil, and dismantling the Majless, Chaos that was in Iran ...)

b:Or 180's opposite, he did not initiate it,  it was U.K and U.S who forced him to go with their plans?

All evidence except those by a Honarary doctorate from Global University of KishMish point to B and not A.   Once you open your mind and accept that REALITY,  then there is no further discussion, that the whole thing was  started on fear of U.S based on U.K provocation and NOT  a real threat because of oil nationalization or even closoure of Majless. Plain and simple.

Confused people

Our oil nationalized in Feb. 1952.

Now, let's move a little forward. Let's move to 1 year and 7 months later, means August 1953.

There is a big political turmoil inside the country that pursuaded shah to leave the country and going to Rome. Shah in his best intention was seeking help from U.S to save Iran from the hands of communism. U.S Help was provided and shah returned to Iran after 3 days. Friends indeed are friends in need.

By reading what Ms. Amini, Arj, Aynak and Parham is saying shah shouldn't get help from U.S to return. He should let Mosaddeq and his comrades 20,000 official members of Tudeh party annonounce "Democratic Republic of Iran" and both of these party run the country and shah stay in Rome or whatever. In other word, shah should be compleletely out of picture after fled to Rome in August 1953. Subsequently,  according to these people's assessment, Iran would have been like a paradise afterward. More the less, the same thing that Khomainie was promising in 1978.  This is what I am getting from reading all these write ups.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, what happened to "shah must REIGN, not Rule" or shah must obey "constitutional monarch", not walk over it. That constitutional monarch is foundalmentally different with "Democratic Republic of Iran" under hegemony of Mosaddeq and Tudeh party back by Soviet Union. That constitutional monarch doesn't say shah should be out of picture. Sounds like we are dealing with group of confused people here who didn't even know what they really wanted.  

Aria what did you think about this?

//iranian.com/main/blog/amirparvizforsecu...

aynak, we are not real people, but your spirit angels in heaven

having fun with you.

About the US role, it would be easier for both of us if you just admit that Mossadegh was a despot dictator with a poor sense of timing who betrayed the Shah, after the Shah helped save his life.

After breaking the law of the land he swore to uphold, his leadership was in question.  No one has any problem with what he did against foreign forces and his trickery against them in favor of Iran, he was good for that, but closing parliament, refusng to step down.  What law was he going by?  Was the king such an enemy of the country that he should be treated the same way as the Brits or Americans? 

It's just hard to forgive the unforgivable from my perspective here in heaven, so I have to tease you until you acknowledge the right of the Shah to up hold the law and request help to perform Mossadeghs removal from power.

Re: Aria (are you serious?)

Aria, I don't know if you are one of my friends
trying to pull my leg, or just misinfomed about this subject, here's my last attempt:

Aria  writes:

"Thank you for your comments and good question/observation about the accuracy of 20%.  May be a little bit less or more, the point was that other significant factors based on historical facts made Ajax a slice of a much bigger pie, that contributed to his downfall. "

You are welcome. The
corner stone of your argument is U.S's involvement was --immaterial--,
my guess is that's why you used 20% figure (although you admit you have
no basis for using this).   Yet this casual carelessness with a number
(20%) is difference between if it were the Shah and people (according to
you) who wanted to fix Mossadegh's wrong doings (according to you and
Mirfetroos) or if it was really the U.K and U.S pressing for all of
this?   I hope you agree if the main force driving this is U.S, then all
the reasons you enumerated, take a back seat as the core reason were
the foreign interests and NOT Shah or Iranian people as the driving
force for the coup.

The question then 
is simple:   Would there have been a coup/a decree from Shah to dismiss
Mossadegh or not, had it not been for U.S  forcing Shah to do so?

a:Who selected Zahedi as replacement for Mossadegh?

b:Did CIA pay money to thugs and prostitutes to come to street?

c:Did CIA send money in the amount of 10,000 to Kashani, and what was Kashani's role in this?

d:According to CIA's own record and account, is
this the first CIA orchestrated coup?  and did other coups then follow
using 53 coup as a blue print?

e:What the heck does Tuedeh party asking for abolishing Monarchy has anything to do with Mossadegh?

f:Is there ANY document showing Mossadegh had any connection to Soviet Union?

.......

In
all, you must show, that a motion to remove Mossadegh from power was
already in effect, WITHOUT  CIA in the picture and CIA simply helped
expedite the matter (and then give it a minor role).

In reality,  U.S is on record PUSHING shah to agree with the coup.   If
all the claims you are making were in fact the reason for the coup, how
can you explain Shah's  reluctance to sign Mossadegh's dismissal
decree?   From CIA records:

The Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written
royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the
father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to
keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before
the coup succeeded.[1]

Part of the problem of using "honorary-doctorate" like Mirfetroos as
reference is you get into contradictions that does not even make
sense.   So why was the Shah so reluctant to sign the decree, if he was
so in agreement with your top 10 reasons for dismissing Mossadegh?   Why
would U.S need to twist his arms?   Is U.S/CIA document incorrect and
are they lying?

If Shah did the coup on his own, why did U.S  Secretary of State
Madeleine K. Albright, acknowledge US's pivotal role in the coup and:

"The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for
strategic reasons," she said. "But the coup was clearly a setback for
Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many
Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their
internal affairs."[2]

So why would U.S government agree to the negative role it played and
take responsibility for an action which according to your list comes at
item #10 (last in your list) with you attaching a 20% or less value to
it?

So the evidence shows the answer to the question I posed:   Would there
have been a coup/decree for dismissal of Mossadegh, without U.S/U.K
pressure, is NO.   So all the domestic reasoning you are providing, in
fact may be minor and amount to the topping on the whole pie, (to use your anaology) which was AJAX operation driven by CIA, due to U.K anymosity toward Mossadegh because of oil nationalization.

[1]://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
[2]://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

well done Aria, good balanced summary

I wonder why the USA doesn't place an embargo on IRI, other than the fact that they want to keep the regime and harm the people with sharia in govt?

Ms. Or Mr. Aynak:

Thank you for your comments and good question/observation about the accuracy of 20%.  May be a little bit less or more, the point was that other significant factors based on historical facts made Ajax a slice of a much bigger pie, that contributed to his downfall.

These other factors are:

1.       Mossadegh dissolving the parliament without legal constitutional power.

2.       Mossadegh’s miscalculation about the prospect of selling oil to the work market. 

3.       Mossadegh’s mismanagement, or for the lack of a better word, lack of management for dealing with

Inflation and unemployment.

4.       Mossadegh’s unwillingness to utilize American aid offers from 1951 to 1953, loans and economic assistance.  The US, unlike UK, wanted to assist Mossadegh’s government so that it would not be aligned with the Soviets, from 1951 to the early part of 1953.  Mossadegh refused these offers and it was only then that the US went along with the UK plan

5.       Tudeh party’s activities, especially calling for the abolition of Monarchy and the establishment of a republic.

6.       The fabric of the Imperial Army and its reaction to Tudeh party’s activities, No. 5.

7.       Mossadegh’s refusal to give up the premiership, as it had been suggested to him by the Shah, so that another prime-minister could take over and end the embargo

8.       General state/mood of public due to the economic hardship and the political instability in the country.

9.       The irresponsible activities of Dr. Fatemi

10.  Ajax operation

Respectfully,

Shahollahis is oxyhmoron word

The word "Shahollahis" is consist of 2 conraditory terms.

A. Shah which has over 5000 years history of Padeshahi behind it. 5000+ years of pride. Great civilalization of Persian Empire.

B. Allah which has 1400 years history of bare feet, bedraggled desert arabs behind it.

These 2 words don't go together. It is like saying snowy hot summer. Eighter is is hot or it snowy. Patriatic people is correct word.

For our friends on Iran.com:

 Iran has never been colony of British. That is insult to Iranian people. Colony means NOKAR. As far as I remember, Iranian families used to have nokar from country Filipean when shah was on power, but they have never been Nokar of Brits. Brits just received to the level of industrialization sooner than other countries. We needed thier industralization.

We are talking about 2 different eras:

1."Colonial power" sucking our oil which initiated when Qjar mongolian dynasty was on power. It was before 1917 Russian revolution. 

2,  "free world" which is new concept initiated after WWII. It refers to western countries versus Communist block after 1945.  

Oil concession was signed by Mosaddeq opium addict uncle known as Mozafar-din-shah with Brits in 1901. Mosaddeq didn't protest at that time. He was 19 years old. That doesn't make Iran colony of Brits. In fact,  when Anglo-Iranian oil company was sucking our oil, Mosaddeq was trying to get a Swiss citizenship and live the rest of his life in Switzerland. Apparently his application was rejected in 1914. At that time, before Oct. communist revolution of 1917, there was no such a thing as "free world" because there was no socialist country at that time.  

 Seems un-knowingly some people make mistake between Iran and India as far as colonization concerned. They can be pakistani or Indians who are trying to promote themselves by putting down Iran. Who knows who is behind these fake names on this site.

 It is good to read the history of Surinam, Guyana, India, south africa and other colonies of Dutch and Brits, and portugues. It is good to get a good grasp of what colony means. BTW, These colonies have long history of slaverly or Nokari. Something that never happened to Iranian people. We are proud of that.

Payandeh our Aryan Land Iran.

Fariba

No problem.

I guess you're talking about Ahmad-Abad, because they've already destroyed his house on Kakh avenue. That was done in 1998 already.

my mistake Parham

Yes, you are right. My apologies.

it was red wine.  I hope one day, Mosaddeq's house will be a museum for all Iranians to go see. Last time I visited in 2005, it was in total disaster both structurally and otherwise. 

Though Mosaddeq's (his wife's) car was kept in a side compound.  

Khatami's minister had visited the place and the caretaker told me he was going to send people to do som renovations.   Nothing was done. 

Arj

Incredible, isn't it?

Lol indeed...!

Chief among this "free world" were the colonialist British who had sucked our nation dry through their Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.!

Dear Parham, as I said before, no IRI agents are necessary. Shahollahis do a great job at thrashing themselves on their own!

. . . . and the funny part is ....

None of these people, who keep saying mosaddeq democratic government, or their comrades, Tudeh party members, or the sympathizers of these 2 parties migrated to those so called "Democratic" countries after revolution. They all migrated to U.S or to western Europe. In reality, These hypocrat people choosed the same path that shah choosed back in 1953 during 3 days in Rome. In reality, these hypocrat people by their action approved shah's decision, although their mouth is saying something else. By migrating to western world these hypocrat people approved superiority of "free world" over "mosaddeq democratic goverments". What a bunch of two faces rats.Hypocracy hurts our nation big time.  

Siavash

lol@...

"...Shah's smart and quick decision to save Iran by taking side with "free world" v.s communist block during his 3 day stay in Rome."

Aria, just in case you needed an illustration for that word we were discussing...

Re Sha'ban Jafari

He tells Homa Sarshar that he was in fact in jail that day (28 Mordad). The fact is, they liberated him in the afternoon (or noon?), thus all the pictures you see of him either beating people up or demonstrating on the car that has "a'lahazrat"'s big picture on it.
Whether he received money from the British (where in fact it should be indirectly from the Americans) remains irrelevant.
Again, as if we were donkeys.

"Be gorbeh goftan Ardeshir Zahedi o Pesare Kashani o oon Toodeyieh ke nashod shahed."
Goft "Pas aslan Sha'boon Bimokh."

Fariba

I did not say Massoumeh Mossadeq was murdered by IR agents. I think it was Red Wine who came up with that notion. In fact, I had not heard that version yet. What I remembered about that one was close to this:
//www.iran-newspaper.com/1381/810717/html/cas...

I was speaking about Mossadeq's daughter, Khadijeh, whom you inferred was not taken care of by his family at the end of her life. What I said was in fact she was helped by Mossadeq's family in Switzerland, notably by his nephew.

What if shah wouldn't get help from U.S. . ...

Shah's smart and quick decision to save Iran by taking side with "free world" v.s communist block during his 3 day stay in Rome is very crucial. Let's take a look at official document of Tudeh party. Let's see what disaster was waiting for Iran if shah wouldn't seek help from U.S. Let's see what would have been happened if Mosaddeq and his comrades which consisted 20,000 official members of tudeh party were in charge. Let's open our eyes to the reality. 

"It is clear that the Tudeh passed its intelligence on the pending coup to the prime-minister on August 15, 1953. The period August 16-19, 1953 was a short and crucial one and needed a quick, focused, and determined reaction by the Tudeh leadership if the situation was to be turned around. Instead, chaos and lack of determination prevailed. While on his own initiative, one Tudeh officer, Lt. Ali Ashraf Shoja'iyan, helped Mosaddeq's guards arrest Col. Ne'matollah Nasiri the courier of the royal decree dismissing Mosaddeq, the rest of the Military Organization did not take any action. On the seventeenth, the party began to call for abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a democratic republic. Tudeh members were instructed to join demonstrations for the new cause."

Many people blame shah for taking side with free world. This is also one of Mullah's dirty tactic to help them to stay in power. Shamelessly , the same people either migrated to U.S  or they are trying to get U.S or European countries' visa. None of them were willing to live even 1 day under so called "democratic government"  Hypocracy hurts our nation big time.