No surprise: 1953 Iran coup "carried out under CIA direction"

[garbon]

I think Max's point is that such principles are the best possible starting point from which to analyze policy decisions.

And I disagree. I don't think it would be a good idea to stick to such principles if they led to say - the destruction of the state (aside from the sort of reason that the DoI further outlines). So for instance if we choose not to institute a coup against an elected government that we fear is out to destroy us - I think that's a mistake.

Not speaking with regards to this coup, but just an example.

[Admiral Yi]

No, it was the US (and particularly the CIA) convincing confederates who had much to gain to go along with the US plot.  You make it sound like this was an internal matter only.

No, I make it sound like it wasn't extra-constitutional.  The confederate happened to be the Iranian head of state and he happened to have the constitutional power to remove the prime minister.

[crazy canuck]

I think Max's point is that such principles are the best possible starting point from which to analyze policy decisions.

And I disagree. I don't think it would be a good idea to stick to such principles if they led to say - the destruction of the state (aside from the sort of reason that the DoI further outlines). So for instance if we choose not to institute a coup against an elected government that we fear is out to destroy us - I think that's a mistake.

Not speaking with regards to this coup, but just an example.

But that is an example of what I said in action.  You start from the proposition that a democratically elected government is good.  You then introduce a fact which, in very limited circumstances justifies taking some action.

This is nothing more than Berkut's observation that there better be a damned good reason before this sort of thing is done.

[crazy canuck]

No, it was the US (and particularly the CIA) convincing confederates who had much to gain to go along with the US plot.  You make it sound like this was an internal matter only.

No, I make it sound like it wasn't extra-constitutional.  The confederate happened to be the Iranian head of state and he happened to have the constitutional power to remove the prime minister.

Which is complete bullshit.  The CIA enlisted the help of pro-monarchy military leaders within the armed forces to pull off the coup.  Hell the CIA agent in question was riding around in a jeep with a machine gun in hand making sure the military assets at his disposal were taking control of key centres.  It was only after the CIA led military units had taken control that your so called "constitutional" transition took place.

The analogy would be if the US somehow pursuaded the Govenor General of Canada to select a different governing party.  On paper sure you could say that was constitutional but it would turn a recklessly blind eye to what was actually happening.

[garbon]

I think Max's point is that such principles are the best possible starting point from which to analyze policy decisions.

And I disagree. I don't think it would be a good idea to stick to such principles if they led to say - the destruction of the state (aside from the sort of reason that the DoI further outlines). So for instance if we choose not to institute a coup against an elected government that we fear is out to destroy us - I think that's a mistake.

Not speaking with regards to this coup, but just an example.

But that is an example of what I said in action.  You start from the proposition that a democratically elected government is good.  You then introduce a fact which, in very limited circumstances justifies taking some action.

This is nothing more than Berkut's observation that there better be a damned good reason before this sort of thing is done.

But that's what I take issue with. I don't start with the assumption that all democratically elected governments are equal so I wouldn't say that any specific democratically elected government is good.

[Jacob]

No, I make it sound like it wasn't extra-constitutional.  The confederate happened to be the Iranian head of state and he happened to have the constitutional power to remove the prime minister.

What difference does that make?

That it was constitutional does not make it any less anti-democratic, nor any less CIA initiated.

[crazy canuck]

But that's what I take issue with. I don't start with the assumption that all democratically elected governments are equal so I wouldn't say that any specific democratically elected government is good.

I didnt say all democratically elected governments are equal.  Before you start making the analysis of which are good and which are bad you still start from the proposition that democracy itself is good.  Otherwise you wouldnt need to carry out the further analysis at all.  You could just remove all democratically elected governments if you didnt think democracy was worth anything.

[garbon]

But that's what I take issue with. I don't start with the assumption that all democratically elected governments are equal so I wouldn't say that any specific democratically elected government is good.

I didnt say all democratically elected governments are equal.  Before you start making the analysis of which are good and which are bad you still start from the proposition that democracy itself is good.  Otherwise you wouldnt need to carry out the further analysis at all.  You could just remove all democratically elected governments if you didnt think democracy was worth anything.

Well actually I'd step backwards and say that we need to have a damn good reason to decide to overthrow any government regardless of whether or not it is democratic. Now perhaps one might lower the bar for that reason on a dictatorship for example, but I think it still needs to be significant.

[crazy canuck]

Well actually I'd step backwards and say that we need to have a damn good reason to decide to overthrow any government regardless of whether or not it is democratic. Now perhaps one might lower the bar for that reason on a dictatorship for example, but I think it still needs to be significant.

Sure, but the fact you might require better reasons for overthrowing a democratic government speaks to a reference back to the founding principle of the importance of democracy.  incidentally, to bring this all back to the topic - that is exactly the uneasiness the Americans first had about any intervention. 

[Admiral Yi]

Which is complete bullshit.  The CIA enlisted the help of pro-monarchy military leaders within the armed forces to pull off the coup.  Hell the CIA agent in question was riding around in a jeep with a machine gun in hand making sure the military assets at his disposal were taking control of key centres.  It was only after the CIA led military units had taken control that your so called "constitutional" transition took place.

The analogy would be if the US somehow pursuaded the Govenor General of Canada to select a different governing party.  On paper sure you could say that was constitutional but it would turn a recklessly blind eye to what was actually happening.

Complete bullshit to me means that my facts are incorrect, which they are not.

A coup is (in my understanding) a function of the legality of the seizure of power, not whether the US has a preference in the outcome.  A senate impeaching a president, even if the US is happy to see him go, and even if the US lobbied the senate in question to do so, is not a coup.  A monarch removing a PM from office, when the constitution of the country grants him that power, is not a coup.

[Admiral Yi]

What difference does that make?

That it was constitutional does not make it any less anti-democratic, nor any less CIA initiated.

You could ask Crazy Canuck the same question.  Why is he so set on holding on to the word coup to describe what happened?  I already mentioned to Max that I don't think it makes a lot of difference.  I'm not contesting that it was CIA-initiated, nor am I contesting that Mossadegh had won his office fairly by the rules of the game.

[crazy canuck]

Which is complete bullshit.  The CIA enlisted the help of pro-monarchy military leaders within the armed forces to pull off the coup.  Hell the CIA agent in question was riding around in a jeep with a machine gun in hand making sure the military assets at his disposal were taking control of key centres.  It was only after the CIA led military units had taken control that your so called "constitutional" transition took place.

The analogy would be if the US somehow pursuaded the Govenor General of Canada to select a different governing party.  On paper sure you could say that was constitutional but it would turn a recklessly blind eye to what was actually happening.

Complete bullshit to me means that my facts are incorrect, which they are not.

A coup is (in my understanding) a function of the legality of the seizure of power, not whether the US has a preference in the outcome.  A senate impeaching a president, even if the US is happy to see him go, and even if the US lobbied the senate in question to do so, is not a coup.  A monarch removing a PM from office, when the constitution of the country grants him that power, is not a coup.

Complete bullshit in the sense of being complete bullshit of ignoring most of the facts to come to a fantasy world conclusion that the democratic government of Iran was overthrown following some wierd concept of due process.

[Admiral Yi]

Complete bullshit in the sense of being complete bullshit of ignoring most of the facts to come to a fantasy world conclusion that the democratic government of Iran was overthrown following some wierd concept of due process.

The only facts that are relevant to my conclusion are the words that were written in the Iranian constitution in 1953.

[derspiess]

I agree with Yi that "coup" is probably not an accurate term.  I think "overthrow" is probably a fair term.  Also fair to say "the Shah, using his constitutional authority, dismissed the prime minister".

[crazy canuck]

Complete bullshit in the sense of being complete bullshit of ignoring most of the facts to come to a fantasy world conclusion that the democratic government of Iran was overthrown following some wierd concept of due process.

The only facts that are relevant to my conclusion are the words that were written in the Iranian constitution in 1953.

I see, so if a gun was being held to the head of the person signing the document it would matter not one wit to you so long as the proper paperwork was filed.  Gotcha.