ETERAZ

Almo5000: I think it is

Almo5000: I think it is immoral to compare today's leaders of Iran with those of the 1950s. Our leaders back then, such as Mosadegh, cannot be written in the same sentence than fanatic criminals like Ahamdinejad or Khamenei.

Afshin: Your account of the 1953 events are accurate, except for one thing. Not all members of parliament were appointed by the Shah. In fact, the majority of them were elected in one rare true popular election that took place in those years.

The "democratically elected" parliament then voted Mosadegh to the office of prime minsiter. That makes Mosadegh a "democratically elected" prime minister, the first one in Iran.

Later, that same parliament opposed some of Mosadegh's policies. In democratic societies, it is a normal thing for the executive branch and the legislative branch to oppose each other. Just take a look at the US president and both of the US Houses of Representatives.

After the "popularly elected" parliament opposition to the "democratically elected" prime minister Mosadegh became serious, instead of following the law and principles of democracy, Mosadegh ordered the military to shut down the parliament. This would be the same than if today President Bush orders the military to shut down the US Senate.

After that single act and many others that followed, Mosadegh proved that he wanted to implement his policies (right or wrong) through dictatorial means. That was the first step towards runinig the short lived democracy we had in the early 50s, way before the Shah stepped in.

However, you have to remember that our culture of worshiping the dead and the "uncontrolable" urge among us for having heroes, plus repetition and more repetition of the same stories, can indeed make Mosadegh a "democracy" hero, something that his records indicate he was not.

However, I do firmly believe that Mosadegh was a true nationalist patriot, and he had the best intentions in mind for Iran.

Many good points

Many good points afshin...given me some food for thought; I'll be sure to reformulate some of my arguments with that in mind, along with some additional research on the matter...thanks, Sadegh...

Bunch of bull. One of you

Bunch of bull. One of you tell me in details how was it "CIA-sponsored"? When are we gonna take responsiblity for our own actions? Then what about the Shah? What about the millions of his supporters? Where they "sponsored by the CIA" also?

Mosaddegh a democrat???

I know what I'm about to say will draw the ire of many, but so be it.  The truth is often tough to swallow.  For those that believe Mosaddegh was democratically elected, I was wondering if they could show which election did he exactly win??  Not sure whether you're familiar with Iranian Constitution of the time, but the premier was appointed by the Shah.  Mosaddegh never stood for popular elections at any time.  To make it simple it was something like this.  The Shah chose a prime minister, then the two houses of parliament voted on it.  And since pretty much everyone in parliament was there by the approval of the Shah, their vote merely served as a rubber stamp.  Never in the history of Iran's constitutional monarchy was a premier rejected by parliament.  So for those who say Mosaddegh's government was democratically elected, think again, he was not!  As someone that swore an oath on the Koran to uphold the Iranian constitution, he agreed to the system which he was a part of.  By swearing that oath, he agreed that he's the premier of Iran, and the Shah is his sovereign.  That concept was never open to interpretation or negotiation.  As such he had a duty to protect his sovereign, not to demand his abdication.  Through populism and rabble rousing, much the same way our current cretin of a president in Iran is doing, he manipulated public opinion to gain the reigns of power.  And in order to solidify his hold on power he dissolved the parliament which had essentially rubber stamped his appointment by the Shah.  Much has been made of what followed.  I would surmize that the US-UK coup that led to Mosaddegh's ouster and arrest was grossly overstated.  Perhaps the covert action types like Kermit Roosevelt needed to overstate their role in order to impress themselves and the rest of the world at what they seemlingly had accomplished with so little.  But no matter whose version of history you'd care to believe there are two undisputed truths.  First is that Mosaddegh NEVER stood in a popular election, and second as coups go, the 28 Mordad coup was quite bloodless.  Which goes against both the Shah's seeming lack of popularity and how loyal Iranians really were to Mosaddegh.

Bar pA khiz,

az jA kan

banAy-e kAkh-e doshman...

give me a break

As if thugs and low life's in power in Iran need to be demonized! every inteligent person knows these guys are bunch of rutless backward thugs and not much else.
before you know it some one will post in here: if mossadegh was alive today he will be hanging out with Chavez!
bunch of rubbish...

There are parallels to Today's Demonization of Iranian Leaders

Thanks for the clip.

Not only there are parallels to the CIA-sponsored coup of 1953, there are parallels to today's demonization of Iranian leaders and Iranian people, and Iran's revolution. The  USA-sponsored TV and radio stations in US in Farsi language (VOA, Radio Farda, etc.) are playing the role of those "privately owned" TV stations in Venezuela.  Henchmen of US government and the zionists are also involved doing other dirty jobs today (either inside or outside Iran).

Apparently, the western support of anti-revolutionaries has not changed, they all follow the same scripts.