MOSSADEGH

کودتا یعنی چه ؟

Thanks for another though provoking article

As far as Mosadegh's " black spots," some might consider, his work with the Brits in crushing the natives in south, or ordering to fire on striking Oil workers, were dark spots. But since his presence was violently removed, internally exiled, and now virtually denied to ever exist, it's  still very hard to establish a critical tone regarding any 'objective' balance sheet of his legacy.

With all due respect for the ancient Greeks,  I'm always a big fan of  Greek democracy, Iranian civil society of late 40's and early 50's was the most advanced in Middle East. Amalgamation of political parties (and this includes far right Pan-Iranists to far Left,..), labor, students, women and civic organizations. independent newspapers,...were bedstones of some of teh most progressive social movements in Iranian history. They were simply  unmatched for that time period..

Your narrative constitutes a coherent 'liberal revisonist' argument  for incorrectness of Mosadegh's dismisal of Majlis. and though in general I'm often inagreement with 'liberal revisionists,' I still think Mosadegh's was correc  on 30 Tir.

It's a shame that we write and discuss Mosadegh so much, and there's  hardly a word on Dr. Fatemi. The truly spotless person of that movement,

Enjoyed the ending, Cervantes is always delightful, though I was expecting Beckett,

Waiting for Mosadegh? cheers

mamnoon

از همه دوستانی که زحمت کشیده و اظهار فرموده و کامنت گذاشته اند صمیمانه متشکرم. چند نکته را مایلم تاکید کنم گواینکه  اغلب آنها در متن مقاله آمده اند.1-    دکتر محمد مصدق نخست وزیر ملی ایران که هم در موقعیت نمایندگی مجلس و هم نخست وزیر کشور مصدر خدمات فراوانی بود که هیچکس یارای حاشای آنها نیست. این نکته اصلاً جای بحث ندارد و حتی مخالفان جدی دکتر مصدق نیز بر آن اذعان دارند. مقامات انگلیسی و دوستان ایرانی آنها هیچ لکه سیاهی در پرونده سیاسی دکتر محمد مصدق در طول 60 سال گذشته پیدا نکرده اند. 2-    طرح سئوال از هر کسی و یا در مورد اقدامات هر فردی در فرهنگ ما  نوعی توهین تلقی می شود. این نکته از چند اظهار نظری که شده کاملاً مشهود است.  به طور کلی  در فرهنگ ما وقتی اقدامات کسی را مورد سئوال قرار میدهیم در واقع به صحت آنها شک میکنیم و این نوعی توهین است. به نظر بنده این تابو باید شکسته شود. این افراد به قدری بزرگ اند که طرح سوالی در باره آنها از بزرگیشان کم نمیکند که بر آن می افزاید. در حال حاضر میتوانم کتابهاو منابعی را اسم ببرم که سیاست های جنگی چرچیل را در طول جنگ جهانی دوم زیر سئوال برده اند و جایگزین های بهتری را برای آنها مطرح ساخته اند. حتی در صورت اثبات این ادعا ها ، ذره ای از بزرگی چرچیل و خدماتش به انگلستان کم نخواهد شد. خیلی ها در آمریکا از اینکه فرانکلین روزولت خیلی دیر و تنها بعد از حمله ژاپن به بندر پرل هاربر وارد جنگ جهانی دوم شد از ایشان خرده میگیرند ولی همه این صحبتها ذره ای از  اهمیت خدمات بزرگی را که این رئیس جمهور به کشورش کرد کم نمیکند.  بنابراین مورد سئوال قرار دادن تصمیمات سیاستمداران تاریخ اخیر کشورمان حق مسلم ماست. این کار به نوعی شاید باعث شود که با درک شرایط ویژه ای که آنها را واداشت تصمیمات مورد سوال را بگیرند دید روشنتری به آنها پیدا کنیم. 3-    ممکن است از مورد سئوال قرار گرفتن کسی ، برخی سوء استفاده کنند . اگر به این استدلال توجه کنیم دیگر تا ابد نمی توانیم در باره هیچ دانشمند و سیاستمداری سئوالی را مطرح کنیم. این دقیقاً روش استالین بود. وی همه منتقدان خود را جیره خوار امپریالیست ها می دانست. البته میتوان تصور کرد که رسانه های غربی در جنگشان علیه کمونیزم از آثار نویسندگان ناراضی شوروی استفاده ( تو بخوان سوء استفاده ) میکردند ولی چاره ای نبود. الان هم نمیتوان اینگونه استدلال کرد که چون زیر سوال رفتن اقدامات دکتر مصدق برخی ها را خوشحال میکند ما نباید چنین سئوالاتی جتی به مخلیه مان خطور کند. انتقاد از مصدق یعنی توجیه اقدامات فلان کس و یا رژیم که مورد تایید ما نیست. این برداشت برای ادامه بحث غلط است.  4-    هم اکنون  سئوالات زیاد و انتقادات جدی بر آثار برخی دانشمندان بزرگ وارد است. نیوتون ، انشتین و دهها نفر دیگر. با اینحال همه آنها دانشمند و عالم بزرگیند و مورد احترام. تعدادی از پیش بینی های بیل گیتس در بیست سال گذشته غلط از آب درآمده ولی همه اینها باعث نشده اندکی از احترامی که دنیای کنونی برای ایشان قائل است ، کاسته شود. 5-    به نظر میرسد برخی حتی زحمت خواندن مقاله را هم بر خود نداده اند. همین قدر فهمیده اند که شاید محتوای آن به قولی توهین به مصدق باشد بنابراین همه کلیشه های ذهنی خود را در اینجا آورده اند. 6-    سوالی که در اینجا مطرح شده خیلی ساده است: مجلس شانزدهم روز 8 اردیبهشت سال 1330 با اکثریت 79 از 100 نماینده حاضر به نخست وزیری دکتر محمد مصدق رای موافق داد. مجلس هفدهم روز 15 تیرماه سال 1331 ، با اکثریت قاطع 52 نماینده از 65 نماینده حاضر در مجلس به مصدق رای موافق دادند. اگر بخواهم دنباله ماجراها را در اینجا ذکر کنم داستان به درازا خواهد کشید. دکتر محمد مصدق همین مجلسی را که پشتیبانش بود منحل نمود.  7-    نکته مهمی که شاید بتوان در اینجا مطرح کرد این خصیصه اخلاقی ما ایرانیها است که توان همکاری با کسانی را که مخالف عقاید و نظرات ما هستند نداریم. بیشتر به فکر دور زدن  وانهدام موانع هستیم تا سازش و یا استفاده از آنها. 8-    یکی از خوانندگان محترم مقایسه دموکراسی یونان و ایران دهه 1950 میلادی را  مردود دانسته اند. بنده هم در متن مقاله عرض کرده ام که دموکراسی آن روز ایران در خاورمیانه تک بود. البته همانگونه که عرض کردم از دموکراسی واقعی فرسنگ ها فاصله داشت ولی به هر حال احزاب به ویژه احزاب چپ آزادی کامل فعالیت داشتند که در تاریخ ما هیچگاه تکرار نشد. 9-    در سال 1940 که انگلیس در مقالا حملات هوایی آلمان تنها بود و آمریکا و شوروی وارد جنگ نشده بودند. موضوع تخلیه لندن و انتقال دولت به شمال  کشور و تعطیلی پارلمان مطرح شد. چرچیل در همان زمان مجلس و دموکراسی را بزرگترین ثروت انگلستان نامید که موفقیت های دیگر زیر سایه آن قابل انجام است. این در حالی است که در کشور ما همیشه دموکراسی زیر سایه و تحت الشعاع سایر موضوعات قرار گرفته اند. همین بحث هایی هم که اینجا شد و بیشتر شرکت کنندگان به نظر میرسد ساکن خارج از کشور هستند ، از همان اهرم های سنتی موجود در داخل کشور و صدها سال گذشته برای اثبات درستی نظرات خود استفاده کردند.

Dear Parham

Parham jaan,

I fully agree with you on Shapour Bakhtiar as well.

Best,

Masoud

Dear Masoud

"Mossadegh-JM were light years more progressive, advanced, and modern 60 years ago compared to the ultra reactionary fundamentalist savages who have been ruling Iran..."

Absolutely 100% agree; just too bad that everyone didn't follow suite at JM around the coup days and afterwards.

By the way, I think the same of Shapour Bakhtiar as well, actually.

Dear Aryo Barzan, and Dear Parham

Dear Aryo Barzan,

AB: Now tell me sir, why should I accept your evidence as absolute truth and dismiss Mr Moradi’s one as total nonsense.

MK: Because I provided solid evidence from scholarly sources as well as actual UK and US government documents. Mr. Moradi makes assertions which he does NOT provide one single evidence for. He is NOT a historian or political scientist. Nor does he provides one single reference to a scholar.

You have on one side a scholar who provides evidence from top scholars of the issue as well as direct documents. On the other side you have a person who is a FICTION Writer who does NOT present a single document or a single reference from a scholar.

AB: Please mate, give us some credit. We have been reading this sort of BS for the past 33 years. Mostly from people who are now under the flag of IRI. For example can you tell me why the British suddenly decided to come clean and share with us all their evidence? Did they have a dream of Imam Zaman and Hale Noor? Or have they finally decided to apart from their old imperialism ways and become good boys

MK: What you think is "BS" is actually the consensus of the scholars (professional historian and political scientists) from many countries and from various perspectives. The British government typically releases their official documents after 30 years. The Americans have a different process and may release some documents under Freedom of Information Act as well as refuse to release any document no matter how long. The documents I cited had been released many many years ago. The fact that YOU were not aware of them show that you are not a scholars of Iran. The documents are well known and have been used by scholars for at least 10 years.

Best,

Masoud

=======================================

Parham jaan,

Glad you liked it. Yes, it is amazing how much Mossadegh accomplished 58-60 years ago. Mossadegh-JM were light years more progressive, advanced, and modern 60 years ago compared to the ultra reactionary fundamentalist savages who have been ruling Iran in 2011.

Best,

Masoud

Maryam

Thanks for clarifying that! : )

Parham, Interpretion of facts & history with misunderstandig

Rather than seening the factual events the way they happened..

Esfand jan, vaghean ke

At least almost all agree that Mossadegh had good intentions. Mr. Moradi's article is fascinating, but I need to read more about history of Iran in those days before commenting.

جیش جان حق با شماست!

واقعا ما نفهمیدیم چیکار باید بکنیم!  این جا بشکنم یار گله داره!  اون جا بشکنم اون گله داره! کجا بشکنیم که یار و کسی‌ گله نداشته باشه اصل مطلبه.

Everything is sacred

.

اگر ادامه دهیم، همین یک کاسه آش را هم از ما خواهند گرفت

Maryam Hojjat

And do you know what that "important issue" is?

Thank you for Pointing out an important Issue

which Iranian intellectuals missing in looking at the history & facts.

MM

It's more like a personal spin!
Good question!

Masoud

Thank you for taking the time to reply to this article! And I just find that telegram you've posted in your second message fascinating! Every time I've read it in the past so many years I've wondered where this people have been and what they've lived through -- but mostly, I've wondered how Mossadegh did what he achieved... It's a wonder with that sort of mentality reigning.

Legality, Popularity and Ligitimacy....

...are three different things. Anyone can have any one of these, at any given time, or lose them, at any given time.

Mr. Moradi - where are the references for your article?

or, is this a personal opinion?

No comment ;0)

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ?

 
Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"?

Baba what can of worms

دلتون خوشه بخدا!

یارو از جونش گذشته، نفتتونو که خود دیوثتون تا صد سال دیگه هم کونِ پیزیشو نداشتین از جاتون جُم بخورین در موردش جیک بزنین ملی کرده، اون یکی خوار... آمده به کمک چند تا چماقدار و جنده لگوری و آمریکایی و انگلیسی و عرض کنم چه پسش زده کودتا کرده، ریده به مملکت رفته. بازم حرف دارین؟ دلیل و مدرک میخواین؟!

والا بخدا بعضی وقتا فکر میکنم حقتونه یه عده آشغال بیان تا دسته چوب تو جاهای حساستون بکنن... بخورین تا آدم شین. ملت لَش پفیوز.

والسلام

یا مرگ یا مصدق!

Everything is sacred

Masoud Jaan

With all due respect

After reading the above article and your response with an open mind

My conclusion was that the most stereo typical nonsense is coming from your old school BS. This is like listening to a broken record that we have been force fed for the past 33 years

Now tell me sir, why should I accept your evidence as absolute truth and dismiss Mr Moradi’s one as total nonsense. Especially as I do not have any prejudice against none of the parties involved and believe that they both have done grate things for this country and at the same time both have made drastic mistakes

Please mate, give us some credit. We have been reading this sort of BS for the past 33 years. Mostly from people who are now under the flag of IRI. For example can you tell me why the British suddenly decided to come clean and share with us all their evidence? Did they have a dream of Imam Zaman and Hale Noor? Or have they finally decided to apart from their old imperialism ways and become good boys

Having said that however, I am not sure that I agree with all that Mr. Moradi has said here either.

Sometimes it is necessary for people to come to street and defend their right and occasionally it is even necessary to take up arms against tyrants who are have no intension of respecting their rights.

Democracy is more than just a name or a few institutions like Parliament and court and police. As the have all these in IRI but no sign of democracy

A perfect example is the current situation it Iran, where people’s vote was ignored and those in charge like Ali Geda did not care about democratic process and even fight it

Even if I accept all your analysis I still find it hard to accept that Shah should have has the last word in appointing or sacking the PM.

May be this was his most fatal error. He should have remained a symbolic figure and should have avoided tampering with country’s political affair. Instead it was the duty of Majless to act independently and decide the faith of DR Mosadegh. But is seems that they didn’t

As for the argument between those who believe in conspiracy theories and those who think it was an internal mistake. I must say that there is always an element of foreign involvement in any scenario. Even in today’s modern democracies we can easily see the stake holders and protectors of foreign or big business interests trying to influence the events and decision. Their level on influence and success however varies depending on the health of that democratic system and level of knowledge and alertness of the people in those countries.

People of Iran have shown again and again over the past 100 years have they had a poor judgment especially in selecting their leaders. The most resent example of that was in Green Movement when they followed Mosavi and Karoobi without even listening to what they are saying and in return these two have made sure of killing the movement

That is why in all these errors the final blame lays at our own door. We need to learn from our mistake and take responsibility for our actions and who ever is trying to win public support by denying these errors is noting short of a traitor

Evidence on the Shah Being Puppet of the British and US

//iranian.com/History/2005/January/Kinzer...

Sir R. Makins -- No: 1085, May 21, 1953

PRIORITY -- TOP SECRET
Persia.

The State Department informed us today on a number of occasions associates of the shah have told Henderson that His Majesty is uncertain about the British attitude towards himself. He is reported to be harping on the theme that the British had thrown out the Qajar Dynasty, had brought in his father and had thrown his father out. Now they could keep him in power or remove him in turn as they saw fit. If they desired that he should stay and that the Crown should retain the powers given to it by the Constitution, he should be informed. If on the other hand they wished him to go, he should be told immediately so that he could leave quietly. Did the British wish to substitute another shah for himself or to abolish the monarchy?

==============================

the folloing is from the book by Dr. Nahavandi, one of the closest advisers to the Shah (and actually Farah):

//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2010/08/100802_s...

Fact vs. Nonsense

There are soooooooooooooo many errors of fact and interpretation in this article.

1.

نکته مهم در باره حادثه 30 تیر آن است که در این واقعه تنها عوامل ایرانی موثر بودند. بازیگران اصلی خود ایرانی ها بودند( میدانم عده ای هستند که این نتیجه گیری را قبول نداشته و طبق معمول عوامل خارجی را پشت صحنه موثر میدانند).

1. Actually the British explicitly put Qavam in power. The evidence is absolute and overwhelming from ALL sources including the British themselves. There exists vast scholarly evidence on the role of the British.

Lets see what one of the top scholars of the period writes about this:

Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power (London: I.B. Tauris, 1990). pp. 121-2. The following is direct quote from the book:

The shah had been under pressure from Britain and its Iranian agents and assistants to put Qavam (whom he did not like) into office....

When Robin Zaehner, the Oxford Persian scholar and undercover Foreign Office agent, came to Tehran in the summer of 1951, he concluded that Qavam was the best man to replace Musaddiq and settle the oil dispute with Britain. In the minutes of his conversations with Abbas Iskandari .... ‘After concluding our discussion on the ways and means of overthrowing Musaddiq, Iskandari went on to reassure me (in Persian) that it was Qavam’s desire to work closely with the British and to preserve their legitimate interests in Persia without jeopardizing Persia’s political and economic independence’.... ‘Qavam-us-Saltenaeh greatly preferred that British influence should be exercised in Persia, rather than that of the Americans (who were foolish and without experience), ir of the Russians who were Persia’s enemies"

Qavam himself had made some personal contacts with right-wing British politicians such as Julian Amery.

The shah had therefore agreed to replace Musaddiq by Qavam. But how?... The shah’s attempt at election rigging in the provinces had been only partially successful.... And, in the circumstances, a military coup would have been doomed to failure from the start.

2.

هر گونه کسب قدرت از راه های غیر قانونی، نوعی کودتا محسوب می شود. حادثه 30 تیر درحقیقت کودتائی بود که در نتیجه آن دکتر مصدق نه با تصویب مجلس بلکه با توسل به تظاهرات خیابانی مجدداً به قدرت رسید. شاه فرمان نخست وزیری دکتر مصدق را تحت فشار امضاء کرد. درست مثل انتصاب سید ضیاء الدین طباطبائی توسط احمد شاه تحت فشار قزاق ها در نتیجه کودتای سوم اسفند سال 1299.

2. Mr. Moradi’s assertion is utterly false on several levels.

2.1. "Coup" is one specific form of getting to power. It refers to when a military force uses military arms against those in power. Revolution is a form of gaining power and is not "legal" and is NOT a coup. Mass uprising is a form of gaining power and is NOT a coup.

2.2. The 1921 coup by Reza Khan and Seyyed Zia is a COUP because they used MILITARY power and brought their TROOPS into Tehran.

2.3. On 30 Tir, the pro-democracy forces did NOT use military to violently attacking the Shah. Rather the pro-democracy forces (along with help from non-democratic forces such as supporters of Kashani) uses non-violent street protests. It was the Shah who used BRUTAL SAVAGE VIOLENT forces of tanks and machine guns to mass murder the unarmed protesters.

2.4. Therefore, the 30 Tir Uprising was a non-violent mass uprising by pro-democracy forces.

2.5. Qavam was placed in power by the secret conspiracy of the British and the lackies of the British in the Majles and the Shah (who was nokar of the British). The people used non-violent means to counter the colonial plan of the British and their local puppets. On 30 Tir, the Iranian people won, the British and their local puppets lost.

3.

بنابراین به نظر میرسد که نگهبانی از نهال نورس و آسیب پذیر دموکراسی باید در راس برنامه های همه سیاستمداران و روشنفکران ایران می بود که چنین نشد و باقی داستان را همه می دانند. به چالش کشیدن صلاحیت های چنین مجلس و چنان شاهی در خیابانها به قصد براندازی، به نظر میرسد درست نبود و سیر حوادث بعدی صحت این نتیجه گیری را تایید میکند. در 59 سال گذشته هیچگاه تجربه آزادی 12 ساله 32-1320 در ایران تکرار نشد ارباب جراید و سیاستمداران حرفه ای هنوز در خماری آزادی های فردی و رسانه ای و سیاسی هستند که ایران در آن دوران تجربه کرد. کودتای 30 تیر31 سرآغاز حمله ای بود بر این دستاورد و دموکراسی نوپا که متاسفانه با همکاری خواسته و ناخواسته نخبگان کشور صورت گرفت.

3. The interpretation of the situation is FALSE. After Iran was occupied by Allied Forces (U.K., USSR, and U.S.), there existed an equilibrium. The brutal tyrannical forces of Reza Shah’s system of total control were severely weakened. The forces of civil society had risen and organized. They included political parties, labour unions, free press, and the like. Mohammad Reza Shah simply did not have the ability to re-impose the brutal (fascistic ?) Savage violent tyranny of this father.

The British had been the de facto colonial power in Iran (under Qajar and Reza Shah). And when Reza Shah tired to jump ship and side with Hitler, the Allied invaded Iran in 1941. After 1941 and 1945, the U.K. was determined to restore their colonial subjugation of Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah was 100% nokar of the British (I will quote evidence at the end of this post).

The U.S. administration had a debate on what to do with Iran. There were some early on who promoted the notion that the U.S. should help Iran become independent and prosperous as a model of how close friendship with the U.S. would bring. But after debate, the decision was to leave Iran primary to the British as their sphere of influence.

The Soviet Union at this period (circa 1947-1952) regarded the U.S. at its primary enemy. Therefore, Stalin was worried that Iran’s enormous oil would go under American control if the Shah was replaced with JM. Stalin viewed JM as pro-American and the Shah was puppet of the U.K, and Stalin’s primary goal was to weaken the U.S. Therefore, Stalin strongly OPPOSED Mossadegh-JM. Stalin strongly preferred Iran to remain under the control of the U.K. (And Shah) than become independent and ally with the U.S. (under JM).

After Stalin’s death in 1953 (if I remember correctly he died in March 1953). The Soviets were confused and did not know what to do. The Tudeh Party which was nokar of Stalin and USSR had been totally following Stalin’s orders. Tudeh Party’s main policies from the time JM came to power was to viciously attack JM-Mossadegh. Tudeh Party only began to change its policies sometimes in early 1953 (some say sometimes in 1952).

In sum, from 1945 onward, Iran was in a state of flux. The Shah was nokar of the British and their policy was to restore the old de facto colonial subjugation of Iran with the British owning our oil and through the Shah impose a brutal savage tyranny.

Mossadegh-JM was the movement to counter the British-Shah plan. Mossadegh-JM plan was to gain Iran’s independence from the British economic and political control. The plan was to pressure the Shah to stop his drive towards absolute tyranny via pressuring him to hold free elections for the Majles. So, JM was to bring independence from Britain and to bring democracy to Iran.

The Shah’s plan was to get rid of the freedom and lukewarm democracy which had emerged and re-impose Pahlavi savage tyranny for the benefit of his own and the British.

The 30 Tir, 1331 was a HUGE VICTORY for the forces of democracy and independence and a HUGE defeat for the British design to re-impose their colonial subjugation of Iran and a huge defeat for the Shah to re-impose his absolute tyranny.

30 Tir was the height of JM’s power. Dr. Mossadegh made a huge mistake in my opinion. After coming back to power, Dr. Mossadegh should have allowed the Iranian people in a referendum to make a major decision: Republic or Monarchy. Dr. Mossadegh’s mistake was that he thought that he could gradually teach Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to stop being puppet of U.K. and stop his drive for absolute dictatorial anti-constitutional power. Mossadegh believed that he could change the heart and mind of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The 28 Mordad coup proved the Mossadegh was wrong.

Trying to teach Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to accept the democracy is like trying to teach Khomeini and Khamanei to accept democracy.

We came very very close to achieving our independence and freedom and democracy in 1953. On that horrible day in August 1953, Iran totally LOST its independence, lukewarm democracy, and freedom.

4. روز جمعه اول ژوئیه سال 2011، مجلس یونان به برنامه ریاضت اقتصادی دولت این کشور علیرغم تظاهرات گسترده ای که مردم بر ضد اینگونه تهمیدات اقتصادی انجام دادند، رای موافق داد. این نکته نشان دهنده آن است که در یک دموکراسی واقعی این نهایتاً اعضای پارلمان و به عبارتی نمایندگان مردم هستند که تصمیم نهایی را خواهند گرفت نه تظاهر کنندگان خیابانی

3. FALSE analogy. Greece is a democracy. True representatives of the people have been elected in free elections.

In 1951, we did NOT have democracy. A major battle was being waged by pro-democracy forces to establish democracy in Iran. The Shah was trying very very hard to oppose the pro-democracy movement. The Majles elections were only clean in large cities. In many provinces, the Shah was using the armed forces and gendarmerie to rig the elections. Many Majles members were selling their votes to the British.

In Tir 1331 (July 1952), the British conspired to get rid of Mossadegh and bring Qavam to prime minister in order to destroy the democratic process and re-impose their economic and political control with the help of the Shah. The mass protests by the people of Iran was NOT a coup. It was a wonderful legal non-violent march to consolidate democracy and prevent the forces of tyranny and colonial subjugation from re-establishing their colonial-tyrannical plans.

In conclusion, Mr. Moradi's assertions are FALSE on basic facts and FALSE on interpretation of the situation. Scholars (political scientists, historians), ALL of whom who call 30 Tir (July 21) an uprising are correct. Mr. Moradi is totally wrong in all aspects (definition, actual historical facts, and historical interpretation). I know of no scholar (actual professional political scientist or historian) who has ever called the uprising of July 1952 a "coup."

In Mr. Moradi’s Orwellian double-speak, non-violent mass uprising of the pro-democracy forces is a coup. What is next, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are going to call the "khas o khashak" who marched non-violently after the June 12, 2009 "election" those who wanted to make another coup!!!!!!!!!!!

Non-violent protests against a brutal dictatorship is not a coup. It is what it is: non-violent struggle for democracy against brutal tyranny. One such was against the brutal tyranny of the Pahlavi tyranny and the other against the brutal tyranny of the Islamic Republic.

Masoud

Mamnoon!

Thank you for opening this can of worms! I could not agree more with your conclusions:

به نظر میرسد فرمت همه بحث های تاریخ معاصر کشورمان که بین ایرانیان جریان دارد مثل گفتگوهای دون کیشوت و سانچو است. هر کسی ذهنیتی از حوادث دارد و نمیخواهد آن چیزی را که مقابل چشمانش می بیند و مدرک و سندی برای اثباتش وجود دارد معیار قرار داده و به عینیت ها بپردازد و از ذهنیت های از پیش ساخته دست بشوید.