Talk:Fazlollah Zahedi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject Iran  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

1953 Coup D'état[edit]

SINCE WHEN IS >>>>SOURCED<<<< EDITING VANDALISM??? READ THE CITED SOURCES! WHERE pray tell me DOES IT SAY THAT IRAN EVER (I SAY EVER) HAD A DEMOCRATICAL ELECTION OF ANY SORT OR SHAPE in HISTORY?? QUIT CONVERTING WIKIPEDIA INTO A TRASH BIN with YOUR SILLY AND INFANTILE PRANKS! KISSING EACH OTHER'S REAR ENDS DOESN*T MAKE POV less POV

As I have told you before Sphinxter-delator aka Pantherarosa - most sources state that Mossadeq's election was democratic - in accordance with a parliamentary democratic system (where an elected parliament elects the head of the executive, and recommends him/her to a monarch/unelected representative which rubber stamps the decision. This is how parliamentary democracy works in Canada, Britain, Israel, etc etc.
In any event, as I said before, Kitzner describes the election as democratic and his is a book where the election and coup are the primary subject of interest (it does not just mention the election in passing). Do not vandalize this page again! It will just be reverted again. Poyani (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you need information and sources about Mossadeq and his election, look it up in the Mossadeq and Operation Ajax pages. What you are changing (that Mossadeq's elections was democratic) is a consensus among historians and political scientists who have written academic papers on the topic. Furthermore if you want to change this info change it in the main coup article rather than weaseling it here. Poyani (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
User Poyani, do not make false claims with regards to postings, which I have NOT made (even if these coincide to some extent with my views of the subject matter). It has become clear to me that you seem to be lacking knowledge, the ability of sober judgement and couth to an extent, that I cannot waste my time in correcting you and your "associates". I shall, for a last time provide some wellfounded historical knowledge, which has at one point in the past been PROPERLY VERIFIED on these articles, the references having been obliviated bay some POV pushers some time ago. ALL CAN BE TRACED, however through the page history. As I have discovered (to my admitted surprize) today that you have made an attempt at pertinently backquestioning some historical FACTS, I shall address these for a last time, in order to prove good will, despite the damage done by entirely clueless posters, wasting the time and effort of a great number of authors. Pantherarosa (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If editors feel that Operation Ajax was really a popular movement within Iran combined with a "counter-coup" then they should address it in the main 1953 Iranian coup d'tat page, rather than weaseling a pro-Shah POV into the Fazollah page.

The 1953 coup section here should summarize/reflect the contents of the main 1953 coup page on wikipedia, perhaps highlighting Fazollah's role. It should not reinterpret the events.

Poyani (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


      • for your INFO: this is how Coup d'état is properly spelled... (état means state in French...)

Pantherarosa (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Top[edit]

Over-simplistic portrayals of the events of 1953 and Hollywood style fervor do not alter historic facts, however much zealots and pundits indulge in the admittedly attracting myths of intelligence agencies, toppled rulers and ruthless politicians. People tend to jump to conclusions and unreflected evaluations, driven by emotions and simplistic fantasies. Sober analysis as well as the testimony of witnesses who had 50 years to arrive at untainted objective views, will draw a far less spectacular picture.

Technically speaking, a Prime Minister (Mossadegh) had gained powers and used these to the best intent, introducing far-reaching political change (nationalization/expropriation of Foreign built Oil industry). A ruler (the Shah) encouraged by leading figures did not approve, as the country was facing enormous international pressure, and made use of his constitutional rights to dismiss the Prime Minister. A strongman (Zahedi) was needed to replace the acting Prime Minister. The acting Premier, dismissing Parliament and adopting dictatorial powers, resists his dismissal and remains in power with military and police support. This constitutes, in technical terms, a "coup d'Etat". The ensuing effort to wrest power from him constitutes factually a "counter coup".

Naturally were the attempts to stage such a counter coup readily supported by the foreign powers, who did not want to lose through nationalization, which from their perspective was bold expropriation.

Zahedi was no newcomer: he had been approached before, when the Qajars were to be driven from power (1920s), to stage a coup. The British were enthusiastic to see the young general take over. Zahedi declined however, citing his young age and lack of relevant experience. He was a fierce nationalist and not at all friendly disposed toward the foreign powers meddling in Iran's affairs. Claims that he accepted instructions or money from foreign agents must be viewed as farfetched. He came from a very wealthy background and a family dating back more than 700 years in Iranian history.

Claims by Kermit Roosevelt, e. g., that he communicated with General Zahedi in GERMAN (Zahedi was portrayed as a friend of Germany during World War II) are fictious, as Zahedi spoke merely Russian and Turkish beside his native Persian. Another claim that the shah supposedly thanked Roosevelt for his alleged part in the counter coup with the words " I owe my throne to God, my people and you" can be safely dismissed as self-congratulatory phantasy, on Roosevelt's part. The shah is known to have been far too conceited and standoffish to make an intimate gesture of the sort. Shy of ensuing controversy, Roosevelt published his memoirs shortly after the shah's death, in 1980. Ever since, countless pundits and "wannabes" keep repeating his assertions, not without adding their own zest. Most do not have a clue of what has really happened, never having seriously considered facts, witnesses' accounts or rational (see also TALK on "Operation Ajax")

Statements concerning coup grossly at odds with accepted scholarship[edit]

Portions of this article are simply inaccurate and deserve to be corrected. Foreign involvement in the internal affairs of Iran was far more pervasive than the article is willing to acknowledge. Most scholars of modern Iranian history accept the view that the coup ousting the National Front from power would not have come to pass were it not for the involvement of the CIA and Mi6. For one, the Shah was extremely reluctant to directly challenge Mossadeq, who enjoyed widespread support. In fact, the coup plans were drawn up by the CIA.

The article seems ill-informed. Its statements contradict formerly classified documents readily available online and through the National Security Archive.

"Counter coup" changed to more accurate "coup"[edit]

The author of the original article abandoned scholarly conventions by consistently describing the 1953 coup in Iran as a "countercoup," arguing that Mossadeq had seized dictatorial powers and was himself responsible for instigating a coup d'etat. In fact, the term "countercoup" suggests a restoration of the previous system of government; the coup in August 1953 did not restore the previous system of government that existed prior to Mossadeq's ascension to power. It vastly increased the Shah's power. Consequently, all historians of modern Iranian history (that I know of) characterize the events of August 1953 as a "coup." (Roosevelt chose to describe the events as a "Countercoup" in his book; however, internal CIA documents, now readily available, describe the Shah's seizure of power as a "coup.")

I've read thousands of CIA documents related to the coup in Iran and subsequent US policy. This article is BAD.

This was not a counter coup, as Mossadegh did not stage a coup. He was however unlawfully retaining power. Also, whether the Shah's powers were increased or not does not determine whether Mossadegh's replacement was a coup or not.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Fancyful "scholarly" contemplations, at odds with reality[edit]

Is historical "accuracy" fair game for fanciful contemplations?

The remarks made by user 12.216.252.196, above, would appear to reflect deeply rooted personal convictions. Personal convictions do, however, not necessarily warrant arrival at factual results. Background- and insider knowledge is the most valuable source from which any sensible information can be derived. The mere pondering of third party data on the subject matter, however scholarly, cannot substitute for the basic, first hand knowledge of indisputable facts.

The voiced lack of confidence in the capacity of the author of the article, in addition to user 12.216.252.196's leaning to interpret the events of 1953 from a personal point of view, very much in line with the mainstream of numerous modern day opinion voicers on this subject, apparently leave no room for scientifically indisputable premises.

From the aspect of political science, the carefully chosen terms "coup" and "counter coup", in this article cannot possibly be negated. These are historical facts, dictated by sober analysis. An attempt to see this in a different light would betray the involvement of personal sentiments. As lined out in the TALK section of the article, Dr. Mossadegh, by securing himself supreme powers, had factually instigated a coup. These powers were wrested from him again through a counter coup by forces loyal to the monarchy. Fanciful personal contemplations on the qualities of the regimes, prior and subsequent to the coups, are irrelevant. Opposition met equally harsh conditions under Prime Minister Mossadegh and General Zahedi following him in this post, a fact often disregarded by pundits debating the subject, but in vivid memory of countless victimes and witnesses.

Another point frequently subject of "oversight" is the fact that Zahedi had been detained and briefly imprisoned by Mossadegh's government, in February 1953, on charges he was attempting to stage a coup. Another argument in disfavor of the theory, the CIA and MI6 were the "sole plotters".

One must bear in mind, however that a "counter coup" never the less constitutes a coup, by definition. A coup, with all the unsavory accompanying effects and consequences. The term "counter coup" is employed merely to properly identify it as a reaction, the reaction to (or countering of) a coup, instigated by a second party. Scientifically speaking, the utilization of these terms constitutes a mere technicality, helping to put the matter in a pertinently descriptive perspective.

Sincerely concerned about balanced portrayal of the events of 1953, without any leanings to one or the other side, this article actually draws from FIRST HAND insider accounts, instead of building on information from all sorts of (possibly disputable) documented sources. The CIA, whom user 12.216.252.196 has quoted as his main source, has claimed to have lost its entire documentation of the events of 1953 in a FIRE! One wonders how user 12.216.252.196 managed to read "thousands" of those documents.

The CIA has never denied its portrayed role in the events of 1953. Is this because "Victory has many Fathers, while defeat is an Orphan?"

One may argue that no one can afford to view history in a fanciful fashion, as this will invariably reflect unfavorably on the beholder.--Pantherarosa 01:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The notion that Mossadeq initiated a coup to which the Shah responded with a counter-coup is a ridiculous non-starter. Note that Iran's government prior to 1953 was a constitutional monarchy. Under such a government type, the Parliament elects a Prime Minister and the Monarch (in this case Shah) is a symbolic figurehead, whose powers are significantly curtailed by the constitution. This is typical in all constitutional monarchies. See for example the governments of the UK, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, etc. In a constitutional Monarchy, the Prime Minister forms the government. A coup is by definition an extrajudicial deposition of a government. For Mossadeq to have carried out a coup, he would have to extra-judicially remove himself from power, a notion so absurd that, as I said before, it is a ridiculous non-starter.
Note that this does not require "historical scholarship" or any analysis whatsoever. We are talking about basic definitions. Just like it is pointless to attempt to solve arithmetic problems when one does not know the definition of the plus sign (+), it is pointless to discuss "historical scholarship" regarding Operation Ajax when one does not even understand the definition of concepts like "Constitutional Monarchy" or "coup d'état".
In any case, if you feel differently, then change the content of the main 1953 Iranian coup d'tat page, rather then weaseling a pro-Shah POV into the Fazollah page.
Poyani (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Verbose nonsense and flat lies![edit]

Assertions in the most recent post entirely contradict documents that are available to the public. Whether Mossaddeq instigated a coup is irrelevant; the CIA's successful attempt to overthrow him did not constitute a "countercoup," nor is that the phrase chosen by the CIA, even though Kermit Rodevelt, the CIA's source No. 1 referred to it as such himself.

The following are direct quotes from the CIA's operational plan for TPAJAX, drawn up without any Iranian participants:

"A. After aggreement with Shah per above, inform Zahedi he chosen to head successor government with US-UK support.

B. Agree on specific plan for action and timetable for action. There are two ways to put Zahedi in office.

1. Quasi-legally, whereby the Shah names Zahedi Prime Minister by royal firman. 2. Military coup.

Quasi-legal method to be tried first. If successful at least part of machinery for military coup will be brought into action. If it fails, military coup will follow in a matter of hours."

CIA, "Initial Operational PLan for TPAJAX as Cabled from Nicosia to Headquarters on 1 June 1953."

The author's views sharply contradict and belie both the accepted scholarship AND the tens of thousands of publicly available documents that have been declassified. He is propably an Iranian monarchist exile, who just wants to take it out against Mossaddegh, who had tried to topple the shah.

For the CIA's history of the coup they planned, see: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html

Also, see: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/iran/iran.html

"Lost" documents[edit]

I've never heard anything about a "fire" destroying CIA documents. The CIA claimed that it purposely destroyed many of its documents concerning the coup during the 1960s, but thousands more remain. Would it be logical for the CIA to destroy the entire primary history of its first important Cold War intervention -- a collection of documents necessary for its analysts to grasp evolving US-Iran relations, as well as the dynamics of fomenting Middle Eastern coups? Obviously not.

As for the countercoup nonsense, once again, the word "countercoup" suggests a restoration of the preexisting order. Such was not the case with the 1953 intervention. Prime Minister Mossaddegh was also very disappointed about Zahedi, as he constantly plotted against him, even in his position of Minister of the Interior. The Pahlavi dynasty came to power with British support when Reza Khan, an illiterate or semi-literate Cossack colonel, seized power with other officers and gradually established himself as a dictator (after dismissing Sayyid Zia, and so on). This occurred after Britain and Czarist Russia terminated the Constitutional Revolution -- an attempt by the Iranian people to democratize their political system and reassert their sovereignty -- effectively turning Iran into a joint protectorate. Reza Khan, as we know, was forced into exile during WWII, as a result of all the crimes against his own people, and his utterly incapable son emerged as a quasi-figurehead. Not without real power, but by no means a real dictator. The Shah and others repeatedly tried to rig the Majlis elections after the Allied occupation ended... but even though the Shah despised Mossadeq and the National Front, he was reluctant to do anything about it because Mossadeq enjoyed widespread popularity. The CIA, together with the Mi6, drew up plans on their own to remove Mossadeq from power and practically had to BEG the Shah to participate -- because the Shah feared the repercussions if such a plan were to fail. But he finally went along. After the coup, the Shah had far more power than he ever had following his father's exile -- and eventually dismissed Zahedi, who had, as the CIA predicted, gained dictatorial control -- with CIA and MI6 support. He lacked true popular legitimacy, wielding power through force, as the CIA documents acknowledge. According to the CIA, "The Shah rules through his security forces." Things did not go back to being the way they were before: the Shah became an absolute dictator. And therefor it was not a countercoup. In fact Mossaddegh was the one who staged a countercoup, against the multitude of plotting forces.


Why bicker over choice of words? Kim Roosevelt coined it counter coup himself![edit]

What sense is this discussion above supposed to make? The CIA, playing the main part in this historic drama, was represented by Kim Roosevelt locally, from whom emanated ANY intelligence recorded at head-office. Kim Roosevelt termed the coup, which he and Wilber (his boss) instigated, a COUNTER COUP. Mossadeq seems to be unjustly portrayed, on this page, as a "disappointed" weakling, constantly threatened by coups, while, in contrast, he actually succeeded in driving out the ruler. Zahedi, on the other hand is branded as the bad guy, while he proved an ally to the USA and Uk. While I could not care less, personally, about any of the villains involved in the play, why do sensible people, contributing to public knowledge through this forum, engage in a smear campaign against each other??? For heaven's sake, what difference does it make if we speak about a COUP or a counter COUP? Coup is coup!

                  • It is NOT bickering over a choice of words, that matters here, but the introduction of personal "readjustments" of historical facts. While I would agree that a "coup is a coup", I sort of said it myself at some point, I cannot comprehend why someone would start to doubt the UNIVERSE, just because the very term used by the major co-plotter Roosevelt has been (as technically required) likewise used by the authors of the subject article. Why point a finger and at the same time proliferate "verbose nonsense", accusing others of the same. For the record: I am far from being an "Iranian" an "exile" or both! --Pantherarosa 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You make some points that I feel are worth taking seriously. And I want to apologize for all of my unfair personal attacks. They were inappropriate, and generally made under the influence. So I apologize. I'm sure that you're a fine human being.

We can figure a way to resolve this conflict together. I'm sure of it. But we'll put our minds to it...

Just let me sober up.

We will overcome...I love you.[edit]

You make some points that I feel are worth taking seriously. And I want to apologize for all of my unfair personal attacks. They were inappropriate, and generally made under the influence. So I apologize. I'm sure that you're a fine human being.

We can figure a way to resolve this conflict together. I'm sure of it. But we'll put our minds to it...

Just let me sober up.

                    • Thanks for reaching out. I look forward to a constructive solution to our apparently minor differences of opinion. I feel we ought to releave the world from the kakophonic duett above and eventually delete it. If you go into "history" of this page you will find someone (user 84.128.48.194) has "peppered up" your posting with the most silly argumentation, literally adding insult to injury. I look forward to all of this "TALK" above making place for sensible accord. --Pantherarosa 13:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Portrayal[edit]

The story in the article is at odds with other articles on Wikipedia(eg Operation Ajax) and with accepted scholarship and key sources (eg the CIA history [1] (PDF). Rd232 talk 10:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is really bad and inaccurate. Articles like this give wikipedia a bad reputation. Most of the stuff written here is plane false and its royalist negationism at its best. The whole article should be deleted and rewritten completely. ---- Melca 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt this mention[edit]

Shouldnt the article discuss the hundreds of thousands of dollars he was given by the CIA prior to becoming the prime minisiter. Also the $5 million dollars given to him after the coup d'etat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.104.213 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

End misportrayal of role of parts of IRANIAN population (activists, clerics, military) in bringing about a turn of events on 19 August, 1953[edit]

POV must not continue to blatantly deny the obvious: Given the fact, that merely two foreigneres, namely Donald L. Wilber and Kermit Rosevelt, according to the latter's official accounts, were locally active, together with just a handful of local Iranian agents (such as Shahpur Reporter and the Rashidian brothers) in their pay, it is clear that in fact Iranian activists, often referred to as payed mobs, prominent clerics (Ayatollah Kashani, e.g.) and military leaders, backed by troops loyal to them, brought about the turn of events, leading to the toppling of Mossadeq and his government. It is silly trying to deny the active role of a large number of individuals who fought for a change in government, merely because the triggering initiatives may well have come from the foreign agents, who instrumentalized a handfull of local men on their payroll in propagating the foreign powers' agenda. 93.233.106.110 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

NEW YORK TIMES press clipping dated 23 August 1953 giving detailed account of what had been witnessed to have actually happened:


>>>>>>QUOTE August 23, 1953

Shah, Back in Iran, Wildly Acclaimed; Prestige at Peak


By KENNETT LOVE

TEHERAN, Iran, Aug. 22--Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi flew here from Baghdad today in a triumphal return to his capital just six days after he had fled the country under threat of dethronement. The first man to greet the Shah was Maj. Gen. Fazollah Zahedi, who assumed the Premiership Wednesday after a bloody uprising by mobs and troops had overthrown the increasingly anti-monarchist Government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. The Shah's private twin-engine plane flew straight in from the west and touched the earth at 11:17 A. M. It taxied briskly to a stop in front of stiff ranks of the Imperial Palace Guard.

General Zahedi half-entered the plane and kissed the Shah's knee, then backed from the door to allow the 34-year-old Emperor to descend. The Shah wore the gold-braided blue gray uniform of the Air Force Commander in Chief that had been specially flown to Baghdad for his return. His eyes were moist and his mouth was set in an effort to control his emotions.

Henderson Protests Reported

The violent overthrow of the Mossadegh Government and the installation of General Zahedi as Premier have been accompanied by a marked shift in the popular attitude toward Americans. In the last months of the Mossadegh regime hostility toward Americans increased steadily. Ambassador Loy W. Henderson was reliably believed to have made a number of protests against anti-American acts.

On Wednesday, however, Americans who encountered Royalist street fighters were greeted with smiles and shouts of "Long live the Shah!"

A shift also appeared in the attitude toward the Russians, who had been completely unmolested, so far as known, in the last few years. An angry crowd, accompanied by a tank, demonstrated outside the Soviet Embassy compound's iron gates Wednesday. After the curfew--moved tonight from 8 to 9 o'clock--street patrols refused to allow holders of curfew passes to go past the Embassy walls.

At the airport ceremony the monarch, who returned to greater prestige than at any time since Dr. Mossadegh became Premier twenty-eight months ago, greeted the entire foreign diplomatic corps. The Shah had an earnest but inaudible exchange with Henderson.

When the ruler, whose hanging had been demanded by Iranian Communists, came to Soviet Ambassador Anatoli I. Lavrentiev, he shook hands without speaking, while the Russian averted his eyes.

At 9 P. M. the Shah and General Zahedi addressed the nation by radio, and many persons declared that the Shah's speech was the first since Dr. Mossadegh came to power in May, 1951, in which the monarch had expressed more than formalities. Without naming names, the Shah made a double-barreled attack on the outlawed Tudeh (Communist) party and Dr. Mossadegh.

Referring to the Tudeh attempt on his life in February, 1949, the Shah declared that the "ominous phantom" of assassination and treachery had always dogged the political life and independence of Iran. He added that "traitors had constantly tried to sidetrack the glorious national struggle from its natural course."

In obvious reference to Dr. Mossadegh, the Shah declared that "the law must be carried out with regard to persons who have violated national institutions and the Constitution, wasted the nation's money and the spilled blood of innocent persons to promote hypocrisy."

He voiced confidence in Premier Zahedi's ability "to repair the damage done to the country."

In his turn, the Premier said the Shah's statement, like "crystal-clear water," quenched thirst and healed the wounds of the last thirty months. He added, "the sad situations that we have inherited will soon be corrected."

Attentions Embarrass Shah

The return of the Shah was marked by demonstrations of loyalty. As soon as his feet were on the ground, high officials and old court retainers rushed forward to kiss his knees and shoes. His progress was impeded by these attentions, which visibly embarrassed him. At one point he was tripped by persons rushing at him and he barely saved himself from falling headlong.

The crowd behind the rails, kept to a few hundred persons by the secrecy surrounding the monarch's arrival time, was led in a cheering demonstration by Shaban Jafari, called the Brainless One, because he rammed a jeep through Dr. Mossadegh's gate and chased him over the wall in his pajamas in the royalist riot Feb. 28th.

Sheep were slaughtered along the road at the moment of the Shah's passing as a thanksgiving sacrifice. A sheep and an ox were slain at the very gate to Saadabad Palace. The animals were beheaded with a single stroke so that the blood flowed in the monarch's path. Flowers were strewn along the route over which there were triumphal arches built of wood and covered with rich Persian carpets.

Soldiers at attention, with bayonets fixed, lined the route, which also was guarded by armored car patrols and tanks. The crowds were kept fifty yards from the road to prevent the possibility of assassination. The Shah was wounded by an assassin four years ago.

The Shah reviewed the palace guard led by Brig. Gen. Nematollah Nasiri. General Nasiri, then a colonel, delivered the Shah's firman (decree) dismissing Dr. Mossadegh as Premier last Saturday night. His arrest by Dr. Mossadegh's household guard and the Government's outcry about an "attempted coup" led to the Shah's departure.

According to the independent evening newspaper, Kayhan, Premier Zahedi met yesterday with Ayatollah Sayed Abolghassem Kashani and told the religious leader that under "no circumstances" would he agree with the present British position on settlement of the dispute over the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. The British demand payment for property and installations and some compensation for future profits under the abrogated oil concession agreement. General Zahedi reportedly said he was unwilling even to pay the British for the property.

The oil question is a subject that stirs the Iranians' nationalistic feelings and is a dangerous matter for a politician to tamper with. However, Iran badly needs the oil revenues that disappeared when a British commercial blockade two years ago barred Iranian oil from world markets.

The new Premier also is said to have declared that his predecessor was subject to prosecution on two counts: "Illegal" acts committed during his term of office and all actions committed after delivery of the Shah's dismissal decree, when his tenure was illegal. The Shah had appointed General Zahedi as premier when he dismissed Dr. Mossadegh.

General Zahedi also was reported to have said that the then-Premier ordered the machine-gunning of citizens during Wednesday's uprising.

General Zahedi was quoted as having said that he would complete elections for the fifty-seven seats in the Majlis (lowers house of Parliament) left vacant when Dr. Mossadegh interrupted the elections last years when the trend appeared against him. Fifty-seven new Deputies, plus twenty-two anti-Mossadegh Deputies who refused to resign last month, would bring the chamber to its former strength of seventy-nine--ten more than the sixty-nine required for a quorum. General Zahedi considers Dr. Mossadegh's dissolution of the Majlis by plebiscite illegal.

Senate May Resume

Twenty-five former members of the Senate dissolved last October considered reconstituting that chamber. The Senate was dissolved largely because of objections by General Zahedi, himself a member, to granting Dr. Mossadegh plenary powers to rule by decree.

An unofficial report on probable Cabinet members circulated in political corridors said Nasrollah Entezam, former president of the United Nations General Assembly, had refused the post of Foreign Minister. General Zahedi has indicated he may fill the post and the Interior Ministry temporarily.

The Premier, at a press conference hurriedly assembled later in the day, declared that Dr. Mossadegh's Foreign Minister, Hossein Fatemi, rumored "torn to pieces" by mobs, probably was alive and in hiding. He declared that the two houses of Parliament would be the court before which Dr. Mossadegh would be tried. The 72-year-old former Premier is quartered in a room a few feet from General Zahedi's office in the Teheran Officers Club. Dr. Mossadegh, who is reported alternately healthy or subject to fainting fits, will be moved to a regular jail tomorrow. UNQUOTE<<<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.233.82.84 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting POV edits and unsourced material[edit]

I have once again reverted the edits of Pantherarosa. The material which he keeps reverting to is unsourced and his own OR pushing a POV. He he describes his edit as "Removed POV and naive portrayal of events and reverted to previous version, providing a far more balanced and historically accurate account of the events described". Please note that it is Wikipedia's role to decide which sources are "naive" and certainly not the role of Wikipedia to address this "naive portrait" with a POV without sources. The material listed is described in numerous articles and several books and scholarly accounts of the incident as well as declassified US government documents. Whether or not these sources are "naive" in a user's POV is not really relevant. As I have noted on a prior occasion, if anyone has a problem with the coup section, they should address it in the main coup article which is extremely well sourced and clearly written. The coup section in this article only summarizes the portions of the main coup article which pertain to the subject-matter in question. It is also extremely unsettling that as a response to my note, Pantherarosa as a way of pushing this OR has removed the link in the "coup" section to the main coup article with the puzzling description "Removed obsolete reference to 'main article'". This is clearly vandalism. Please cease and desist. If you feel that there are problems with the article please discuss here instead of reverting without explanation. Poyani (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pantherarosa, you have again reverted with the statement "Reverted from POV and Mutilation of Article. People with a POV AGENDA and a blatant lack of relevant knowledge keep messing with this article". One more time I am going to note that it is not our place to determine the lack of knowledge of another user or even to present our own knowledge in these article. The material has to represent the sources. No matter how knowledgeable you think you are about this subject, if the material you are presenting is not presented with reliable sources, it is just Original Research, which is not admissible. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the grotesque message you left on my talkpage. Poyani (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You can note what you want, it changes nothing about the clear impression of an ingnoramus on the loose, which you are providing us. And, what groteque message?? I have not even seen your talk page before, let alone left any message! Pantherarosa (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You left a disgusting message full of profanity on my talk page in Farsi. The IP is same as yours. Your impression of me is irrelevant. Whatever you think about the subject matter is irrelevant. If you have no sources, you have nothing to write here. Stop wasting everyone's time and read WP:FORUM. It clearly states "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts". It doesn't matter what you think you know or what you think I know about this subject matter. If you don't have sources, do not put your claims in the article. Poyani (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User Poyani, please desist challenging a row of much more erudite and well versed authors on this subject, here on WIKIPEDIA, as you obviously do not even know how to spell the word "Coup d'état" (let alone comprehend its meaning, apparently)[edit]

Your knowledge is conspicuously wanting and your attempt to mutilate this previously carefully put together article, by slashing off one third of the text accounts, is not acceptable. On top of that you rant away with utter NONSENSE and POV. While I cannot be categorized as pro or contra the Shah of Iran, YOU seem to fully engage in an agenda against that regime. We are not mandated to push agendas here but rather to collect factual data and provide reliable information. It is also not up to an individual like yourself to determine what should go into this account and what not. ZAHEDI clearly has one main claim to fame and that is his role in the coup or counter coup of 1953, not more and not less. Consequently a full account needs to be associated with his ARTICLE as not all that much else can be possibly brought forth on his life accomplishments.

The account of Kermit Roosevelt itself speaks of a counter coup by the royalist forces, because dr. Mossadeq, a Patriot and true Iranian nationalist had assumed dictatorial powers himself and staged a coup, by assuming powers undue to him , dissolving parliament and the senate along with the HIGH COURT even, just in order to cling on to his post as Prime Minister. In fact it was through mere reference to the IRANIAN CONSTITUTION of the time HIM who provoked a counter coup.

Instead of studying the well sourced background that is in parts reflected all over this DISCUSSION PAGE already for years and in a number of historical books, including Wilber's memoirs, and those of Kermit Roosevelt himself, not to mention the official USA Archive publications as well as the international media's chronicles of the time, you start fantasizing up illogical and contradictory gibberish. In contrast to people like KINZER, who has been proven highly inaccurate, in view of the accounts mentioned long BEFORE his book, all previously compiled accounts on WIKIPEDIA and longstanding facts have ben carefully sourced.

Quit repeating unreflected gibberish like "democratically elected Prime Minister"! Dr. Mossadeq was by the Iranian constitution >>> nominated <<< by the Shah and merely ratified by parliament as a formality. Democracy did not exist in IRAN of 1951! He was also not arested at his house but had fled the MOB who had started attacking and ransacking his house, by climbing over the garden walls to his neighbor's property (in his pajamas) and turned himself in on 20 Aug, the following day, to ZAHEDI at the Officer's Casino, where ZAHEDI had his Headquarters.

It is tiresome to fight ignorance paired with arrogance! I really do not know why I even waste a minute on revising and reverting on this platform, with all sorts of ignorami abound who poisen the spirit of WIKIPEDIA and rob the users seeking Information of reliable reference sources! Pantherarosa (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not even going to bother addressing the numerous basic factual errors you posted (such as your clear lack of knowledge about how Prime Ministers are democratically elected in practically every constitutional monarchy).
I don't know how many times I have explained this. It is not our place to present our knowledge here. We have to cite reliable and verifiable sources with due weight (Kermot Roosevelt's statements, aside from not being a publishes source, clearly violate WP:COI). If you have a reliable and verifiable source for this non-sense you are pushing then please cite them. Otherwise cease and desist. If you are only addressing the coup, then present the material in the actual coup page.
Aside from that stop attacking me personally and stop vandalizing the page. Poyani (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

>>>>>> WHAT constitutional monarchy are you referring to??? IRAN was NOT a constitutional monarchy. On the contrary, it was an AUTOCRATIC monarchy. You don't even know the basic facts, nor do you comprehend the context! You have the audacity to mess with well sourced data, all reflected in the REFERENCE SOURCES cited at the end of the article, which you have of course never bothered to read! Some 30 Authors have helped put togerther the article, thus no sense in one entirely ignorant POV pusher to bicker with the balanced joint result! Pantherarosa (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay Pantherarosa. I am going to take you seriously and leave the article as it is for a few days until you provide the reliable sources for the following statements. Note that opinion peices, like the one you are citing from the Washington Times are not considered reliable, especially when they directly contradict scholarly sources.
1. "The alliance forged between the two men was to endure a lifetime and continued to bind their sons, personally as well as politically" provide a source for this statement, including the notion that there was a "personal" relationship.
If you had the trace of historical knowledge, pertaining to the subject matter, you would know that General Zahedi was very close to Reza Shah until the latter's abdication in 1941. Their sons continued this tradition and kept close personal ties, climaxing in General Zahedi's son Ardeshir's to marriage to Mohammad Reza Shah's daughter SHAHNAZ in 1957. Pantherarosa (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


2. I read the Kitzner source you cited for Zahedi' dismissal. It describes the demonstrators as favoring "nationalization" It does not say they were "anti-American". Provide a source for the "anti-American" claim.
The author's name is KINZER! Kinzer has made a series of false claims in his book. I have never made ANY claims pertaining to MOSSADEQ's dismissal (you apparently inadvertantly mention Zahedi above). The NATIONALIZATION of British Petroleum etc. had been backed by EVERYBODY involved, the Shah and especially Zahedi included. THAT had nothing immediately to do with the dismissal. The situation into which the INTERNATIONAL community had pushed Iran subsequent to nationalisation and Mossadeq's handling of the ensued national crisis in 1953 (2 years later) lead to AJAX backing of the (counter-) coup, of which the Shah's dismissal was an integer, well calculated part. Pantherarosa (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


3. Kitzner describes Zahedi's arrest of Mossadeq as a "coup" not a "counter coup". Provide your reference for the claim of "counter coup". Then cite it in the original coup page (not in this page). Then we will change it here. Note that Hamid Dabashi also describes it as coup and not "counter coup".
COUNTER COUP would be historically correct, because it had been Dr. Mossadeq who had in actual fact brought about a COUP d'état, by not resigningin accordance with the applying Iranian Constitution of the time and taking unlawfully over all powers of the state. Even the instigator of AJAX, Kermit Roozevelt, called it correctly a "counter coup" in his memoires (a book he published in 1980, this SOURCE has previously also been cited on this page!). Kinzer is merely a recent author, but by no means an accurate one, as all previous CITATIONS prove. Pantherarosa (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


4. Provide sources which state that the Shah's dismissal of Mossadeq and his replacement with Zahedi was constitutional. Both Kitzner and Dabashi state that as per Iran's constitutional only the Majlis was allowed to appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers and the Shah had no such right (as is the case in every Constitutional Monarchy).
Similar to ITEM 3 it can be easily verified, through the historical sources, which had duly been cited previously,that theIRANIAN CONSTITUTION of that time allowed the MONARCH to nominate a Prime Minister, who would assume powers when Parliamt ratifies this nomination. In Dr. Mossadeq's case the Shah certainly had the constitutional right to nominate him as well as to force his resignation (fire) him. Had THAT not been possible, than AJAX would have not worked and nobody would have thought up such a plan in the first place. The FIRMAN dismissing Mossadeq and nominating ZAHEDI was in accordance with the CONSTITUTION of the time; even though, admittedly, not in line with our present democratic tastes. It makes no difference what some odd Authers have recently stated about this matter: THE IRANIAN CONSTITUTION was the decisive factor! In the same context, Mossadeq was never ELECTED!!!! Especially not democratically!!!! There was not even a trace of DEMOCRACY then!!! What may have triggered the start of this false assertion may have been the fact that the Shah had in 1951 once before dismissed Mossadeq but was forced to re-nominate him, due to public pressure. THAT could in a sense be termed an influence excercised by the IRANIAN PEOPLE, but as it was (perhaps unfortunately) not constitutionally founded, this "push" by people cannot be termed "democratical" Pantherarosa (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


5. Kitzner and Dabashi both describe Mossadeq's ascent to leadership as "democratic". Provide your source which states he was not. Note that there are actually many sources which describe Mossadeq as the democratic Prime Minister of Iran. Noam Chomsky and Edward Said refer to them as such in numerous articles and books. On this issue scholarship seems to be unanimous. Even US officials (including Obama and Madeline Allbright) today describe Mossadeq's election as democratic. Iran's system in that year is described as constitutional monarchy, where the Majlis is directly elected, and selects a Prime Minister among its members.
Here again, please refer to my post under Item 5. The Majlis had no powers to "elect". All they were able to were nodd off the Sha's nomination. I have not written IRAN's Constitution and for that part could not care less. It is a matter of fact, and not as a result of some Potboiler's (like KINZER...) fancy and false claims!!! Pantherarosa (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
6. "Having acquired an unprecedented power-base and, as a consequence, evoking increasing unease at home, the Premiership of General Zahedi ended in 1955. His final exile was sweetened by his last post, as Ambassador to the United Nations, in Geneva." Justify this statement. Specifically, provide a source which describes Zahedi's post as a "sweetened exile" and its reasoning as being his "unprecedented power-base".
It has been all over the Press (and it had been, at one point, well sourced and verified even on this page) that ZAHEDI grew too powerful for Mohamad Reza Shah. He was therefor, in a quite customary way, sent into "EXILE" in Geneva, as Ambassador to the United Nations. Pantherarosa (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


I am going to give you a few days to provide the reliable sources (not Washington Times opinion pieces). If you do not present your sources (which were not in the article when I reverted last time) and ignore the requirements for presenting sources I will revert back. If you continue this stupid game I will ask admins to make this page semi-protected and address the issue of your vandalism. Poyani (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pantherarosa, to put it mildly, your edits contradict the mainstream academic narrative of the coup. You need to abide by WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and most importnat of all WP:Consensus. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


…. Who cares about POV or even mainstream POV??? By simply citing the IRANIAN CONSTITUTION of the time, you will find the SHAH had autocratic powers even before the coup. His Father Reza Shah had made sure about that in 1926 already. The Pahlavi dynaty was by no means a constitutional monarchy. Just look at how Reza Shah excercised his power by beating "audatious" clerics in public with a steel rod that he carried as a staff, etc. DEMOCRACY was unknown in the political practice of those days. Mossadeq and ZAHEDI were both staunch patriots, they were even close personally at times (Zahedi's first wife, Khadijeh Pirnia was even a cousin to Mossadeq through their Qajar heritage). Neither Mossadeq acted particularely humanitarian during the revolts prior to his fall, with Iran's Jails overcrowded with political opponents, nor did ZAHEDI, who due his military career most probably acquired some degree of ruthlessness (his Minister of the Interior , General Teymur Bakhtiar beeing known for having boiled opponents to death in barrels of oil) as the bloody aftermath of the coup was to prove. This whole subject should not pit good against evil and vice versa, but pertinently depict facts, which were previously cited and well sourced. All of a sudden entirely illogical assertions have been made and are being defended like some sort of holy grail. WHY?? I'd be the first to admit that the AUTOCRATIC regime of the PAHLAVI dynasty is in odds with our modern values. Perhaps dr. Mossadeq might have lead IRAN to a path of DEMOCRACY, had he been given a historical chance. In 1953, however he was as far from DEMOCRACY as ZAHEDI obviously was. In order to cling to power, he overran the constitution, filled the jails and spilled quite a lot of blood. As the papers of the day wrote, citations were in the Article, undig them, Mossadeq turned himself in to Zahedi on the 20 August, at the officer's club, where ZAHEDI had his headquarters. Zahedi even welcomed the (crying/cited in the press) old man in a civil manner, even allowing him an appartment at the club for 2 days, until he was transferred to Military barraks under arrest. To Jail he went after his trial at a military court. He escaped death, mandatory for treason. TREASON as per the IRANIAN Constitution! These were the FACTS.

(Friendly socks are kindly requested NOT to "support" my reasoning, as I am perfectly able to make my points by myself ;^) Pantherarosa (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawful appointment, not coup[edit]

Zahedi did not replace Mohammad Mosaddegh through a coup d'état. Mosaddegh was unlawfully retaining power, was lawfully dismissed by the Shah, and Zahedi was lawfully appointed as new PM. There was no coup. I have corrected the false claim that the removal of Mossadegh and appointment of Zahedi by the Shah was in violation of the Constitution. Clause 46 clearly gives the Shah this power.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

1953 coup not end to constitutional monarchy[edit]

The so-called coup d'état in 1953 did not end the era of constitutional monarchy and replace it by direct rule of the Shah. The constitution was not changed, the country continued to have a parliament and elected government.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Age at death wrong[edit]

If Zahedi was born in 1897 and died in 1963, as the article claims, he cannot have been 73 at his death. I'm not sure how to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.156 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)