>In fairness, every coup has own supporters. There are people applauding when next ayatollah comes to power, and there are people applauding when he loses power; both cases are coups, and spectator reactions are opposite depending on their political tastes.

Yeah, ok. Am I missing your point? I was addressing what I took to be your implication that the 53 coup was not externally supported/inspired/driven. Mossadeq was probably a Soviet stooge, but he was a popular one. The coup was probably a good thing in the Cold War big picture. The Shah was a weasel and Savak was scarey, believe me. I'm no more fond of theocracies than the next guy.

I was just speaking to the issue of the 53 coup. CIA/MI6 all the way. ( and the 79 coup not one of the finest hours for Tehran station - bad misreading by US intelligence as to the implications but considering the evisceration of the Church committee years not surprising in retrospect )


>
>>In fairness, the coup that overthrew Mossadeq was a joint American/British operation (Operation Ajax) run by Kermit Roosevelt. There is no doubt the Soviets were making mischief there as well ( through the Tudeh Party ) as they had been doing since before WW II. The Shah was a weasel - albeit our weasel - and to see him fall to an Ataturk would have been a real joy. But as I said in another thread, there is seldom an Ataturk around when you need one. ( vis every country in the Arab world )
>>
>>>>> I don't believe Iran would ever atack Israel, or anybody else for that matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're right....even though Iran held Americans hostage for over a year, even though they assisted in bombing the Marine barracks in 1983 that killed 240+ Americans, even though they're trying to kill American soldiers in Iraq, even though Ahmadinejad has spoken constantly about wiping Israel off the map.....yup, you're absolutely right, they're a real lamb of a country. Silly me....
>>>>
>>>>Well they do have some beef with the USA - which is another such lamb. Their democratically elected government was overthrown courtesy of the West, and they were saddled with that ridiculous Shah for a couple of decades. Now if someone just revoked the US constitution and set a kingdom here, with the explicit intent to make sure the Texas and Gulf oil (and profits thereof) flow into their general direction, and then the US managed to get back to be a republic again, everything would be forgotten after just one generation, right?
>>>
>>>The idea that 'West' (USA?) is somehow responsible for Iran coup in 1953 is created/supported by apologists of current Tehran regime. It is always convenient to invoke 'they just upset by past wrongs' argument to cover any actual deeds.
>>>By the way, shah 'existed' in Iran a bit more than couple decades. Try couple milleniums for a change.