Sunday, May 03, 2026

The CIA's Anti-Democratic 1953 Coup in Iran? What Nobody Tells You About America's Alleged Overthrow of the Shah's "Democratically-Elected" Prime Minister Mossadegh

 

The Iranian tragedy did not begin in 1953. It began in 1979 

Well, what do you know? Another "well-known historical fact" turns out to be nothing but fake news or, if you prefer, leftist re-writing of history. Over on X Twitter, Ole @DerCheapi has penned the post The Mossadegh-Myth: A coup that never happened. The original title in German ("Die Mossadegh-Lüge: Ein Putsch, der keiner war") calls it The Mossadegh Lie.

Some stories have been told so often that nobody asks anymore whether they are true. The story of the CIA coup against Mohammad Mossadegh is one of them.
It goes roughly like this: In August 1953, the CIA and MI6, acting on behalf of American and British interests, overthrew Iran's democratically elected prime minister. They installed the Shah as a puppet. In doing so, they destroyed Iran's democratic future and laid the groundwork for the Islamic Revolution of 1979, for anti-Americanism, for the mullahs, for everything that has gone wrong since.
Over the past few decades, this narrative has hardened into a Western dogma. It appears in school textbooks, in mainstream American journalism, and in the memoirs of those who shaped U.S. policy. The New York Times, CNN, and the BBC (well well well) have canonized it as the original sin of Western Middle East policy. Hollywood took up the same script: Ben Affleck's Argo (2012), winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture, opens with a three-minute animated prologue walking the audience through 1953 as the inciting cause of everything that followed.

 … Here in Germany, the chorus is no quieter: Olaf Scholz recently declared that the entire Iranian dilemma traces back to the British and American overthrow of Iran's democratic government, without which Iran would today be "a very successful Western country." … Even the German "Federal Agency for Civic Education "calls 1953 Iran's "primal catastrophe."

The only problem is: the story isn't true.
Not partially untrue. It isn't a matter of "needing nuance." It simply isn't true.

What Mossadegh Was Not

Let's start with the label that carries the whole thing: "democratically elected."
Mossadegh was not elected by the people. The Iranian Constitution of 1906 made no provision for the direct election of the head of government. Article 46 of the Supplementary Fundamental Laws expressly assigned the appointment and dismissal of the prime minister to the Shah. (1) Mossadegh came into office in 1951 because the Shah appointed him, following a non-binding expression of preference by parliament, in the expectation that the 69-year-old aristocrat would gracefully decline. To the Shah's surprise, he accepted.
This is the precise process that the myth sells as a "democratic election." … Mossadegh was no man of the people. He was a Qajar prince, a descendant of the dynasty that had ruled Iran into a state of chronic weakness for more than a century. Under the Qajars, Iran was not a sovereign state but an object of plunder. In 1907, the Russians and British divided the country contractually into spheres of influence; the economy had been sold off through foreign concessions; the hinterland disintegrated into the hands of local tribal chiefs and warlords; and the central government in Tehran often controlled little more than its own capital. It was precisely this disintegration that produced the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. And it was precisely those constitutionalists who, two decades later, together with Reza Khan, the future Reza Shah Pahlavi, finally toppled the Qajar dynasty in 1925. The Pahlavis, in other words, did not come to power against Iran's constitutional movement but with it, as a response to the failure of the very aristocracy from which Mossadegh hailed. His title Mossadegh ol-Saltaneh, "the one belonging to the monarch," was no nickname but a noble designation from that very order which had been overthrown.

Anyone who declares Mossadegh the hero of Iranian democracy overlooks the irony: the man who fought the Pahlavis was a representative of precisely that old order whose removal had created the precondition for Iran ever to become a modern state at all.

What Mossadegh Did

But surely he was at least a democrat in spirit, right? A man who protected the constitution, respected parliament, preserved the institutions?
No.
In 1952, Mossadegh halted the parliamentary elections for the 17th Majles at the very moment when the number of deputies already elected was just sufficient to make parliament quorate. … he had the Majles grant him emergency powers that gave him the right to govern by decree, initially for six months and then extended by another year. He stripped the Supreme Court of its powers. He took over the Ministry of Defense personally, cut its budget by fifteen percent, dismissed 136 officers, and appointed his own nephew as deputy. …

What the CIA Did (and Didn't Do)

Now to the actual heart of the matter: did the CIA overthrow Mossadegh?
The honest answer is: no. But not because the CIA didn't try. It's because the attempt failed.
Operation TPAJAX was set in motion on August 15, 1953. Colonel Nassiri, commander of the imperial guard, brought Mossadegh the dismissal decree signed by the Shah. Mossadegh, forewarned by Tudeh contacts within the army, had Nassiri arrested. The Shah fled the country. The operation collapsed.

… Ayatollah Kashani, humiliated by Mossadegh, supplied the religious legitimation. The Tudeh Party tore down statues of the Shah, alarming the clergy, who feared a communist takeover. The bazaar shut down. The military marched. …

What Happened with the Oil

The economic argument with which the coup thesis is typically rounded out also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The usual narrative is that the West overthrew Mossadegh in order to return nationalized Iranian oil to private, Anglo-American hands. In fact, the opposite happened. The nationalization of the Iranian oil industry was not reversed after 1953. The National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), founded in 1951 under Mossadegh, remained the owner of the reserves, the facilities, and the refinery at Abadan. What changed was the form of utilization.
 … The nationalization for which Mossadegh is venerated as a martyr was thus completed not in spite of, but after, his overthrow.

Who Benefits from the Lie?

That leaves the uncomfortable question: why does this story persist so stubbornly?
Because it offers too much to too many actors to disappear.
It serves the Western left, which after Vietnam needed a vocabulary of American guilt. Iran became the canvas on which "imperialism" could be demonstrated beyond the Southeast Asian defeat. Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men (2003) even derived 9/11 from 1953, a chain of causation so absurd that it works only if no one asks any questions.
The CIA itself also profited massively from this narrative. The events surrounding 1953 were a complete success for both the West and Iran: communist influence was pushed back, looming chaos was averted, and in the following decades up to 1979, Iran experienced one of the most impressive economic developments in its history …

It serves Western politicians who want to stage diplomacy and appeasement with Tehran as atonement for past guilt. Madeleine Albright apologized in 2000. Barack Obama repeated the legend in Cairo in 2009 and in his memoirs. John Kerry negotiated the nuclear deal with diplomats who, schooled in the language of Western self-accusation, played the Mossadegh card routinely whenever the pressure at the negotiating table grew too great.

But no one benefits from it more than the regime in Tehran itself.

Ali Khamenei is dead. The system he embodied for decades lives on, for now, as of the time of this article, and with it the function the Mossadegh myth serves for that system. As long as the world is talking about 1953, it isn't talking about 1979. As long as the supposed CIA coup is being debated, the mass executions of 1988, in which thousands of political prisoners were murdered on Khomeini's orders, are not. As long as Mohammad Reza Shah appears as an "American puppet," the Revolutionary Guards, who since 1979 have been financing terror in dozens of countries, don't have to explain themselves. As long as the West accuses itself, the regime in Tehran doesn't have to face accusation.

The legend of the coup is the most important weapon of the Islamic Republic. Not its missiles. Not its proxy militias. Not even its nuclear program.
But a story the West tells itself, and which the regime listens to, comfortably leaning back.

What This Means for Us

In January 2026, an estimated tens of thousands of Iranian demonstrators died under the gunfire of their own security forces. Eyewitnesses reported hundreds of corpses in the streets. The regime shut down the internet so that the world could not watch.
In that very moment, German politicians, talk-show intellectuals, and public broadcasting correspondents were declaring that the real key to understanding Iran lay in a 73-year-old event that, in truth, did not happen the way they retell it. They did so in the conviction that they were saying something enlightened.
That is the real scandal. Not that the story is told incorrectly. But that it is told incorrectly at the very moment when the victims of this regime are dying in the streets, and that the lie covers, of all people, those who pulled the triggers.

Not merely that, but because every repetition of this lie is a slap in the face of those Iranians who, since 1979, have been tortured, hanged, and shot so that the regime can keep ruling. The Iranian tragedy did not begin in 1953. It began in 1979. 

No need to comment beyond what can be read on X. Still, what stands out for me is this sentence:

[Mossadegh's] Tudeh Party tore down statues of the Shah, alarming the clergy, who feared a communist takeover
In other words, Iranians feared, rightly or wrongly, that the "democratically-elected" PM was (like Fidel Castro six years later) a secret communist and/or, at the very least, a Moscow plant, ally, or useful idiot (if not all three). 

No matter how obscure the paths to power of people like Fidel Castro in 1959 (how about Barack Obama in 2008 and Joe Biden in 2020?!), the Left is always claiming that (neo-)communists in power is the result of invariably democratic decisions made of, by, and for the people. 

But like in Russia in 1917 and like in all the countries of Eastern European countries — not to mention China — in the eight years prior to 1953, the election of a communist was, or was supposed to be, the very last time there were elections in the respective nation — before a campaign of persecution set in.

Once again, the Left's insistence on American guilt (and the attendant need for its citizens to feel the deepest shame possible) is based on exaggerated or on (outright) fake news…

Friday, May 01, 2026

War & Peace: USA Supporter Says It Is Nuts for French Media to Present Trump as "Reeling" and "Desperate" While Iranian Leaders Are Described as "Celebrating"

Twice last week, Philippe Karsenty was invited to discuss the Iran war on BFMTV (click for video) where he suggested that it is bonkers for France's mainstream media to suggest that simply because he was no longer issuing an ultimatum to Tehran, President Donald Trump was "reeling" in the conflict with the Ayatollahs. Another subject for discussion was Lebanon, where a French soldier was seriously wounded and by the time he had been shipped back to France, he had died.  
BFM TV - 22 avril 2026 - Trump temporise - Analyse de la situation au Liban
The previous night, the spokesman for le Comité Trump France had been on BFMTV (click for video) where he pointed out that it is bonkers to refer to the Iranians as celebrating as they observe Trump as being allegedly "erratic and desperate": "We don't even know what the Iranians [those who are still alive!] are saying to each other."

This week, Philippe Karsenty also headed to RCN on Wednesday where he was the guest of André BARMO'HA with whom he discussed the the Al-Durah hoax, which has been bedeviling the Muslim (and the entire) world for 26 years… Among the things the spokesman for le Comité Trump France revealed was a stunning bombshell: in order not to embarrass the French government during a recent official event, the Conseil Représentatif des Institutions juives de France (le CRIF) refrained from inviting Israel's ambassador to the table of honor, demonstrating that, just like its equivalents in America, the council has been taken over by Left-leaning Jews

BFM TV - 21 avril 2026 - Trêve prolongée, blocus maintenu

Thursday, April 30, 2026

Radio Courtoisie: The Satanic Character of Today's American Left

   

LIBRE JOURNAL DU NOUVEAU MONDE DU 29 AVRIL 2026 : 

« LE CARACTÈRE SATANIQUE DE LA GAUCHE AMÉRICAINE D’AUJOURD’HUI »

Evelyne Joslain, assistée d’Eric, reçoit :

  • Erik Svane, porte-parole des Republicans Overseas France

Thème : « Le caractère satanique de la gauche américaine d’aujourd’hui »

























Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Radio Europe 1: An army of shadows on the social networks destroys all the right's arguments while promoting the left's narratives

Among Europe 1's guests on Christine Kelly et vous (42:33-58:22) on Monday on the subject of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump were Gabrielle Cluzel and our old friend Philippe Karsenty. Gabrielle Cluzel (48:34) said that 

There is a type of conspiracy theories that are chic … So, you see, on the right you are treated as an abominable conspiracy theorist, if you start speaking about immigration, "you are awful conspiracy theorists"; on the other hand, whenever the Left is behind far-fetched theories, we get, "oh it's not serious", we are asked to believe them.

While the spokesman for the Comité Trump France made these revelations:

This situation of demonization leads to dehumanization and a desire to see [Trump] eliminated. … And the social networks have been taken over by an army of shadows which destroys all the arguments on the right while promoting the left's narratives. (8:33)

Related: No Wonder There Is So Much Hostility to Trump and the Republicans When They Are Constantly Being Called Racists, Nazis, and a Threat to Democracy

Immediately prior to their debate on the Trump assassination attempt, Philippe Karsenty talked with Christine Kelly about another, albeit far from unrelated, subject on which the spokesman for le Comité Trump France is not only an expert but probably the foremost expert: a discussion about the Al-Durah hoax and how, even today, 26 years later, that hoax reflects on the government censorship and fake news aspects on French television (37:47, 39:21-42:32) — something which the leftists on the current Alloncle commission on the neutrality of France's public TV and radio station seems intent on whitewashing.

 

Attaque sur Trump : “Quand c’est la gauche qui est complotiste, on ne dit rien !” (Gabrielle Cluzel)

 

No Wonder There Is So Much Hostility to Trump and the Republicans When They Are Constantly Being Called Racists, Nazis, and a Threat to Democracy

Following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents' Association on Saturday evening, I was invited to appear on France Info Sunday around 3:10 PM.

(Here is the French version of this article: Rien d'anormal quant à l'hostilité ambiante contre Trump et les Républicains quand les Démocrates les taxent sans cesse de Fascistes et de Nazis.)

Aside from noting that the "political polarization" is entirely due to the Democrats, that if anything the attack justifies Trump's decision to build a ballroom in the White House, and that calling Donald Trump a "Christ-like figure" is absurd given how the left idolizes "saints" such as Barack Obama, Che Guevara, Mao, Lenin, etc., here, in essence, is what I said:

No Republican I know is surprised by the assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

When you constantly call people racists, fascists, Nazis, or the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, it's hardly surprising that you want to confront these kinds of monsters by beating them up or even assassinating them. Even doing anything to bring about the Republicans' defeat at the polls—including election rigging. And why not?! After all, it's about stopping… Adolf Hitler.

Indeed, Greg Gutfeld called Cole Allen the only rational member of the Democratic Party, since he was the only one who wanted to (re)act on this "threat to democracy." 

This guy was not a crank. He was not deranged.  Don't buy into that narrative, because it lets these pompous asses off. … He was just following orders. He was operating on a filter that said Trump was Hitler, and therefore it would be immoral if you didn't take Hitler out. So his filter is actually making him logical. He's the sanest one in the group because he took them at their word. [When] MS-NOW says "Trump is Hitler", he's the sensible one! He went after Hitler! … You can't write this off as a deranged person!

Are you aware of the numerous attacks on minorities in the US? A Black man complains that he found a noose hanging from a tree in his backyard. A gay or lesbian student complains that homophobic graffiti was left on their dorm room door.

After a police investigation, it turns out that in almost every case, the alleged victim created the "crime" themselves in order to belong to the victim class.

Why? Since—contrary to what the melodrama enthusiasts constantly claim—there are not enough displays of hatred and racism (!) in the US, the left is determined to create them at all costs.

Over at Issues & InsightsArmando Simón has a compendium of hate crime hoaxes, while Fabius Maximus has many more examples. Turn also to the Fake Hate Crimes Database, which "builds on the work of Laird Wilcox, whose Crying Wolf (PDF) is the original book on this subject. The books Hate Crime Hoax and Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics are recommended."

That's is the reason why I call leftists, regardless of their country of origin, drama queens (locofocos, fireeaters).

• Three assassination attempts (at least) on Donald Trump.

• In June 2017, a man opened fire on Republican elected officials while they were practicing for the traditional charity baseball game. Steve Scalise was hit. It turned out that James Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter who had read that Republicans were racist fascists. This information was disseminated, among others, by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

• In Virginia, it transpires that one Jay Jones running for the office of attorney general in 2025 fantasized not only about putting two bullets in the head of a Republican opponent but watching his children get gunned down as well.

• A man, armed, attacked a fertility clinic in 2011. He had read that the SPLC had called them "hateful."

• In September 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated during a meeting at a university in Utah. At his funeral, his supporters sont were called Nazis—including last September by former French government minister Aurélie Filippetti on this channel—and the SPLC had recently decided to add its Turning Point USA to the list of "hate groups" that, according to the left, are proliferating in the US.

All these would-be assassins acted after being Pushed To The Edge by reading that Democratic politicians and left-leaning journalists—not to mention teachers, like Cole Allen himself, in charge of educating America's youth—are calling these conservatives racists, fascists, Nazis, and an existential threat to democracy, while calling for "Maximum Warfare everywhere, all the time" against them. Let's not forget that throughout his presidency, Joe Biden referred to Charlottesville to brag about leading the fight against so-called white supremacists.

Above all, these assassins acted after the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled their targets racist and this NGO placed their names, or the groups they belong to, on its infamous "hate map."

However, the American press has either ignored or downplayed the major scandal that the FBI has just uncovered. When the SPLC raises millions of dollars to combat racism and extremism, they have used these funds—get this—not to fight the Ku Klux Klan and its affiliates, but rather to finance them—a notorious example being the torchlight procession in Charlottesville in 2017.

"They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups — even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes," FBI Director Kash Patel said. 

"That is illegal, and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved."

 … "Donors gave their money believing they were supporting the fight against violent extremism," Kevin Davidson, the acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, said in a statement. "As alleged, the SPLC instead diverted a portion of those funds to benefit individuals and groups they claimed to oppose," Davidson added. 

(from Neo-Nazi, Klan 'Cyclops' and ‘Sadistic’ biker … 5 of the most shocking SPLC informants)

As Greg Gutfeld comments on Gutfeld!, this is how circular reasoning works. It is "a circular process: you must fund racists to get more racism to then fund more racists," meaning that "The party that started the KKK is still paying the KKK."

Memes have started flooding in:

SPLC: "In order to fight racism, we have to pay people to be racist."

"There's so little white supremacy, so we had to pay the SPLC to manufacture it."

What conclusions can be drawn from this charade?

The hatred of American conservatives is unfounded. The country is not a hell-hole of racism or a nightmare of fascism — far from it. The vast majority of American citizens are good people. There is so little racism in America, so few fascists in the United States, that the Left has to fabricate them, exaggerate their numbers, and (last but not least)… subsidize them.

In fact, the only hatred that exists is against the Republicans, who are demonized to the extreme, and the only extremists are the radical leftists who present themselves as holier-than-thou saints.

Update — Radio Europe 1: An army of shadows on the social networks destroys all the right's arguments while promoting the left's narratives