Fact check: How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days

1. Summary of the results

1. Summary of the results:

The CIA and British intelligence services did orchestrate a successful coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in August 1953. Operation TPAJAX/Ajax, led by CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., used various tactics including bribery, propaganda, and organized protests to achieve its goals between August 15-19, 1953. This has been officially acknowledged by both the CIA (2013) and President Obama (2009).

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints:

The original statement omits several crucial contextual elements:

• The operation was primarily driven by British oil interests after Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP)
• The coup required extensive groundwork and planning before the "4 days," including months of relationship-building with Iranian military and religious leaders
• The first coup attempt actually failed, and success came only with the second attempt
• The operation resulted in approximately 300 Iranian civilian deaths during street protests
• The coup had profound long-term consequences, including being a major contributing factor to the 1979 Iranian Revolution

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement:

The "4 days" framing oversimplifies a complex operation that required months of preparation and multiple attempts. While the final phase did take approximately 4 days, presenting it this way potentially downplays:

• The extensive diplomatic and intelligence groundwork required
• The role of Iranian domestic actors, including religious leaders and military officials who were crucial to the coup's success
• The significant British involvement, as the statement focuses solely on the CIA
• The broader Cold War context, where Western powers feared potential Soviet influence in Iran, which was used to justify the intervention

The beneficiaries of this simplified narrative include both Iranian hardliners (who use it to justify anti-American sentiment) and Western oil interests (who benefit from downplaying their historical role in the intervention).