Obviously I didn't calculate down the days like an autist, and you come across as an autist with your "You should have waited until January".
It's called a joke. Obviously, the US did not suddenly switch to promoting demokwacy the day after 31 December 1952. It should have started at home if that was the intent, or in Western Europe for that matter.
Operation Ajax was the US being duped by the aggressor UK. Iran was going to nationalize its UK-controlled oil industry. The UK went balls-out with political destabilization operations, subversion, a RN blockade, and heavy sanctions.
The UK constantly lobbied the US to help it overthrow Iran's government. The US consistently refused, and tried to mediate. It wasn't until after Eisenhower came into office that the UK was able to trick the US into thinking the communists were taking over in Iran (because of the UK's own destabilization efforts).
Huh, you managed to get quite accurate information from Wikipedia for once.
Mosaddegh allied with the communists, and seized absolute power for himself in 1953, which was critical to finally tilting the reluctant US (and the Shah himself) to agree to side against him.
This is vastly exaggerated on both counts.
Not only that, but the US extracted compromises from the UK as a price of US approval, breaking the british monopoly on Iran's oil & massively benefiting Iran financially.
As opposed to nationalization?
Anyway, even if it did benefit Iran compared to the status quo ante, it was not support for "democracy".
The Suez Crisis in 1956, where the US took Egypt's side against the UK, France, and Israel, 100% proves my point. The US was acting out of idiotic State Department idealism and an obsession with "being on the right side of history", not Realist realpolitik which you wrongly accuse the US of.
Nasser was not a Democrat, possibly even less so than the Western Europeans if that is even possible, so this hardly proves that the US was supporting "democracy". And there were plenty of Realpolitik reasons for supporting Nasser.
First of all, nationalization with compensation is a sovereign right, according to the argument of the US - and which the British themselves had done to many industries in the aftermath of 1945. Secondly, the US feared - again - that a humiliation of Nasser would lead to closer ties with the USSR. Thirdly, the US opposes any sort of empire, as that will lead to more powerful countries that can then challenge the US.
It's called a joke. Obviously, the US did not suddenly switch to promoting demokwacy the day after 31 December 1952. It should have started at home if that was the intent, or in Western Europe for that matter.
Huh, you managed to get quite accurate information from Wikipedia for once.
This is vastly exaggerated on both counts.
As opposed to nationalization?
Anyway, even if it did benefit Iran compared to the status quo ante, it was not support for "democracy".
Nasser was not a Democrat, possibly even less so than the Western Europeans if that is even possible, so this hardly proves that the US was supporting "democracy". And there were plenty of Realpolitik reasons for supporting Nasser.
First of all, nationalization with compensation is a sovereign right, according to the argument of the US - and which the British themselves had done to many industries in the aftermath of 1945. Secondly, the US feared - again - that a humiliation of Nasser would lead to closer ties with the USSR. Thirdly, the US opposes any sort of empire, as that will lead to more powerful countries that can then challenge the US.