WI 1953 CIA coup never happened?

The 1953 CIA coup is frequently cited as one of the reasons for the revolution. Let’s say Ike opposes the coup, causing it to never happen. What are the affects? Does the revolution still occur?
 
The 1953 CIA coup is frequently cited as one of the reasons for the revolution. Let’s say Ike opposes the coup, causing it to never happen. What are the affects? Does the revolution still occur?

It would still happen, he had lost support of the Clerics by acting like a Dictator himself, and cozying up with the Communist Tudeh Party, till he turned on them as well, just before the Coup.

Mosaddegh would not have lasted long, even without the $1M Kermit Roosevelt spend on the Generals
 
The 1953 CIA coup is frequently cited as one of the reasons for the revolution. Let’s say Ike opposes the coup, causing it to never happen. What are the affects? Does the revolution still occur?

Iran transitions to a modern, democratic country. It would be a lot more like Turkey, which until the last few years was doing very well for decades. Good relations with the west become possible (despite the short term tension caused by oil nationalisation) and the Iran-Iraq war never happens.

That leaves Iran much richer than it is today, because without the immense damage inflicted by the war and its aftermath combined with the country's bad relations with the world has really caused Iran to suffer. Remove those factors and the country could really be a bright spot in the whole region.

Even as it is, Iran is arguably the strongest Muslim country today, with the possible exception of Turkey.

Without the Iraq Iran war, Saddam likely never invades Kuwait, which means no Gulf war either. That in turn means probably no western invasion in 2003, which means no ISIS. So Iraq would be in a far better place too.
 
The 1953 Ajax Operation was one of the dumbest moves ever produced by the USA and CIA. Had Ike put his foot down, it's likely the British would not have gone through with it, though the USA would have to try and more persuade the British not to.

Iran would likely modernize thanks to nationalizing their oil and one effect I can see this have would be Iran taking the place of Saudi Arabia as the premiere Middle Eastern ally. They would have more progressive and agreeable politics and still provide them with oil. Granted, Mossadeigh would have to be smart and ensure Iran would have more sources of income beyond oil.

This could mean that Iran could also have more positive relations with Israel, though that is admiringly all up in the air.
 
Or, more likely, the Mullahs make a comeback in some other form.

How exactly? I don't see them having much popularity if the religious reactionaries top a popular political figure and cause problems in the nation, especially if it could lead to economical decline
 
That is it. PM Mossadegh was not popular enough with a lot of religious figures, and he had lost control of the street. He was no Nehru.

I meant would the religious figures themselves be popular if they did do a coup. Hell, I figure the USA may want to add extra protection.

If there was a coup from within, the Iranians would probably become angry at the religious figures and oust them eventually.
 
There would probably still be a confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but it would just be expressed in more nationalistic than religious terms. OTL Iran emphasizes its Islamic heritage more, but under the Shah it emphasizes pre-Islamic Persia more.

In 1971 the Shah held a weeklong festival in Persepolis for the 2,500 year celebration of the Persian Empire. The Pahlavi dynasty was portrayed as the inheritor of a line of monarchies stretching back to Cyrus the Great. The extravagant banquets and gourmet chefs flown in from Paris for foreign dignities at the festival led to criticisms of the the Shah's extravagance by leftists and Islamists critics. The event is ironically considered the beginning of the end of the Iranian monarchy by many historians. Khomeini called it the "devil's festival".

Iranians view modern Iran as the inheritor of an ancient civilization in the same way that ancient Chinese, Greece, and Rome inspire Chinese, Greek, and Italian national pride. There's still a lot of anti-Arab sentiment in Iran that looks down on gulf monarchies like the Saudis as uncultured desert nomads compared to Iran's history.
 
Iran transitions to a modern, democratic country. It would be a lot more like Turkey, which until the last few years was doing very well for decades. Good relations with the west become possible (despite the short term tension caused by oil nationalisation) and the Iran-Iraq war never happens.

That leaves Iran much richer than it is today, because without the immense damage inflicted by the war and its aftermath combined with the country's bad relations with the world has really caused Iran to suffer. Remove those factors and the country could really be a bright spot in the whole region.

Even as it is, Iran is arguably the strongest Muslim country today, with the possible exception of Turkey.

Without the Iraq Iran war, Saddam likely never invades Kuwait, which means no Gulf war either. That in turn means probably no western invasion in 2003, which means no ISIS. So Iraq would be in a far better place too.
Being able to trade with the world and not having your physics professors assassinated by the Mossad would certainly help. Without the instability of the revolution the Iranian diaspora would be much smaller. Tehrangeles, the Iranian neighborhood of LA, might not exist.

Decades of a stable, secular Iran would also provide another model for the new republics in Central Asia. OTL, Azerbaijan and the new Central Asian republics built their states in Turkey's image, to the point of copying the Turkish Constitution almost word for word in some cases.

A secular, democratic Iran would provide a different country to look to, and Pan-Turkic sentiment would have a more significant competitor. Even today, Iranians view as Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan as a cultural "greater Iran" with the Kurds and other central Asians sometimes thrown in.

Tajik isn't really a separate language per se, it's just a dialect of Persian that was twisted the same way Moscow also tried to meme a "Moldovan" language into being among the Romanian speaking subjects they ruled.
 
Top