The Cleric’s Reversal
In July 1952, Ayatollah Kashani’s street networks saved Mohammad Mossadegh. Thousands of demonstrators, mobilized by the most powerful populist cleric in Iran, flooded Tehran in the Si-e Tir uprising and forced the Shah to back down from dismissing the Prime Minister.
Thirteen months later, the same cleric mobilized the same networks to destroy him.
That reversal — a genuine ideological break, driven by Iranian grievances that had nothing to do with the CIA — is the part of the 1953 story that the simplified narrative cannot accommodate. The thousands of Iranians who moved on August 19 had their own reasons. Here is who they were.
The Morning
By 8:00 AM on August 19, 1953, the bazaar districts of southern Tehran were filling with people. Merchants and craftsmen from the Grand Bazaar, laborers from the industrial quarters, seminary students from the religious schools. They were joined by lutis — bazaar strongmen bound by codes of loyalty — led by men like Tayyeb Haj Rezai and Shaban Jafari, the latter nicknamed “The Brainless” for his willingness to act first and think later.
They were chanting “Long Live the Shah.”
The Cleric Who Changed Sides
Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani had been Mossadegh’s most powerful ally. As Speaker of the Majles, he commanded the networks no Western intelligence agency could replicate: the lutis, the bazaar guilds, the prayer leaders who spoke to tens of thousands every Friday.
In July 1952, when the Shah briefly dismissed Mossadegh, it was Kashani’s street networks that launched the Si-e Tir (30th of Tir) uprising — three days of mass demonstrations that forced the Shah to back down and reinstate the Prime Minister. Without Kashani, Mossadegh would have fallen a year earlier.
By mid-1953, the same networks were being mobilized against Mossadegh. The break built over months. Kashani opposed Mossadegh’s demand for plenary powers, viewing it as a slide toward dictatorship. He felt marginalized by secular appointments. He was alarmed by Mossadegh’s tolerance of the Tudeh Party, whose atheist ideology was an existential threat to the clerical class. And Mossadegh refused to implement the religious policies Kashani considered essential.
Was Kashani bribed? Documents released in 2017 suggest he may have maintained contact with US officials. Some narratives frame him as a paid British agent through his sons’ contacts. But historians Richard Cottam and Darioush Bayandor argue the clerical break was a genuine ideological fracture.1 Kashani didn’t need foreign money to oppose a prime minister who was ruling by decree, tolerating communists, and ignoring the clergy.
The same lutis who saved Mossadegh in July 1952 unseated him in August 1953 — not because a CIA handler flipped a switch, but because the cleric who commanded them had changed his mind.
The Constitutionalist
Dr. Mozaffar Baghai, leader of the Toilers Party (Hezb-e Zahmatkeshan), had been Mossadegh’s coalition partner in the National Front. He was an intellectual, a parliamentarian, and a man who took constitutional law seriously.
When Mossadegh dissolved the Majles through a rigged referendum and began governing by decree, Baghai broke publicly. He called the dissolution an “auto-coup” against the legislature. His open letters and parliamentary speeches framed Mossadegh not as a democrat under siege but as a lawless prime minister who had destroyed the very institutions he claimed to represent.
On August 19, Baghai’s street cadres were in the crowds — and unlike the Tudeh, they had no hesitation. Baghai provided something the CIA could not: an ideological framework that cast the anti-Mossadegh movement as a constitutional restoration rather than a foreign plot. This mattered more than money. Soldiers and police needed a reason to defect beyond cash. Baghai gave them one.
Hussein Makki — once known as “Mossadegh’s soldier” — followed the same path. The defections of Baghai and Makki were not mercenary transactions. They were the responses of men who believed their ally had betrayed the principles they shared.
The Merchants
The bazaaris of Tehran had been the National Front’s financial backbone. Merchant class support for oil nationalization was nearly universal in 1951 — the bazaar saw the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s exploitation as both an economic and a patriotic grievance.
But the British oil blockade changed the calculation. Iran’s oil exports collapsed from 241.4 million barrels in 1950 to near zero by 1952.2 The “oil-less economy” policy — Mossadegh’s attempt to survive without oil revenue through bond issues and austerity — produced hyperinflation and unpaid civil servants. The bazaaris, who depended on trade and currency stability, watched their livelihoods disintegrate.
By August 1953, the merchant class viewed Mossadegh’s refusal to negotiate a settlement as obstinacy, not heroism. If you had taken out loans against trade revenues that vanished overnight, watched your savings dissolve into hyperinflation, and seen your employees go months without pay — while the leader who promised to fight for your sovereignty refused every deal that might reopen the markets — you would understand the bazaaris’ calculation. They weren’t acting on CIA orders. They were acting on their balance sheets. Britain created the blockade. Mossadegh’s intransigence perpetuated it. And the bazaaris paid the price.
The Generals
The Iranian military officer corps remained largely loyal to the monarchy throughout the Mossadegh period. This was not a secret or a CIA creation — it was a structural fact of Iranian politics. The Shah was the commander-in-chief. Officers swore oaths to the monarch and the constitution.
General Fazlollah Zahedi — whom the Shah designated as Mossadegh’s replacement — was not a CIA puppet. He was a former Minister of Interior with his own political network, his own ambitions, and his own following in the military. When the Shah’s farmans were published during the August 16-18 interregnum, Zahedi’s network rallied officers not by promising American dollars but by appealing to their oath of loyalty to the Shah and the constitution.
On August 19, the military’s role was decisive. General Batmangelich and Colonel Farzanegan led the tank assault on Mossadegh’s home at 109 Kakh Street. General Daftari, the Chief of Police, allowed police units to join the pro-Shah crowds. Army units at key intersections refused to fire on demonstrators chanting for the Shah. None of this was choreographed by a CIA station that had signaled retreat three days earlier after its own plan collapsed.
The Party That Stood Still
The most consequential actor in the August 19 drama was the one that did nothing.
The Tudeh Party was the most disciplined political force in Iran. Its military network comprised hundreds of officers embedded throughout the armed forces. On paper, it had the capacity to counter any royalist mobilization.
But the Tudeh was paralyzed. Stalin had died in March 1953, and the Soviet leadership was in transition — cautious, inward-looking, unwilling to provoke a confrontation with the West over Iran. Moscow sent no directives. The Tudeh leadership, trained in obedience to the Comintern line, had no playbook for independent action.
There was also ideology. The Tudeh viewed Mossadegh as a “bourgeois nationalist” — useful as a counterweight to the Shah but not a genuine ally. They had attacked him as “an agent of American imperialism” in earlier rhetoric. A united front was ideologically distasteful.
When Tudeh crowds flooded the streets on August 16-17, tearing down statues of the Shah and demanding a republic, it backfired catastrophically — confirming the clergy’s and the military’s fears that Mossadegh was opening the door to communism. Then Mossadegh ordered them cleared on the evening of August 18. The Tudeh leadership, adhering to party discipline, ordered cadres to stand down.
By the morning of August 19, the streets were empty of the only organized force capable of resisting the royalist coalition. The Tudeh later adopted the “CIA omnipotence” narrative to explain this failure — by blaming an all-powerful CIA, they absolved themselves of their own strategic paralysis.
The Scale Problem
The CIA spent roughly $60,000 to $100,000 on August 193 — funding for the Rashidian network, payments to street organizers, logistical support.
What actually moved on August 19: thousands of people in the streets, police defections across the city, multiple military units including tank columns, the capture of Radio Tehran, and a pitched battle with heavy weapons at the Prime Minister’s residence. More than 300 people died.4
Money can rent a crowd. It cannot conjure a coalition of clerics, constitutionalists, merchants, military officers, and street networks — each with grievances accumulated over two years — and synchronize them into a coordinated political upheaval in a matter of hours. The CIA’s TPBEDAMN program had spent months creating an atmosphere of fear around the Tudeh threat. The Rashidian network published the farmans and funded street organizers. But the engine that moved on August 19 was Iranian — powered by Iranian grievances, Iranian networks, and Iranian decisions.
The “hybrid operation” conclusion that historians Darioush Bayandor and Ray Takeyh have reached is the most honest assessment5: foreign intelligence exploited real fractures in a collapsing government. The fractures were not manufactured. The collapse was already underway. And the forces that delivered the final blow were overwhelmingly domestic.
The Word for It
There is a word for the assumption that people in the Middle East cannot act from their own political convictions — that their decisions must always be explained by a Western hand pulling strings behind the curtain.
The standard “CIA coup” narrative performs a peculiar inversion: it claims to champion Iranian sovereignty while systematically denying Iranian agency. Every cleric who broke with Mossadegh becomes a paid agent. Every merchant who funded the opposition becomes a CIA asset. Every soldier who followed his constitutional oath becomes a puppet. Every street fighter who moved on August 19 becomes a rented thug.
This framing serves many interests simultaneously. The Islamic Republic uses it to claim eternal victimhood. The Tudeh used it to explain away their own strategic incompetence. Western liberals use it to perform acts of contrition. The National Front uses it to maintain Mossadegh as a flawless martyr without painful introspection.
What it cannot accommodate is the possibility that thousands of Iranians in August 1953 — on both sides — were exercising agency. That Kashani genuinely feared dictatorship. That Baghai genuinely believed in the constitution. That the bazaaris genuinely faced ruin. That the military genuinely believed in their oath.
Reducing them all to puppets of a small CIA station — a station that had just failed in its own plan and been ordered to evacuate — is not anti-imperialism. It is Orientalism wearing a different mask.
This article is a companion to The Coup That Wasn’t. For the constitutional argument behind the Shah’s decree, see The Article 46 Debate. For the economic crisis that radicalized the bazaar, see The Oil-Less Economy.
Footnotes
-
Darioush Bayandor, Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Richard Cottam, Nationalism in Iran (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1979); National Security Archive, “New Findings on Clerical Involvement in the 1953 Coup in Iran,” March 2018 ↩
-
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company production records; Office of the Historian, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Iran, Volume X ↩
-
CIA operational budget estimates from Donald Wilber, Clandestine Service History of Operation TPAJAX, March 1954, declassified by the National Security Archive, 2000 ↩
-
Casualty estimate from multiple sources including the National Security Archive and Darioush Bayandor, Iran and the CIA ↩
-
Ray Takeyh, “The Collapse Narrative,” Texas National Security Review, November 2019; Bayandor, Iran and the CIA ↩