Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to 'keep hitting Iran hard' - report

[Mac-7]

You're announcing in advance that you aren't going to accept anything you don't want to hear.

Pathetic to not want to know facts, but typical.

Here is the situation on March 6:

Kurdish Iranian dissidents in Iraq deny attack plans but say they would join a US invasion of Iran

Officials with one of the armed Kurdish Iranian dissident groups based in northern Iraq say they are not planning an imminent cross-border attack on Iran but would join a ground invasion if the U.S. were to launch one.

apnews.com

Three days later, after the Trump regime's dithering over the war, the Kurds were firmly on the fence.

Experience has taught them not to trust the Americans in general and Trump in particular.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/03/kurdish-groups-iran-face-risky-dilemma-amid-unclear-us-endgame

And they aren't going to risk their lives again on a fool who has no idea what he is doing and no plan.

You dont speak for the Kurds but go ahead and do so anyway

The Kurds are pretty smart

There is much benefit for them to invade and occupy Kharg Island with US air and naval support

 

[Rawley]

It seems that way. That's what TDS does to a person. I've never seen or heard of a more crippling disease.

That, and they hate the Jews.

 

[odanny]

Whereas you support the Mu lahs in all their endeavors hoping the gloated pigs can sit back and laugh at you for being so monumentally stupid as you are.

They're laughing at you, and I don't blame them. Why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't we all? You are too clueless to understand why, and they know this. They understand American stupidity, like most of the world does.


You don't. It's sad, but its true. You're not smart enough to understand, and much of the world knows why.

 

[Independent thinker]

That, and they hate the Jews.

Do they hate the Jews more than Trump or Trump more than the Jews? Or is it a tie?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Haha the coup to over throw what? The same king was there before and after

I mean, you could at least do a LITTLE research regarding our involvement in the area...?

Mohammad Mosaddegh, as Prime Minister of Iran (1951–1953), sought to audit the accounts of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) to ensure proper royalty payments. Upon AIOC's refusal to cooperate, Mosaddegh nationalized the oil industry, prompting a British boycott and the 1953 CIA-backed coup that ousted him.

Key Details regarding the Audit and Nationalization:

• The Audit Request: Mosaddegh, leading the Iranian parliament (Majlis), wanted to verify that the AIOC was paying the agreed-upon royalties to Iran and to limit their control over Iranian oil reserves.
• AIOC Refusal: The AIOC, now BP, refused to allow the audit, which angered the Iranian government and public.
• Nationalization: In response to the refusal, the Majlis voted to nationalize the oil industry and expel foreign corporate representatives.
• Economic Consequences: Britain instigated a global boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Mosaddegh’s government, resulting in a severe economic crisis.
• The Coup: The tension, spurred by the oil dispute and fear of communist influence, led to the 1953 Operation Ajax, a joint British-CIA plot that overthrew Mosaddegh and solidified the Shah's absolute rule.

Regarding your 'same king' comment...
Before 1953, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a relatively weak constitutional monarch struggling for power against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized Iranian oil. After the 1953 CIA/MI6-backed coup restored him, the Shah became an increasingly authoritarian dictator, consolidating power, modernizing rapidly, and relying on U.S. support until his 1979 overthrow.

The Shah Before 1953 (1941–August 1953)

• Weak Position: Succeeded his father in 1941 during the Allied occupation. He was officially a constitutional monarch with limited authority over a weak parliament (Majlis).
• Power Struggle: Faced a direct challenge from nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who gained immense popularity by nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, challenging British interests.
• Failed Coup and Exile: In August 1953, the Shah tried to dismiss Mosaddegh but failed, forcing him to flee the country briefly.
• Pro-Western but Unsteady: Pro-Western in outlook but viewed as a weak ruler with shaky control over the political situation.

The Shah After 1953 (August 1953–1979)

• Consolidated Autocracy: Following the August 19 coup (Operation Ajax), the Shah returned to power and systematically dismantled opposition, turning Iran into an authoritarian state.

The 1953 coup transformed him from a constitutional figurehead into a, empowered monarch, but it also tainted him as a Western puppet, which fueled the resentment that ended his reign.

In other words, it's pretty simple to dispute your 'same king was there before and after.' While LITERALLY true, our meddling in the affairs of another nation had profound consequences to Iran's political hierarchy and ultimately ignited the fuse that would eventually explode in 1979.

 

[struth]

I mean, you could at least do a LITTLE research regarding our involvement in the area...?

Mohammad Mosaddegh, as Prime Minister of Iran (1951–1953), sought to audit the accounts of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) to ensure proper royalty payments. Upon AIOC's refusal to cooperate, Mosaddegh nationalized the oil industry, prompting a British boycott and the 1953 CIA-backed coup that ousted him.

Key Details regarding the Audit and Nationalization:

• The Audit Request: Mosaddegh, leading the Iranian parliament (Majlis), wanted to verify that the AIOC was paying the agreed-upon royalties to Iran and to limit their control over Iranian oil reserves.
• AIOC Refusal: The AIOC, now BP, refused to allow the audit, which angered the Iranian government and public.
• Nationalization: In response to the refusal, the Majlis voted to nationalize the oil industry and expel foreign corporate representatives.
• Economic Consequences: Britain instigated a global boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Mosaddegh’s government, resulting in a severe economic crisis.
• The Coup: The tension, spurred by the oil dispute and fear of communist influence, led to the 1953 Operation Ajax, a joint British-CIA plot that overthrew Mosaddegh and solidified the Shah's absolute rule.

Regarding your 'same king' comment...
Before 1953, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a relatively weak constitutional monarch struggling for power against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized Iranian oil. After the 1953 CIA/MI6-backed coup restored him, the Shah became an increasingly authoritarian dictator, consolidating power, modernizing rapidly, and relying on U.S. support until his 1979 overthrow.

The Shah Before 1953 (1941–August 1953)

• Weak Position: Succeeded his father in 1941 during the Allied occupation. He was officially a constitutional monarch with limited authority over a weak parliament (Majlis).
• Power Struggle: Faced a direct challenge from nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who gained immense popularity by nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, challenging British interests.
• Failed Coup and Exile: In August 1953, the Shah tried to dismiss Mosaddegh but failed, forcing him to flee the country briefly.
• Pro-Western but Unsteady: Pro-Western in outlook but viewed as a weak ruler with shaky control over the political situation.

The Shah After 1953 (August 1953–1979)

• Consolidated Autocracy: Following the August 19 coup (Operation Ajax), the Shah returned to power and systematically dismantled opposition, turning Iran into an authoritarian state.

The 1953 coup transformed him from a constitutional figurehead into a, empowered monarch, but it also tainted him as a Western puppet, which fueled the resentment that ended his reign.

In other words, it's pretty simple to dispute your 'same king was there before and after.' While LITERALLY true, our meddling in the affairs of another nation had profound consequences to Iran's political hierarchy and ultimately ignited the fuse that would eventually explode in 1979.

So how was there a coup when you had the same king before and after?

 

[Lisa558]

Do they hate the Jews more than Trump or Trump more than the Jews? Or is it a tie?

Here’s the order, ranked according to hate:

1. Trump
2. Jews who side with Israel against Islamic terrorists
3. Blacks who admit that they have some responsibility for their own outcomes and can’t blame racism for everything
4.
5.
…..
79.
80.
81. HAMAS savages
82. The Islamic Terror Regime of Iran

 

[Rawley]

Do they hate the Jews more than Trump or Trump more than the Jews? Or is it a tie?

Close, but I think their Trump hate is greater.

 

[Lisa558]

Close, but I think their Trump hate is greater.

Yup. That’s why I put Trump in first place.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Most of these countries align their military to respond to threats to them, they don't design them to project power like the US does.

Then they need to start...

 

[martybegan]

Then they need to start...

I'd rather the US be a benevolent guarantee of international trade and travel then let others do it piecemeal.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Then they need to start...

Iran is closing off THEIR Strait. SA, Qatar, UAE should all be bombing hell out of anywhere Iran could be launching attacks on the tankers and their own food shipments.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

So how was there a coup when you had the same king before and after?

Here's something you should try, actually reading BEFORE responding. Our CIA has confirmed their role in a coup in Iran in 1953. Deny it happened all you want but I'll defer to the US agency that actually participated in it. And I JUST described how the Iranian gov't that existing before the coup was different than the one that existed afterwards. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that, maybe try reading slower...?

In first, CIA acknowledges 1953 coup it backed to overthrow leader of Iran was undemocratic

While other American officials have made similar remarks in the past, the acknowledgment by the CIA in a podcast about the agency’s history comes as much of its official history of the coup still remains classified 70 years after the putsch.

www.pbs.org

The CIA now officially describes the 1953 coup it backed in Iran that overthrew its prime minister and cemented the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as undemocratic.

In response to questions from the AP, Iran's mission to the United Nations described the 1953 coup as marking "the inception of relentless American meddling in Iran's internal affairs" and dismissed the U.S. acknowledgments.

AI Overview of the CIA admission;

Yes, the CIA has formally admitted to orchestrating the 1953 Iranian coup, known as Operation Ajax. Declassified documents released in 2013 and recent, direct acknowledgments in 2023 confirm the agency directed the ousting of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to strengthen Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's power, aiming to protect Western oil interests.

Key details regarding the admission include:

• Official Documentation: In August 2013, on the 60th anniversary of the coup, the CIA released internal documents—including a 1970s history titled "The Battle for Iran"—that explicitly identify the event as a CIA-directed act of U.S. foreign policy.
• Direct Acknowledgment: In October 2023, the CIA took further, public credit in a podcast, with officials acknowledging that the intervention was a "significant exception" to their operations and calling it "undemocratic," according to PBS NewsHour reports.
• The Operation: The coup was designed to stop the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control, and was executed in collaboration with British intelligence (MI6).
• Previous Denials: While high-ranking officials like Madeleine Albright (2000) and Barack Obama (2009) acknowledged the US role, for decades the intelligence agency had avoided formal, direct admission of its involvement, says BBC News.