so he was not "elected by the members of governement" -- rather he was voted to parliament by the people and then elected to government by the representatives
Next -- so you acknowledge you were wrong to call him an Islamist?
He was a socialist, yes, and he would have been better than the Ayatollahs or communists. You take the lesser of two evils -- when the Brits got him out, their actions of taking out a democratically elected leader led to the destabilisation that brought in the Ayatollahs
I don’t recall calling Mosaddegh an “Islamist” nor did I mean to by accident if it looks like I did. I certainly did not mean to call him Islamist nor did I mistake him for same; I regard him as socialist.
That dissembling over prime ministers is specious; even the European Union claims that its Commissioners are installed “democratically” by that same notion. Clearly the position that Mosaddegh occupied is more powerful than that of the UK prime minister since he had to be removed from power forcibly; note that such power was accorded to him by the same Shah originally. Mosaddegh is not a figure to be defended at all.
Mossadegh, i have nothing against him, was first & foremost a Nationalist; that can be good & bad. He did have socialist leanings too. And socialists, communists & later islamists were about to use him for their own agendas. Moreover, he did not have nor exercise diplomacy. Whilst back then the nationalization oil was a very contentious issue in Iran, and of course even the Shah wanted that, Mossadegh’s approach worked to the detriment of Iran. More so had he been permitted to continue with his antics.