Should the US have reinstated the Shah in 1954?

[dazzleman]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

John Foster Dulles didn't hold power.  He was appointed by Dwight Eisenhower.  Eisenhower held power, and Dulles did nothing of which Eisenhower did not approve.

In any case, that's an absurd statement.

[dazzleman]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

Now where did I place that eye-rolling icon ...

... oh, yes ...



To answer the question: Absolutely, with full hindsight. There was no way the US could have allowed the installation of a Soviet client (Mossadegh was a socialist in a way Ataturk never was, so you set up a false analogy) just south of its Caspian Sea border in 1953.

Futhermore, the Shah (or his collateral relatives) should have been given reassurance throughout the 1970s that they wouldn't be abandoned for a robed terrorist living in France -- a large source of the instability against the kingdom arose when those assurances ceased by 1978.

^^^^^^^^

[dazzleman]

John Foster Dulles quite strikes me as the most dangerous madman to have held power anywhere in the world after Stalin's death.

I quite agree with your assessment of Mr. Dulles.  He was at the nexus of a lot of very bad things that happened last century.  He was almost certainly involved in the assassination and cover up of President Kenedy as an example of a "bad thing".

That's a brilliant statement, considering that John Foster Dulles died in 1959.  Keep going.....