1) First of all, I thank Iman because of his mastery on the topic.2) I think this book is a superficial journalistic narration about the events lead to the coup and it lacks analytical explanations.3) Let me look at the coup from US foreign policy point of view during the cold war. I try to understand their attempts to overthrow Mosaddegh's government. Imagine a stubborn government appeared in Middle East and it did not accept to compromise with your close ally, United Kingdom. On the other hand, based on the British espionage network attempts, anarchy and chaos was the predominant portrait of internal circumstances of an undeveloped country in the southern borders of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism threat, Oil, your superior geopolitical situation after World War II, and your chance to change the world political hegemony joined together and paved the way for intervene in the Oil dispute. In that era, for US, removing Communism threat was more important than freedom and democracy virtues. Also I confess that Kermit Roosevelt was an intelligent person and his persistency deserves admiration.4) I think it is better to avoid using "every", "each" and "all" to express our opinion about a society and its conditions, especially for public social behavior. It is a big mistake to assume that the citizens and inhabitants of our country are the people whom we know and our acquaintances. We have to consider that a great fraction of our population leaves in the rural regions and small cities and their concerns may be completely different from ours.5) Somebody said that "if the Oil nationalization movement continued …" I think nationalization of Oil was not a judicious and wisely work at that time and it could not be continued, because it was obvious that British colonizer government would not abandon its benefits and it imposed sanction against Mosaddegh's government. We should give attention that we did not have basic knowledge, technology and infrastructures to explore and exploit Oil, and also we did not have even an Oil tanker to export it. So without considering the realities and consequences, he and his partisans in the council decided to nationalize Oil industry, idealistically and ordinary people supported this decision, sentimentally.6) What is the relationship between IQ and social-political events and phenomena!?7) I agree with Mohammad in order to in politics we need more snake charmers than dragon killers! And I believe that politics has its own morality and this is an undeniable bitter fact!

Thank you X , first of all I should mention that this could be a good way to continue the discussions and comments that are remained. 1)I should also mention my Acknowledgments for Iman and his complete detailed presentation that definitely take lots of his time.2) I am also agree that the book can't be Historical reference.3)Of course we should not expect that American Government (or any foreign government) try to do something for our profits.In farsi we said There is no cat who catch the mice for God bless. The criticism of that period , in my point of view, is more a Self-critic than a blame of Others! What the had done is for their own benefit.4)100% agree5) I am agree that if the movement had been proceeded,we had had much more difficulty and problems in oil industry and economy which influenced our juvenile developing and advancement process. I am agree that the act of Mossadegh movement were more sentimental that rational (like most of the others nationalistic movements),but the worthy fact is the constitution of the concept of "independency"(that sometimes exaggerated till a pathological delusion thesedays)and "self-confidence" of a society by "Mossadegh"'s.Although occurrence of a war( which was probable)might perished his heroic position, but never expire the values of these concepts. 6) I will think about it and answer if I found anything interesting.7) I agree too.