I think your implicit premise is that if "the West" interferes, the ONLY response is to then move to radicalism or authoritarianism. — schopenhauer1

No, I didn't imply anything of the kind. No nation is a single unified entity that feels, thinks and acts with a single mind. The premise I was attempting to back up was that when there is external interference, the balance of power between/among existing factions shifts or even collapses. When a democratically elected regime is overthrown before it's well established, because of massive financial and/or military support for one of the authoritarian factions, the democratic forces are weakened, often fatally. Then the fear-mongers, the scapegoaters, strongmen and religious revivalists gain ascendancy. They are able to consolidate power far more rapidly than a democracy that depends on consensus from the people. By the time the liberal factions can recover and regroup, all the repressive mechanism are in place.

But what if an outside, much bigger power - say the USA or some imperialist nation - interferes? Or actually invades? Or undermines the economy? How are the democratic factions in a small country supposed to defend it? — Vera Mont

If nobody intervened, you'd be justified in saying "It's all their own fault. They made the wrong decision." But when they've been seriously wounded, failing to rebound stronger than ever, a people should not really take all of the blame.

No, I didn't imply anything of the kind. No nation is a single unified entity that feels, thinks and acts with a single mind. — Vera Mont

No but a sufficient amount of a revolutionary mob, will act as if a single mind (pace French and Iranian Revolutions.. and ensuing reigns of terrors).

When a democratically elected regime is overthrown before it's well established, because of massive financial and/or military support for one of the authoritarian factions, — Vera Mont

"Who" is CHOOSING to support this these authoritarian factions? You gloss over it like it's a law of nature and not groups of people deciding things.

Then the fear-mongers, the scapegoaters, strongmen and religious revivalists gain ascendancy. — Vera Mont

Not on their own. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Hitler gets a majority from a parliamentary procedure of coalitions trying to gain a majority and then using the fascist-type by promoting him as leader.. and then precedes to wreak havoc. Trump is a much less dire circumstance, yet corrupting nonetheless, erodes the guardrails of democracy, currently. It takes support for those who want it, don't mind, or are indifferent to it. But here I am giving you examples of internal weaknesses in structure WITHOUT direct external interference. So, your theory fails that it is some axiom. It is all people doing human things, like making decisions to throw their support for things that are detrimental to justice, personal freedoms, or economic viability.

By the time the liberal factions can recover and regroup, all the repressive mechanism are in place. — Vera Mont

As is the case consistently shows in history, correct.

If nobody intervened, you'd be justified in saying "It's all their own fault. They made the wrong decision." But when they've been seriously wounded, failing to rebound stronger than ever, a people should not really take all of the blame. — Vera Mont

But to only focus the blame on the external force is also wrong-headed. This is the tactic of the Left. You MUST show it to be the Elephant.. and the Tiger is always justified and can be explained away as not the Tiger but the Elephant. The violence too becomes explained away as "really" being the elephant FORCING the tiger.. as if they are simply the beaten animal lashing out. And here we get the roots of all the defenders, admirers, hedgers towards the Tiger's violent action.

No but a sufficient amount of a revolutionary mob, will act as if a single mind (pace French and Iranian Revolutions.. and ensuing reigns of terrors). — schopenhauer1

Not quite an accurate depiction of either event.

"Who" is CHOOSING to support this these authoritarian factions? — schopenhauer1

Factions always exist. They are always supported by their supporters, who are not always of a single mind. Left-leaning organization tends to resemble herding cats, while far-right groups tend to be far more regimented, usually with a much more forceful leadership than the democratic ones. When the left loses power and influence, the right is ready to move in and consolidate power. After that, it doesn't matter whether the population at large support them: they have the army and police and no compunction in using either.

So, your theory fails that it is some axiom. — schopenhauer1

It was a general observation from history, no more.

But when they've been seriously wounded, failing to rebound stronger than ever, a people should not really take all of the blame. — Vera Mont

is not the same as

only focus the blame on the external force — schopenhauer1

But... whatever... The Left is just wrong.

But the first coup wasn't their idea

This is what I thought because it gets repeated all the time as an explanation for the poor US - Iranian relation.

Having later looked into the relationship in more detail, I discovered this is a quite skewed look. The influence from the world power with "hugely disproportionate economic resources," amounted largely to a single junior case officer with a suit case of $100,000 (worth more then, but still not THAT much) making lots of phone calls. The most effective bribes were probably for paying protestors, but all three sides were already in the habit of paying protestors at the time, making this nothing too exceptional. Large numbers of demonstrators don't appear to have been bribed anyhow, and were instead moving against Tudeh (who had previously supported the Soviets staying in Iran) engaging in their own revolt, and against Mosaddegh and his dismissal of Parliament.

For example, the book below has a blow by blow and, as the subtitles suggests, is not favorable to the intervention. However, it does show how the "CIA coup," wasn't some great plan by the CIA, but largely the work of a single guy calling together wavering figurines, and the biggest thing the US did was pump up the Shah to go back. Maybe it was just the right leverage at just the right time, but given how little it took for Iranians to do the overthrowing, the idea that it was smooth sailing for Iranian democracy and Mosaddegh had Kermit Roosevelt not been around seems unlikely. A right wing coup was still probably likely, and then left wing groups with Soviet support were also jockeying for position, fighting in the streets, etc.

But the image of full American control, as with Chile, gets support from two directions. On the one hand, you have intelligence services and their retired operatives wanting to play up their influence and involvement in world affairs. On the other, you have critics of the US who want to paint it as single handedly running Middle Eastern and Latin American politics.

Which is not to say it wasn't horrendous or perhaps a determining factor in the history of Iranian politics, but it could only be determining because there was a three way power struggle that was already very close to tipping one way or the other. It's often painted though like the situation was one between stable, liberal democracy and the coup, which is not the case.

I don't claim that the US actually controlled any Middle Eastern state; that might have had a better outcome. Their (and Britain's) bungling interference, strong support of despotic rulers, and their failure to apprehend the local conditions, resulted in the present mess.

Right, I am speaking to my own prior ignorance. Just the way it is usually talked about, I had always assumed the Iran coup was something more like a Bay of Pigs situation (but successful) rather than the slap dash, somewhat halfhearted bungling that it was.

resulted in the present mess.

Certainly a contributing factor. It's rather dizzying to try to compare what went right in South Korea and Taiwan (originally American support for military despots) with what went wrong in Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. The move directly to liberal democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq went poorly, but then slow pressure campaigns aimed at reform also only worked in a few cases (with backsliding in the case of Hee). Ultimately, I think the US could do far more to prop the KMT up in China, or the Shah in Iran, etc. as militarily viable, then it could to influence their internal politics. With Mosaddegh, the case for action was particularly weak because, by all accounts, the communists were not in a particularly strong position for their own attempts to gain control, and Mosaddegh himself seemed committed to a middle path. It wasn't a Vietnam-like situation where pulling backing obviously meant the victory of the Soviet aligned forces, but rather a rare case with a viable non-aligned centrist.

I suspect the biggest problem with American foreign policy is that there isn't one. They don't seem committed to any long-term vision or plan; each administration just prods and pokes, pushes and pulls, tries to put out the fires left by the previous administration - sometimes by pouring gasoline on it, sometimes by throwing dollar bills on it, always wheedling and rattling their big rusty sword at the same time.

I suspect the biggest problem with American foreign policy is that there isn't one. — Vera Mont

Well put.

American foreign policy is basically just the President and the White House reacting to events as they happen. That's it. Nothing else. The State Department hardly can do anything by it's own, and it isn't meant to do so. The Congress is fixated in it's domestic political struggles and seems like this administration is overwhelmed by the issues and has already thrown in the towel. Or the towel simply dropped (in Afghanistan) and the fighter just noticed it and said "Oh well, the fight ended".

If asked what the foreign policy is, you will get this tree hugging list of everything positive about embracing American values... which bare no resemblance to actual events and actions that the US is doing. Not only are there no real objectives set fourth, there also isn't any understanding of the historical continuation of US foreign policy. Long term policies are basically guided by lobby groups, which guard their own fields.

They don't seem committed to any long-term vision or plan; each administration just prods and pokes, pushes and pulls, tries to put out the fires left by the previous administration - sometimes by pouring gasoline on it, sometimes by throwing dollar bills on it, always wheedling and rattling their big rusty sword at the same time. — Vera Mont

This is what you get when people think the US President is some kind of Superman. Yet when there aren't any long term plans that the State Department could simply follow, everything becomes questions that the President has to answer. And since he is one man who has only so many hours a day that he can decide on foreign policy matters, the end result is this.

And, of course, some presidents are more knowledgeable than others; some presidents get better advice than others; some have more and some less constructive approaches. Watching Bush II stumble around, hurling bombs hither and yon was embarrassing ... until we witnessed.... *groan!*.