As the article says, the coup against Mossadegh provides the classic model for looking at these events from the left. Things have changed since then. But it's hard to make the case that the official way of looking at these things (US as leader of global democracy) is now the right way. The attempted coup against Chavez in 2003 fits the Mossadegh model pretty well, and had a similarly disastrous outcome. And the Bolivian coup in 2019 shows the pattern continuing.
The central problem is the assumption, almost unchallenged in mainstream discussion, that the US state ought to have a big role in determining political outcomes in other countries. That's shared even by opponents of coups and similar. Based on its track record of failure, it would be better in nearly all cases to leave events to work themselves out, well or badly. That's particularly true of Latin America, where the history has been almost uniformly disastrous.
As the article says, the coup against Mossadegh provides the classic model for looking at these events from the left. Things have changed since then. But it's hard to make the case that the official way of looking at these things (US as leader of global democracy) is now the right way. The attempted coup against Chavez in 2003 fits the Mossadegh model pretty well, and had a similarly disastrous outcome. And the Bolivian coup in 2019 shows the pattern continuing.
The central problem is the assumption, almost unchallenged in mainstream discussion, that the US state ought to have a big role in determining political outcomes in other countries. That's shared even by opponents of coups and similar. Based on its track record of failure, it would be better in nearly all cases to leave events to work themselves out, well or badly. That's particularly true of Latin America, where the history has been almost uniformly disastrous.