According to historians the Mossadegh government stopped counting votes in the 1952 election before seats that would have been unfavourable to it were complete and thereafter governed with significantly less than a majority of seats had the full number been counted. According to historians he used the equivalent of 'emergency powers' to effectively rule as a dictator. That means his government was no more 'legitimate' than any other dictatorship. The fact that he had once been legitimately elected does not change that - by that standard Batista & Marcos would both have been 'legitimate'. So what does this mean? It means that people need to stop claiming Mossedegh was 'democratically elected' or 'legitimate' when he was overthrown. It is a comforting fantasy, but untrue. Clearly people like yourself are unconcerned by illegitimate governments with which you agree. Otherwise you would not be so upset that I have pointed out an inconvenient truth and you would not be dragging the dictatorship in Venezuela into this conversation. I have never endorsed the removal of Mossedegh because I do not believe it was the correct thing to do. That is your invention. I would complain about you ascribing opinions to me that I have never held, but there is no reason to believe it would stop you telling lies about me.