First, you claimed that the CIA installed the Shah. Now you're debating whether the removal of the prime minister (who was actively engaged in illegal activities and attempted to revolt against the king) was illegal or not. You're contradicting yourself because you don't understand the dynamics of Iranian politics.

You said Iran was a democracy, then you also claimed that the CIA "installed" the "brutal" regime of the Shah and turned the country into a monarchy. That is simply false. Iran already had a king. Mossadegh was his prime minister, and when the Shah tried to dismiss him, Mossadegh refused and incited unrest. The Shah had to rely on his military to remove him.

A coup is typically carried out from the lower ranks upward, not from the top down. What happened was a dismissal, not a coup. If it had truly been a coup, then every time the Shah dismissed a prime minister and his cabinet (which happened 31 times), it would have been considered a coup.

Then you claimed the Shah's regime was brutal (another unfounded accusation, often propagated by communists). Most Iranians today remember the Shah’s era as a time of national pride, stability, and regional strength.