In my view, Britain is through not much fault of it's own, responsibile. If we go back to the Israel boondoggle, was Britain not weak and weary of colonial projects after ww2, they could have resisted Zionist terrorist blackmail attempts to usurp the land and maintained a brutal no questions asked shoot on sight policy for terrorism whether Arab or Zionist in the region.

For the coup? Yes, Churchill/British Petroleum (Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company before the rebranding to BP right after the coup) couldn't topple Mosaddegh and asked the CIA for help. Nationalized often means reverting transactions that could be seen as fraudulent, when powerful nations bribe/take advantage of poorly run developing countries/banana republics and suddenly own a large part of the natural resources that then no longer benefit the population. That is the type of communism the US was often afraid of - increasing literacy, healthcare, land reform at expense of foreign private companies.

None of what you wrote makes Britain sound "ultimately responsible". For that matter, oil nationalization is not a reason to remove democratically elected government and replacing it with dictator.

undefined

Why not? Many 20th-century geopolitical basket cases have the fingerprints of empire on them.

According to Claude:

Significant responsibility

• 1914, Nigeria: Britain merged two protectorates but governed them separately → the Biafran War (1967–70).

• 1915–22, Iraq/Middle East: Britain made contradictory promises and drew borders with France → coups, the 1958 revolution, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

• 1917–48, Palestine: Britain made irreconcilable pledges and left without a settlement → the Arab–Israeli conflict.

• 1920–21, Ireland: Partition was drawn to give unionists a built-in majority → the Civil War and the Troubles.

• 1930–56, Sudan: Britain sealed off the south, then rejoined it to the north at independence → two civil wars and South Sudan's secession.

• 1947, India/Pakistan: A rushed exit and hastily drawn borders → partition violence, the Kashmir dispute, and Pakistan's 1971 breakup.

Partial responsibility

• 1935–48, Burma: Britain ruled the hill peoples separately → decades of insurgency, though the Japanese occupation and military rule matter as much.

• 1953, Iran: Britain co-led the coup with the CIA → the Shah's autocracy and the 1979 revolution, with the US sharing the lead.

• 1954–63, Somalia: Britain handed Somali-inhabited lands to Ethiopia and Kenya → border wars, though Italy, the Cold War and the dictatorship weigh more.

• 1960, Cyprus: Divide-and-rule tactics and an unworkable constitution → the 1974 division, with Greece and Turkey as central actors.

• 1965–79, Zimbabwe: Britain didn't confront the Rhodesian breakaway and deferred land reform → the later collapse, which was mostly the ruling party's doing.

• Also arguable: Sri Lanka, Fiji, Aden/South Yemen, and the Durand and McMahon border lines.

They have nothing to do with the war. War stopped the protests. And if anything war killed the internal opposition and cemented power in the armed guards. What was weak unsupported regime gained a lot of strength.

Fair. Just as the Americans did after 9/11, perpetrated by attackers from Saudi Arabia.

#NeverForget