There was that coup Eisenhower OK'd in 1953. I can see how Carter not supporting another coup would be taken poorly.

If you are talking about the 1953 coup, I've never heard that description. Everything I've read says the UK, with some degree of US support, overthrew the government.

> And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness.

That's exactly a coup. The people who conduct coups - and other crimes and violations - always have a smooth justification. Russia is protecting Russians in Ukraine! Hitler needed some 'breathing room', etc.

If the head of state is incapable, then the next civilian in line can take over. No advanced democracy has ever needed the military's help for such a situation.

That next "civilian" was an Islamic extremist who took over because the other leaders of the revolution were too weak and foolish and were eliminated by the Islamic extremists.

At that moment a military takeover would have resulted in a smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government.

Things are not always simple and straightforward.

> That next "civilian" was an Islamic extremist who took over because the other leaders of the revolution were too weak and foolish and were eliminated by the Islamic extremists.

Are you talking about 1979? I was talking about 1953.

> At that moment a military takeover would have resulted in a smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government.

If you mean in 1979, that's quite a prediction when nobody knew what would happen, and nobody now can confidently predict paths untaken. it's hard to imagine how the military wouldn't have just furthered a civil war, being closely associated with the Shah. What was the military doing in 1979?

Also, why would the Iranian military make things any more 'smooth' than another power base?

> smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government.

As of 1979, there hadn't been a democratic civilian government since ~1953; it was a foreign-backed, and IIRC military-backed dictatorship. Why would they install an actual civilian, democratic government if given the chance?

I was obviously talking about 1979, as the topic is Jimmy Carter. The military could have stabilized the power transition. It's not about what military was doing - it was following the orders, and Shah was just too weak because of illness to give any. Iranian revolution destroyed the country and threw it into abyss of Islamic madness, forced millions to flee and forced the rest under inhumane control of theological dictatorship compared to what the regime of Shah feels like a walk in a park.

Iran was not a dictatorship but a constitutional monarchy. It was also like that before 1953. The only actual coup that really happened in 1953, was a coup by Mossadegh, who falsified the parliamentary elections to gain the power and then threatened Shah when he was not appointed as prime minister.

Now, perhaps he could have succeeded with his coup, but unfortunate for himself, he also made some very stupid moves, that removed the important support he needed.