That was in 1953 and lead by the British, not the U.S.
Damnit, Kermit!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
From the Wikipedia article you linked:
"Classified documents show that British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup"
Yes, Britain precipitated the effort. The US, however, enabled its success.
Britain has been deeply involved in the Persia/Iran for hundreds of years including multiple occupations and coups. In 1921 the British installed original Shah Pahlavi, father of the Shah Pahlavi deposed in the 1979 revolution. And before Pearl Harbor brought the US into WWII the British - in cooperation with the Soviet Union! - occupied Iran.
If Britian had not been weakened by WWII and terrible economic policy it is unlikely that they would have spent a year begging the US to assist them in Iran. Until this time the US had little involvement in the region.
We luckily live in a time (post 2013) when you can read the CIA's own fascinating history of the event:
"Well, the US took over from Britain in the Middle East and, in fact, much of the world, after the Second World War. In fact actually, replaced Britain and France. France was summarily expelled— they weren’t given the time of day. Britain however, was given a role. It was given the role of “junior partner”, as the British foreign office rather ruefully described it, accurately. Britain was going to be our lieutenant— the fashionable word is “partner”— as they were described by a senior adviser in the Kennedy administration. That’s reasonably accurate— you’re seeing an example of it right now. The lieutenant is doing its job— the attack-dog, maybe."
https://chomsky.info/19990404/
"U.S. Middle East Policy", Noam Chomsky (1999).
Your CIA reference supports my and others' in this thread essential claim: "Recently, the CIA has declassified a number of records relating to the 1953 coup, including a version of an internal history that specifically states the agency planned and helped implement the coup."
The matter of the British instigating the action isn't in question, and hasn't been questioned. The relative roles of the US and British -- applied, again, to the middle east as a whole, by the British foreign office itself, is. You have been profoundly insensitive to this distinction.
I do appreciate the CIA document reference.
You seem to think you're arguing with me over something. Unfortunately, half of what you're arguing is over things I didn't say or misreadings of things I did say. The other half is over points of agreement.
Both are tiresome.
I doubt this conversation will progress, so will leave this as my final comment.