Comment by lossolo

Mosaddegh didn't storm the palace. The Shah officially reinstated him. If the Shah's appointment of Qavam was legitimate, then his reappointment of Mosaddegh was equally legitimate. You can't have it both ways, either the Shah had constitutional authority to appoint prime ministers or he didn't. As for "taking it back by force", mass public protests aren't the prime minister using force. Mosaddegh didn't have a militia. He had popular support. In a democracy, public pressure influencing government decisions isn't illegitimate, it's the whole point.

And in parliamentary systems, prime ministers who resign can return to power without new elections if they command enough support. It's happened in the UK, Israel, Australia and elsewhere. There's no constitutional rule that resignation is permanent and irreversible.

The question is whether Mosaddegh was constitutionally appointed and had parliamentary backing. In July 1952, the answer to both was yes.