No, it was exactly a color revolution.

Roosevelt quickly seized control of the Iranian press by buying them off with bribes and circulating anti-Mossadegh propaganda. He recruited allies among the Islamic clergy

And the Wikipedia for Operation Ajax:

In August 2013, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup. According to American journalist Stephen Kinzer, the operation included false flag attacks, paid protesters, provocations, the bribing of Iranian politicians and high-ranking security and army officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.

So I guess you're saying that a truly popular uprising, like a spontaneous movement of the people orchestrated by the an imperial power has never happened? How narrowly do you need to define your definition, like, what evidence would convince you? I think your "its never happened" is an over correction, out of annoyance with online ML default talking points. And that's understandable, they can be ridiculous. But where an online ML misapplies the label of a color revolution to a popular uprising, the opposite of that is not the truth. And practically, declaring the opposite of an untruth to be the truth is not the best way to combat misinformation.

Idk how practical it is to nitpick this in our current struggles. Like the tea party was kind of an inside job, right? The right wing funded, and continues to fund, a bunch of loonies to attack liberal democracy, directly connected to Koch money, which continues to fund the Heritage foundation and project 2025. Hell, it even appears that Epstein and collaborators had something to do with 4 Chan and Qanon, so the January 6th attack was heavily influenced by private capital with government connections in intelligence in the USA and Israel.

Also its not like Radio Free Asia was just some hobby amongst people interested in liberating their own countries, they are concerted efforts to sway public opinion toward outcomes favorable to the US. Why would they waste the resources if there wasnt a popular component needed to affect real change? Were we just wasting time and resources?

At what point does a corporation capable of affecting public policy, like an oil company (relevant in every example), when they fund protestors, or counter protesters, how do you slice that? Was it like 3 months ago when a bunch of old Mexican business people donned one piece shirts, and protested the social democratic policies of Mexico's president Sheinbaum, using Trumpian talking points like resistance to cartels? If those business leaders or organizers had any connection to US intelligence, how does that figure? Or with the numerous failed coups in Venezuela, where the US declared Juan Guaido president? The US verifiably had connections with Venezuelan businesses and right wing leaders in orchestrating capital strikes and various economic attacks against the people.

If we crush the economy of a country and that causes a popular uprising, how does that figure? Does that ever happen completely absent of mass propaganda? I dont think so.

Like its very messy and amorphous, constantly changing and shifting dynamics, I think you're being too hard and fast with how you want to categorize, or decategorize, a color revolution. And the reason is kinda silly. To me its like youre saying that because (almost) everything is an op, then absolutely nothing is. Not a single tankie gets owned by being a different stripe of wrong, and certainly no one is educated. Campism creates as many enemies of a cause as it creates allies, because truth isnt weighed according to facts but by opposition to the other.

If you want to defeat tankies, or any political sect, you have to out-organize them, not steelman or debate. So it's not even a very practical position.