Spot on. That 1500 Wr, along with his Mile and 2000 are not going anywhere for at least 10 years, partly due to questionable methods of getting to that level. For that read 1990's, EPO era, etc. Some of the splits in the last laps of championship races in that 91-04 era were off the charts, and this fact, together with the sheer frequency of fast times on the circuit by several athletes at the time, something never seen before or since, makes those performances at least with a question mark hanging over them. Something that seems even more likely with recent allegations and evidence that have come to light.
As for the OP's question, the answer is a clear NO. For a start he was a good 10m behind Kiprop, and thus didn't even win the race. Kiprop is younger, has more natural speed and runs the event far more often. If he can't get within 1.6sec of the WR, then Mo, at 32 next season, has got no chance. I was surprised when Farah ran that 3:28.8, and at the time I thought, even as a Brit, that the performance didn't add up. I'm hoping that time will only prove my doubt unfounded.
Taking Farah's 3:28.8 as a clean performance, one then has to look at the circumstances of the race.
Firstly, and I don't care what name calling and denials come the way of Ventolin, some tracks are faster than others. Athletes, commentators and journalists alike have all voiced the opinion that Monaco is one of the fastest, a claim backed up by the consistent fast times set on that track in middle distance events over the last few years. Certainly as a top of the range mondo track, it is faster than anything his countrymen, Coe, Ovett & Cram, ever ran on 30 + years ago.
Secondly, Farah is competing in an era without Bekele, Geb, etc, where the trend is to rely on a fast last 400 to win the Championship 5s & 10s. Since joining Salazar, Farah has focused on his speed and core strength. He has the accumulated aerobic background from years of competing over 5000m not to have to worry too much about mileage. His training is more akin to a 1500 - 5000m runner than merely a distance runner. There would be a negligible change in his training or in his 1500 times if he were to focus on the 1500.
Thirdly, everything clicked into place for Farah that night in Monaco, where the pace and the unfolding of the race played out almost perfectly for an optimal time. His lap times were very even paced; 55.0, 56.6, 56.0, 41.8 (55.4 last 400); he ran little extra distance, he received a lot of drafting, including on the last lap, and he had Kiprop in front pulling him to a fast time. Pretty much the same effect EL G had on the likes of Lagat, Ngeny, Cacho, etc in the late 90's. Compare this to the way the likes of Coe, Cram & Ovett ran their fastest times. They often had very erratic pacing (e.g Coe's 54.0, 58.0, 56.1), a lot less drafting and usually a long way in front of the rest of their respective fields over the last lap. There is a world of difference between running up front isolated over the last 500m and having someone 15m ahead of you to latch on to and aim for.
Then there is the question of a difference in 30 years! World records and times are moving targets and later generations should be expected to be aiming for faster times.
Farah's 400 & 800 ability would not be a match for Coe, Ovett & Cram from 30 years ago. His superior endurance would certainly narrow that gap once you get to the 1500m, but most observers with a clue about that era would tell you that if you transported any of those 3 Brits to the Monaco race at their career peaks, they would certainly have run much faster than their actual pbs and certainly Coe & Cram would have beaten him. Ovett would have been very close. People expected Coe & Cram to run 3:28 at their respective peaks back in the 80's on inferior tracks. They didn't due to poor pacing, injuries, illnesses, etc. The fact that Farah ran less than a second faster than them 30 years later does not mean that he was a better 1500 runner or that he would have beaten them on their day.