Who brought down the Pahlavi regime?

Two words: 'oil' and 'foreigners'


Who brought down the Pahlavi regime?
by Ben Madadi

Why did the Pahlavi regime fall? Theories are out there aplenty. Was Khomeini too tough? Were the Iranian people simply too unhappy with the regime? I don't think so. Let's have a different look!

We know where Iran was around the time of the Islamic revolution. Much of the Iranian diaspora longs for those days. They consider the last years of the Pahlavi rule as Iran's best time ever. I have never been truly nice about the Pahlavi regime, but I must acknowledge the reality, that both during Reza Shah, and also Mohammad Reza Shah, Iran saw its greatest modernisation process in its modern times (not talking about thousands of years ago). Iran became an economic power-house in the region, and amazingly, Asians (even some Japanese) were coming to work in Iran, though not really in great numbers. Ever since the revolution Iranian workers, and managers, have been flooding many Asian (also non-Asian) countries.

The reason, the real reason, times were good (for some) during Mohammad Reza Pahlavi can be explained with two words: 'oil' and 'foreigners'. Iran sold its crude oil to foreigners, and with the money paid some of the same, and other, foreigners to invest in Iran. The money they made from selling crude oil during the 70s was truly significant compared to Iran's population back then. Beside this there was also the economically sound policy of giving the foreigners the right and the possibility to take advantage of Iran's oil revenues and create businesses. The government did some investments of its own too, using the oil revenue building schools, roads etc, therefore greatly contributing to the whole national development. Government employees were also paid quite well, and all these investments had started to create something that Iran had never known before the Pahlavi, a 'middle class'. The middle class could afford a good life without being powerful cronies, traditional landlords, or lucky or shrewed, linked or not, business people. This middle class, unfortunately, never got the chance to get big enough. The Islamic revolution put an end to the trend.

Times were not so great for many other Iranians during the Pahlavi. Most Iranians were left behind most of the real benefits of that huge prosperity. However, surprisingly, it was not really the poorest of Iranians who brought down the Pahlavi regime. Those who brought down the Pahlavi regime were not the richest, but they were not the poorest either. The poorest used to live (they still do) in villages and there were also smaller numbers near large cities. The revolution though succeeded thanks to the heavy participation of the urban population. The truly poor, most of the rural population, had much less an impact over the Islamic revolution.

Could have we expected the Pahlavi regime to create a 'just' or 'uniform' society, at least from a financial point of view, just from the beginning of their endeavour toward modernisation? That would have been impractical. The heavy modernisation should have started somewhere, and just like almost anywhere else in the world, it started in large cities. Some modernisation also took place in farther, and smaller, areas too, through schools and administrative posts. And of course, let's not forget the statues of the shah (the father or the son, depending whose time it was) that was supposed to be among the first of the industrial plantations, just to sign the territory for all to see, as any 'respectable' owner does (sign his/her territory).

The reason the Pahlavi regime fell is because the Shah wanted to be a dictator, but not-a-dictator at the same time. He was too civilised (Swiss school, foreign languages etc) for a Middle-Eastern tyrant, and too ignorant and naive for a Western leader. He was unable to kill and massacre like a Middle-Eastern strongman, but he was also unable to overcome his personal weaknesses; his utter desire for power, easy life and cosy admiration. His father was a Middle-Eastern strongman. The strongman brought up the best heir any Middle-Eastern tyrant could wish for (Western schools, manners etc) though he was probably deposed too early, before having taught his son the nasty, somehow less civilised, parts of ruling over a Middle-Eastern dominion. The father should have probably prepared a strong and devoted entourage (not leaving that for the son), and also a truly tough and ruthless security apparatus before handing over the throne. But Reza Shah didn't have the chance, the time. He was surprised, over-thrown so hastily. He left the job unfinished. The son proved to be too civilised, too weak, too Western, not enough Eastern, and not so smart to do things on his own.

This is all history, but history is important. Coming to terms with history is very important for any nation. Khomeini was a huge leader, a worldly figure, but it was not Khomeini's powers and popular charisma that brought down the shah, it was the Mohammad Reza Aryamehr regime's incompetence and naivete that caused its downfall. Carter's simple-mindedness may have helped too, but Carter wasn't ruling Iran, Mohammad Reza was.�


Recently by Ben MadadiCommentsDate
Moving forward
Nov 06, 2008
Testing democracy
Nov 02, 2008
Playing dumb?
Sep 29, 2008
more from Ben Madadi

God you have guts!

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

The same free education was then, is today!
There are much more Universities today than before!
There are more scholarships today than before!
We have much more independent agriculture today than we ever were then. Same goes to technology and science and etc.

Boy you are so uninformed!

Do you know how much I paid for school right before revolution? 20 Rials! That is less than 30 cents then (about $1 in 2008 dollars).

Do you know how much one has to pay now for it. Well, I asked my relative who runs a school this past summer and she said 135,000 tomans for the same school. That is about $145.

Yes, there are more universities than before (mullas did not shut down any university, LOL!) but:

(1) not a single prestigious university has been added since the revolution. The emphasis was on the quality before the revolution. The emphasis has been on the quantity since the revolution since mullas wanted to humiliate the educated class and as they said prove that being engineer and doctor is no big deal. The prestigious universities in iran were then tehran, sharif, and shiraz; and today they are still the ones known and respected above others.

(2) A vast majority of students end up going to azad university. And guess what: azad university is a business for mulla, your rafsanjani charges million of tomans (that is thousands of dollars) for the wealthy to get a diploma in a broken down building.

And where are these scholarships that you are talking about? Show me.

In 1979, iran had 25,000 students in america alone, most on some sort of scholarship from likes of pahlavi foundation. Now how many do you think we have in the west. I let you determine.

And we have more science and technology? Oh yeah!

That is why we have had 100+ years of experience in oil refinery and have not been able to build any refineries independent of the west. That is why we now import 60% of gasoline that we never did before.

That is why we bribe chinese and indians to drill a hole in the ground for us so that mullas can pull the oil and sell and pocket the money. We don't even know how to drill for oil after 100+ years of extracting oil from the ground.

That is why it has taken us 30 years and still bushehr reactor is unfinished. Still begging russians for their garbage for a premium price. Even IRI newspapers are making fun of IRI-russia relation. Did you see the cartoon about that in iranian paper?

That is why, your friend Mammad demonized shah that what he did was to bring in car assembly; and that is what mullas are doing 30 years later again and again, and were not able to even update the old national car factory without help from brits and had to shut it down.

That is why everywhere you go, from banks to steel mill, from refinery to assembly lines; all you see is what shah built in 70's except that now they are falling apart due to neglect.

As for the 14%. Yes if we had a free vote, mullas had fallen long long time ago. But their hold on power is by force.

I know that I will not get anywhere with you since we are the two opposite poles of the earth. You live in 7th century and I live in 21st century; you are a prisoner of your ideology and hatred and my mind is only dependent on irrefutable facts and numbers.

But I have a serious question for you, and that is that what is the source of your bias.

(a) Are you really so uninformed that you make such claims?

(b) Are you really an ideologe islamist since you do not use the same moral compass to compare shah and IRI. You keep calling shah names but then you say that IRI committed "some" crimes. A regime that can only be compared to non-iranian criminals like saddam, changiz, or tatar in atrocities. NO iranian regime in the past 2500 years has killed as many, oppressed as many, suppressed iranian culture as much, and robbed as much as IRI has done. Are you uninformed or indifferent toward their nationalistic and cultural crimes? Or maybe you only believe in nation of islam and consider all others enemies of the islamic nation?

(c) What is really the source of your hatred. It definitely is NOT morality. If it were morality, I do not mind you mentioning verified shah's short-comings, but compared to IRI crimes, shah's crimes are no more than petty crimes. You amplify one by thousands of times, to even beyond belief (like, trillions of dollars that shah stole), and totally ignore the other one. Are you really uninformed or what?

(d) Does your affinity with IRI have any religious roots? Do you really consider these gangsters have anything to do with god or his message? Don't you really know that these beasts have no god and no religion except for power and wealth?

(e) Or are you being paid by IRI one way or the other?

I am really interested in knowing where your views come from. I am really puzzled as how can someone be so indifferent towards suffering of so many for so long.

Enjoy the IRI view here:



Anonymouss / Jamshid

by Dariush (not verified) on

14% and counting. You have been counting for 30 years. You keep counting! If nothing, At least it will put you to sleep at knights and you have sweet dreams.
The same free education was then, is today!
There are much more Universities today than before!
There are more scholarships today than before!
We have much more independent agriculture today than we ever were then. Same goes to technology and science and etc. You just don't admit it.


God you are confused!

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

I say it again: yes it was our money, and shah gave us our money in the form of free education and free food, etc because shah was NOT a thief. Had he been a thief, like mullas, nothing would have been spared for the people, exactly like it is today (no free education, no scholarship by pahlavi/alavi foundation, no free lunch, ...).

I almost took you seriously. Now I know that either you are joking, or talking to those gullibles who are still buying into what khomeini threw up 30 years ago. You simply cannot be as confused as you pretend to be. That is an impossibility that I end up arguing with a die-hard ideologue of those diminishing 14%.

Remember: 14% and counting. Let's hope that when we get to 13%, the curse of the number 13 would set mullas' tails and their supporter on fire so we don't have to wait for the count to reach 0%.

Damn khomeini who cursed and confused people like you for 30 years and counting!



Re: Anonymouss

by jamshid on

There is no puzzle! Most of the hezbollahis like Dariush know the truth about the people being better off with the previous regime. However, to them "people" means only the IRI ranks and files. Anyone outside of the IRI circle is "disposable" and "irrelevant", and most importantly, are NOT among the "people".

See how simple it is? That's why they say things like "people are better off today than in the past..." If you consider their definition of the word "poeple", you'll have to agree with him. Of course the IRI ranks and files are better off today! Aren't they?

The likes of Dariush don't really care about the correct meaning of the word "people". As long as they are a "khodi" in the circles of the IRI Mafia, and have "exclusive" access to Iran's riches, then why should they stop defending the IRI?


Re: Dariush

by jamshid on

Food today belongs to the people too. So why isn't the IRI giving "taghzieh raayegan" to the people? If the prices of food was cheaper today, I would understand. But the prices and inflation have reached record levels too.

So what gives?

I'll tell you what gives. Today corrupt thieves like you are so greedy that they want it "all" to themsleves (IRI ranks and files).  Keep sucking Iran blood Dariush, gorge yourself with your ATM, aka IRI, while you can, your days are numbered.



by Dariush (not verified) on

After all these you are back to square one.
What do you mean Shah gave Taghziyeh rayegan?
What rayegan? It was people's. They deserve much much more! If only shah and darbar were not stealing people's share and giving the country away. Every one could have a good life. And he would still be considered a shah not a shark. Now I see why you like him so much, after all it was about the piece of pie.


Reminds me Jamshid....

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

This is a true story from just before revelution when I was in primary school. I remember it as it was yesterday.

One day we were dismissed from class in a cold winter day around 10 o'clock in the morning and we were asked to go to the school's big salon that was called "Namaaz Khaaneh."

I walked in and saw a huge pot of milk boiling on a kerosene flame, and there was a pile of bread stacked up against the wall, they were not warm but they were still soft as if they were made earlier in the day or maybe a day earlier. Then there was one of those square aluminum container of butter. First I did not know what it was since I had not seen that much butter before and I thought it was maybe solid vegetable oil or something.

I was told by my parent not to eat outside the house for safety reasons as I was a small child then. So I did not know what to do when we were asked to pick up a piece of bread, a piece of butter, and a metallic glass of hot milk. I went to a corner and pretended to be eating. I did not know if I should disobey my parent's order that I should not eat, but I could see that some pupils were eating anxiously since my school was located in a rather poor neighborhood of the city. I still sense the smell of the boiling milk as it was yesterday.

This continued for some time as we were asked for the same routine every morning. I often skipped it since I did not feel hungry and somehow did not dare asking my parent if it was okay to eat in school; but there were those whom I could see eating the late breakfast anxiously.

That is why it is so hard for me to bite the hand that fed me and educated me, while others may not have the same sense of gratitude.

I am sure islamists say that all this was from our own money. True, but then they also claim that shah was also a giant thief. However, the generosity and thievery of the government cannot both be true at the same time. And how come that the current non-thief islamic government neither provides the free education nor the free food that went with it. That puzzles me.


Anonymouss and Dariush

by jamshid on

Free education? What about the "taghzieh raayegaan"? I don't know if you are old enough to remember that?

The likes of Dariush used to collect the milk and khorma and fruits from those who didn't want to eat theirs, put them all in a plastic bag, then go somewhere in a corner and gorge themselves with all that free food.

Today however, we have people who are starving in Iran. We also have fat cats like Dariush who will do anything to protect their free ATM, aka the IRI. Can you blame them?


And one more thing...

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

don't bother to bring in the poll numbers from iran; i already have it:

According to IRI polls, verified by dariush, 1500% of those polled favored IRI over shah's regime and and the remaining -1400% favored shah. And these numbers are as accurate as that 50/50 or those trillions that shah stole.

You are really funny. LOL!


Wrong again! LOL!

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

I was way too young to be anything for darbar then, but I must admit I benefited fully from the free first-rate education that shah provided to all (except for islamists of course who could not take advantage of it due to their mental atrophy). Apparently all of your claims are of similar integrity.

All this time I thought you were serious, but you were really joking! LOL!

Let's see if you can walk the talk and stay in iran. Mullas need someone to turn the lights off when they do the al-faraar dance in 5 years.

Here are some classic lies from emam khomeini (may he rot in hell) that I have not seen you using: shah killed 600,000 people including 10,000 on Jaleh square. Feel free to use these emamic numbers in your future comments to make people's every day look like April's fool day.

But I should hand it to you: that 50/50 and trillions of dollars of yours were so classic, outstanding, and humorous. If you ever lose your day job (propaganda for IRI when mullas leave), you can definitely take the night shift in a comedy club! LOL!



by Dariush (not verified) on

I must admit you are a lot of fun. You are so obsessed with numbers that you don't see the reality. I am guessing you must have been an accountant for Darbar. I am going to Iran next month. I will bring you the correct poll numbers. I might even stay there. Last time I went I really liked it.



by Anonymouss (not verified) on

Thank you for a good laugh. I can't stop laughing. Anytime you comment you prove my point further and further without knowing it.

I am so glad that all islamists are so lost and confused, and do not even know how to defend their position. How could such people take over a country, I do not know! Khomeini must have been laughing hard on his ugly stomach on how easy it was to fool so many.

This last claim is better than that 50% shah claim, or that trillions of dollars that shah stole claim.

Here is the joke:

The reason you think the number of Pahlavi lovers has increased is because you ask the same guy 100 times and record that as 100 people.

Buddy, even if the same guy is counted 100 times, the percentages would not change! Wake up! This is primary school math, not rocket science. The population size would be smaller by 100 times, but the ratios of who likes or dislikes IRI would not change.

I am so glad that I don't have your nerves in my teeth!



You proved it...

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

that you don't even see that my style and Jamshid's are different -- even the sources of our numbers are different. Your accusations of pahlavis, I must say, is as good as assuming that we two are the same person. I am the same as Jamshid if you are the same as Mammad. LOL!

And the 14% is not my number and was not collected by me or any other iranian organization. It was collected by a research organization from Turkey thru phoning into iran. The results were announced on C-Span/CNN/PBS few months back.

Even YOU could not tolerate the islamic republic that you are in love with and ran away from it. But you do not want to give the same chance to other iranians to either get away or have the same opportunities within iran. That is the islamists' hypocrisies.

!979: 98% favored the islamic republic since they did not know what it was.

2008: 14% favored the islamic republic now that they know what it is.

Do a linear regression -- oh I forgot that you cannot deal with numbers -- so I do it for you.

At a linear rate:

2013: 0% will favor the islamic republic.

The last ones to leave the sinking ship of the islamic republic are likes of khomeini's corpse, khalkhali's corpse, khameni, rafsanjai, ghalibaaf, haddadaadel..., who are among the biggest anti-iranian criminals of iranian history.

Stick to what khomeini threw up 30 years ago and you are in ideological company of the above gang. Enjoy their company, you certainly deserve it.

And don't forget to turn the lights off when you are the last one still believing in the glorious islamic republic -- glorius for arabs and islam maybe, but not for iran or iranians.

14% and counting down. LOL!


Jamshid/Anonymuss/ and etc

by Dariush (not verified) on

The reason you think the number of Pahlavi lovers has increased is because you ask the same guy 100 times and record that as 100 people. just like the names you are using on this site. You may use different names to respond, but that is not going to fool people!!!


Reposting deleted comment

by jamshid on

I reposted my comment in response to Mammad which was deleted. Whoever deleted it had not justification to do so.


Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

Again you are using the same deceptions that were used in the 70s. You lie and deceive, whether it is intentionally or not doesn't matter.

You are complaining about the size of the middle class under the Pahlavis and deceptively trying to create the impression that the Pahlavis were not doing good enough. Here are a few points to refute you:

1. You are ignoring where the starting point for the Pahlavis was in the 1920s. Back then Iran had no middle class at all. In 50 years since after, Iran's middle class grew exponentially.

You claim to be a "scientist", so you must know what the word exponential means. It means a slow rate of growth in the beginining, and then after a certain thereshold, a sharp increase in the rate of growth.

The slow start in the 1920s was due to obvious reasons. Iran had NOTHING to build itself with. We didn't even have as much as just a dozen engineers to extract oil or do whatever else with that oil. We didn't have any other industries, NOTHING. Yet there was progress at a slow rate. The middle class grew slowly too.

Under those circumenstances, not you, not emaam zamaan, not anybody could have done substantially better that the Pahlavis did.

It would take the creation of a new generation with better training, better education and better ideas to increase the pace. That generation was ready by the early 1950s. That is why the rate of progress increased significantly from the 1950s to the 1970s. So did the rate of increase in the growth of the middle class.

In that period, Iran's middle class was growing at a pace faster than in any other country in the world. Not you, not Mosadegh, not emame zamaan, not Shah himself, and not anyone else could have magically increased that rate of growth in a significant way.

2. The term "middle class" has different meanings. First, let me tell you what middle class is NOT. It is not the mere ability to buy consumer products.

In general, middle class can be defined as those with an income between 50% and 150% of national median income. This includes both the lower and upper middle classes.  Here are some countries along with the size of their middle class based on this definition with the hightest 25% and the lowest 25% income excluded:

US: 55%

Germany: 60%

Spain: 55%

South Korea: 50%

There are no data on the size of Iran's middle class. However, the number can easily be approximated using the combination of per capita GDP, median wages, gini index and other availabe data.

Generally, when the median income is about the same than per capita GDP, it indicates the presense of a large middle class with a 2:1 ratio (50% of population or more), as long as that country has a healthy gini index. For example, The US's median income is $43K, its per capita GDP is $46K. These two numbers are very close. They are also very close for France, UK and Spain, all having approx. 50+% middle class population.

When the median income is larger than per captia GDP (such as in Switzerland), it indicates a wealthy nation with even a higher middle class percentile.

When the median income is smaller than per captia GDP, it indicates a poorer country with a smaller middle class percentile. The smaller the median income compared to GDP, the smaller the percent of middle class and the larger the proverty. the gini index is most likely higher as well.

In 2005, Iran's per capita GDP was $1900 (in year 2000 US dollars). Its national median income was about $160 (again in year 2000 dollars), its gini index is 44. The numbers are in year 2000 US dollars. Note that the median income is about twelve times less than its per capita GDP. This indicates a very bad wealth distribution and a very small middle class. The middle class in Iran, including the lower middle class, could not be more than 10%.

Remember that the ability to buy consumer toys is not a determining factor in determining middle class.

In contrast, in 1978, Iran's per capita GDP was $1900 (in year 2000 US dollars) and its median income was $400, or 3000 toman ($1300 in year 2000 US dollars) only 1.5 times smaller than the GDP.

This indicates a much better wealth distribution and a larger middle class percentage than we have today. If we include the lower middle class, then in 1978, Iran's middle class must have been higher thant the 15% you are claiming, but still way below 50% too.

The inflation factor is irrelevant since this is a ratio. But I wanted to list the numbers in 2000 dollars to show that Iran's per captia GDP has not changed since 1978. This is despite more oil revenues. Had the Pahlavis or another progressive government remained in power and the rate of GDP had continued to grow at the pre-1979 rates, today Iran's per captia would be higher than South Korea's which is $13,500 and probably higher than Spain which is $16,000, and close to United Arab Emirites which is $24,000. (All numbers are in year 2000 US dollars for easy comparisons.)

This is what you and your IRI cronies took away from Iranians. Yet you continue with the same treacherous lies that deceived us once. Hearing the same lies after 30 years just hits a nerve. you still attack the previous regime to hide the shortcomings of the current regime.

Shameful data on IRI's economic record:


Other links:






You are one of those shrinking 14%! Good for you!

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

I can't believe that you are so uninformed and so naive. I am really glad to see your counter-arguments as it explains how a mulla from najaf could fool so many so easily. You are re-cycling khomeini's outdated rhetoric with NO proof. Okay, reza shah (unjustly) confiscated 7M acres of land (I assume your reference is right for the sake of argument), just like any other king before him did since countries had no source of income except for the land in those days, but we do not know how much of the land was vacant land and how much was agricultural land, and if the land belonged to the government or the people that he took. But your reference ALSO said that M.R. shah gave up that inherited land VOLUNTARILY long before the revolution. So when shah left iran, he had NO land in his name.

The rest of the stuff is 70s-type rhetoric, has no value at all, as almost all have been discredited by now. The drug stuff, etc., is so childish and is as true as the rumor that is TODAY prevalent in iran that someone saw khomeini coming out of his room with wet pants followed by a young boy.

Since you are not analytical at all, let me put it in the simplest terms. Just like "Osoule din":

(1) $174 = iranian per capita income in 1953 when shah returned and took over the country.

(2) $2400 ($7200 in 2008 dollars) = iranian per capita income in 1979 when shah left.

(3) $1000 - $1800 = Iranian estimated per capita income in 2008.

(4) 13 = ranking of Iran on wealthiest countries list in 1974 per IMF.

(5) 14% = percent of Iranians that are better off under IRI in 2008 than under shah’s regime.

Oh… I forgot… you don’t comprehend numbers…. Ask a primary school kid for help then.

If you want to stay in the bubble of ignorance, and under the 30 year old curse of khomeini, fine with me. You are part of that diminishing 14%, congratulations!



by Anonymouss (not verified) on

If asking for reliable proof is lying, then fine, I am lying.

If not accepting what khomeini threw up 30 years ago is lying, then fine, I am lying.

The good news is that those inside iran who favored khomeini's regime over shah's have been decreasing from 98% in 1979 to 14% in 2008. LOL!


Pahlavi Lovers

by Dariush (not verified) on

The fact is, if shah even did any good for the country, was from oil money which was nationalized by Mosaddegh and his cabinet otherwise there would be no profit to be spent on country and their lavish life style.
You ask for proof. I suppose you want proof for the illegal coup he did to take Democratically elected government and taking side with Iran's enemy against majority in Iran. And the fact that Ashraf was the drug cartel and mafia in Iran and the link I attached about shah alone inheriting 7,000,000 acres of land in 1958 from Reza shah, who was famouse to Reza zamin khor. Land that was taken by force from farmers by killing and running them off.
Even U.S. admits that bringing down Mosaddegh was a mistake, but you Pahlavi lovers don't.


You still don't make sense...

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

What proof did you give me? The only proof that you gave me proved my point, not yours, and you did not even realize that. That says it all how smart you are in arguing and providing any proof. LOL.

I am not a Pahlavi lover, but if you say that I am, so be it, there is absolutely no shame in it; it is zillions of times better than loving IRI or anything related to IRI which brought us nothing but shame, murder, thievery, war, destruction, and disgrace.

Don't forget: today 69% of iranians agree with me and prefer shah regime over mullas', they all long for the good old days of shah; do you want to get rid of them too?



by Dariush (not verified) on

I have realized you Pahlavi lovers are so close minded that I have decide instead of bringing you reasons and proofs which you will deny anyway, just give you nice and short answers and I can see you like them. This way I don't get to waist my valuable time on you and people like you.

I don't know why you Pahlavi lovers are lying so much, you wanted shah dead yourself for his wrong doings, the difference is you wanted tickle him to death.


Foreigners for sure..

by SarbazIran on

They were the ones bringing down Pahlavi for making Iran so great.


I agree with kaveh

by ali1348 (not verified) on

I think kaveh is right on....
the mullahs were receiving $12 million a year from the shah, and when amouzgar cut these funds, they went nuts...
the shah had his issues, but he was not a bloodthirsty british agent like that dog khomeini.
if he was he would have unleashed hell on the mullahs and shot down khomeinis plane(which he should have)
the brave army officers like khosrodad, rahimi, badrei, oveissi and so on didn't think the mullahs were such murderers- they showed mercy but didn't not receive it...
like kaveh said, those idiots that were imprisoned during shahs time, were the same morons and traitors that finally got their revenge in 79...
may god free our homeland soon


Criminal IRI

by Anonymouss (not verified) on

Taa mard sokhan nagofteh baashad,
Eib-o honarash nahofteh baashad.

I am so glad when IRI supporters act, talk, and argue like children. That is more telling of their nature than any counter-argument.

Fortunately, their numbers are diminishing faster than can be replaced with IRI bribery. And the remaining ones will be placed on tight leash by people of iran, specially the youth.

Alas that shah was too soft on those few percent who cared about nothing but their ideology and control of power and wealth. For them, iran and iranians were slaves and second to islam or marx, as we see today. Thee rest were excuses and tools of propaganda.



by Dariush (not verified) on

In shah's regime anyone graduated from university would be served by government. The difference is.
If you were from upper class and graduated from university, you would be served by Darbar, if you were from lower to middle class and graduated from university, you would be served by Savak.
That is all.



by Mammad (not verified) on

The excited tone of your comment tells me who you are, but anyway....

This is the first time that a person asserts that if there is a strong middle class in a nation, together with rapid growth, that nation will want revolution! Why? Is the middle class out of its mind? Is rapid economic development too bad?

China is growing about 10%/year, the fastest in the world. Where is revolution in China? By your argument - if we can call it that - the people of the US and Western Europe should also want revolution. The middle class is strong there, and the economic development and growth not too bad!

Political experts and economists always say that revolutions happen when there is no middle class, or only a very small, ineffectual one. But, you claim to the contrary. Do not take it from me. Do a little reading about this.

Milani did not contradict what I said. To the contrary, what he said actually supported what I said about the role of the middle class. Milani said that because the IRI government controls 80% of the economy, the middle class cannot expand. This is very true. But, this was also true during the Shah, because at that time the government had as much control on the economy as today, if not more. So, in fact, Milani says what I said, which is also what political and economic experts say.

Before we rush to respond to someone, we should think about what we say, rather than basing what we say on whether we dislike the faceless "Mammad" or anybody else. The goal of such exchanges should be learning and teaching, not "defeating" or "winning."

Kaveh Nouraee

uhhhhhh hello? anyone home?

by Kaveh Nouraee on

Do you think Khomeini could have had anyone's support if it were not for outside influences? Nobody even knew who the hell he was. He was a footnote, If he were a record album he would be in the 99 cent cutout section. That mollah was a nobody. He was a creation of the CIA and the US media. The people who you say overthrew the monarchy were a small yet vocal group on the US payroll.

Jimmy Carter demanded a 50 year contract with Iran where the US would buy oil at a fixed price of $8 per barrel. EIGHT DOLLARS! FOR 50 YEARS!! That means that even with oil trading at $110+ today, the US would have been getting it at $8!! That horse toothed peanut farming hillbilly wanted to steal the oil, and the Shah said NO!. Carter also wanted the Shah to award government contracts to his personal friends so they could do business in Iran, when there was already a contract in place at a lower price. Again the answer was "no".

As far as the "brutality" of the Shah, history has shown it was a gross exaggeration by opponents of the monarchy. Did it happen? Yes. Even the Shah said as much. But who was imprisoned? The same sorts of lowlifes who have destroyed Iran since 1979. Unfortunately, not enough of them were dealt with in the manner they should have.

As for inflation, corruption and unemployment in the region, that is one of the results of the backwards ideology they adhere to, an ideology that prevents them from diversifying and strengthening their economies.

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on



Mammad: You are so wrong and

by Anonymousk (not verified) on

Mammad: You are so wrong and all your assertions are grounded in wishful thinking.

The Shah's demise was largely due to the fomration of robust middle class and too rapid growth of economy (See Juan Cole for details of what happened when the Shah infused too much cash into the economy) And that's why the mullahs systematically keep Iranians poor to prevent the growth of Middle class because they don't want what happened to the Shah to happen to them...

One reason is that Iran's government has discouraged the formation of an industrial middle class, said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian studies program at Stanford University, who left Iran in 1987. That would leave 80 percent of the economy essentially in the hands of the state. As a result, there is no solid cadre of business leaders to pressure the government

Despite its massive oil reserves, the country has very little capacity to produce substances like gasoline and jet fuel. He estimated Iran's imports in this area are at about $10 billion a year, a figure that may represent up to a third of all imports.



uuuhhhhhh ... hello?

by Joe Mama (not verified) on

If people had it so great under the Shah, why did they overthrow him? People (including you) make the mistake that Khomeini overthrew the Shah. He didn't; the Iranian people did, represented by a broad range of political groups. Khomeini emerged as leader because he had a large and very well organized constituency, which he used to brutally crush the opposition.

The Shah lacked brutality? Are you serious? Remember Black Friday, remember the SAVAK's torture dungeons? (Not to mention that many SAVAK agents went to work for Khomeini afterwards.)

The urban population that overthrew the Shah were dislocated from the countryside by the Shah's White Revolution. And Iran these days has a lot of foreign investment, from Asia, Europe, Latin America, etc. Yet unemployment is high, inflation is out of control and corruption continues unabated. Guess what? That's also true for the enire region, even Israel - American tax dollars notwithstanding - still has large numbers of people living below the poverty line and one can't get a job there unless one knows someone; sound familiar?