Pictory

Dear Arj

Well I need to give more details. I mean political prisoners may have trumped up criminal charges. Say a trumped up rape or murder charge. How do you know if it is a valid or fake charge?

That is why you need review. Is this person really suspect of murder or is the whole thing made up. Governments rarely admit jailing someone for political reasons. They alwasy give some other more reasonable sounding charge.

Even in cases of Mousavi. Many people rightly claim he oversaw many executions as PM. Should there not be a review of his actions as PM? Why not and now being in prisons does not clear him up of those things.

=>

Dear VPK, all political prisoners are charged with made up, fake charges. In a democratic society there are no political charges, hence political prisoners. In a democracy (and hopefully Iran of tomorrow), every person is entitled to publicly express his/her opinion even with regard to the highest office of the nation and its occupiers. Of course, free speech does not include libel and slander, charges that fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts rather than made up, political or military tribunals!

With regard to regular prisoners who are charged under criminal codes, IMHO, rehabilitation should be primary focus of our justice system coupled with an overhaul of social institutions whose proper functionality would drastically reduce the crime rate by eliminating the root causes of social crimes (i.e. unemployment, poverty, social injustice...) as much as possible!

Arj

I am not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you. But hopefully we shall have a democratic Iran. When that happens I hope all prisoners will get a review. Many political prisoners are charged with made up charges.

I bet you if IRI goes all prisoners will say they are political. Do you think they should let them just go. How about the real guilty people. What about those who did violent things and are guilty,

Therefore it only makes sense to get reviews for all prisoners. Yes real criminals do happen even in Iran. I would hope we do not just open the doors and let all out. Review of prisoners makes absolute sense or do you disagree. 

VPK

I'm not in a habit of squabling, yet there are too many fallacies in your statements to be overlooked. Most daunting of all, is your suggestion that political prisoners should've been screened before released even at the time when Bakhtiar himself put unconditional release of all political prisoners as one of his main conditions to accept premiership! The fact that one might believe in the necessity of having political prisoners, or even the notion of political criminality is appalling to me!  Moreover,  the likes of Rajavi were among the very last prisoners who were released in 1979. Not to mention that it was Shah himself who forced the radical political groups to form and turn to armed struggle by comprehensively obliterating any possibilty of social discourse.

As I mentioned, I'm not into bickering, especially over events of the far past and a regime that has joined the history for decades. It's a kind of like kicking a dead horse, isn't it?!

Arj

I am just telling you what I know. By "troble makers" I mean what was precieved as that. Not by me but by Shah's regime. Yes Dr Bakhtiyar is my hero you may call them dissidents if you prefer that name.

The whole thing boils down to releasing political prisoners wholesale. That resulted in an influx of energy into "revolutionary" movement. For each Dr Bakhtiyar there were also Rajavi and other less desirable people. 

In my opinion prisoners should have been released slowly as follows:

• Immediate improvement of conditions for all of them.
• Review of each one with an impartial tribuinal.
• Release of non violent and true prisoners of conciseness like Dr. Bakhtiyar.

Then appoint someone like Bakhtiyar and have him oversee the release of the rest. Slowly release the rest based on how destabilizing they were. The result would have still be they all got released. But not in one big torrent. Rather slowly in conjunction with reform of judiciary. Plus an introduction of a bill of rights. 

Once all of that was done we would have had a democratic system. With no political prisoners. You just don't lift the lid off a boiling pot all at once.

?!

"Political troublemakers?!" I'd like to remind you that your hero, Dr. Bakhtiar, was one of these "trouble makers!" So, what do think was the right thing to do..., not to release the political prisoners? In that case how are you any different from the IRI supporters who suggest that the political prisoners involved in "fetneh" should not be released from prison?! Besides, are you admitting that Shah was receiving his orders from Americans? In that case, I rest my case!

Arj

Are there documented facts on Carter's involvement in fomenting the 1979 revolution?!

How much do you want? There are many sources from Andrew Young; Zbigniew Brzezinski; George Ball's advise to put support behind Khomeini; Shah himself whom you probably won't accept.

Yes there is a massive amount of documentation. But if you want to close your eye then no there is absolutely no documentation! Just like there was no documentation that Earth is round!

Here is a very simple one. By forcing the Shah to release political trouble makers. Next by ordering the Iranian top brass to pledge their support to Khomeini. Last by giving away the Shah's military plan to overthrow Khomeini to him.

VPK

Are there documented facts on Carter's involvement in fomenting the 1979 revolution?!

Arj

With all due respect if you think Carter had no hand in the revolution you are not reading documented facts. Yes there were many factors but Carter most definitely was pushing for the Shah to go. You can make fun of people saying this. But would you also deny the 1953 coup? Maybe the CIA and Britain had no hand in that one either? 

If I had a dime for every *real* conspiracy I would be a millionaire. Not all of them work of course. Shah was his greatest enemy as he undermined himself more than his opponents. Nevertheless denying what happened does not change it.

And no dear Hirre we are not all responsible. Only people who were involved are.

Everybody is responsible!

The leaders for listening to the west, the west for medling with foreign internal politics and the people who work as domino bricks...

The problem is that during our history we only look at the person who ignited the bomb and never at why there was a bomb there in the first place...

Again...

... very nicely put, Arj! Thank you for that commentary.

Conspiracy theory...

Only if I had a dime for everytime I heard that British did this or are doing that, or Jimmy Carter replaced Shah with Khomeini...! Most of this emenates from the supporters of the previous regime's sense of betrayal and nostalgia. Indeed, British had a love affair with the Shia clergy dating back to the Safavid era. But let's face it, our world has gone through drastic changes since then! British also collaborated with Americans in undertaking the 1953 coup in order to topple Mossadegh and restore Shah. Does that mean they were in bed with Shah?!

Moreover, Shiite clerical stablishment is not a homogenized, uniform entity that it was centuries ago. There are as many tendencies among them as there are seminaries. Therefore, there are elements among Shiite Ulama with ties to the British as there are with Americans and Russians. However the claim that the entire Shia establishment was and is controled by the British is rooted in a conspiracy theory with which we're all too familiar!

Khomeini was not a British agent, and nor did Carter hold any personal grudge against Shah, or did the French or any foreigner instigate the 1979 revolution. They all did have vital interests in Iran of that era as they do now, as did the Soviets and do present time Russians. Yet attributing such a monumental event to the work of foreign powers is rather oversimpifying matters! As there are opposing factors in the change of one's habitat (push and pull factors), there were numerous facts involved that pushed people away from Shah and pulled them towards Khomeini. Lack of political freedom, the rapid rate of urbanization which the ameneities of the time could not meet, absence of foundations of the civil society... on one hand, and vindication people sought for the 28 Mordad coup in absence of secular/democratic leaders and replacement of the banned political parties with various religious and Islamist institutions... are just to name a few.

What should be taken into consideration is also the Cold War climate in which the united West sought deterrents against the regional advancements of the Soviet Union. One of these deterents was Political Islam that led to overthrowing of secular/democratic leaders of the region from Turkey all the way to Bangladesh and replacing them with either Islamist or military forces ( e.g. Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan). Perhaps France's decision to host Khomeini and providing him with a platform to advocate political Islam fits in that context! Otherwise, Khomeini had a cult following among the religious circles and Bazari merchants (who helped finance the revolution) that goes as far back as early 1960s. Indeed, Khomeini was an unknown entity to the general public up to 1976-1979, yet a well-known figure among the religious populace!

With regard to Carter's role in the events of 1979, he was an advocate of human rights, who in a post-Vietnam-war and Water Gate era, sought to repair America's damaged reputation and was elected for that reason. Expecting him to overlook his nation's strategic interests and try to defend an unpopular leader who had the record of packing and leaving at the turbulent times is emotionally charged and ignores the facts and realities of the global politics of that era!

Baron

I do not know how much involvement who had. But I do know that they showed very little interest in finding the killers. Neither Germany nor France did anything to really protect them. After the murders they did nothing to catch those responsible. 

On the other hand trash like Rajavi are protected by all the might of French police. Makes you wonder.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Agreed.  And remember that when the British had the Empire, America was out of the picture in Asia, and the Europeans were rivals with one another.  After World War II, the British Empire may have declined but it has been complimented by America's ascent to superpowerdome.  Moreover, European great powers, such as Britain, France, and Germany, which used to fight bloody wars with each other, have been for several decades now a unified front mutually cooperating in all regards, particularly when it comes to cooperation against non-European Muslim nations who refuse to bow down - like Iran.  

Which brings us back to Shahpour Bakhtiar.  I don't buy for a minute that the assassinations of CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT Iranian nationalist leaders (like Dr. Bakhtiar, Dr. Broumand, Prince Shahriar Shafiq, General Oveissi in France, Fereydoon Farokhzad in Germany, etc.) were doable without the knowledge or silent cooperation or even assistance of various European intelligence shops.  That's a little too many "accidental" security oversights on one subject matter to turn a blind eye to.  And for that matter, lets not forget where the British agent Khomeini planned the revolution (France), which airline (Air France) flew him into Tehran, and the media outlets (like BBC) most intrumental in marketing Khomeini, an unelected, unknown nobody as late as 1977, as the "leader" of all Iranians and the revolution .  So you bet the Europeans work together now.  

The British

were able to directly do things when they had the empire. In 1979 they used America. You don't need to personally do everything. When there is a useful idiot like Jimmy Carter you just use them. 

I assure you secret agencies are doing just fine and all nations have them. I already pointed out that even Islamic Republic has its own. Who do you think is directing Hezobllah? Not to mention propping up Assad. 

Then we got all the others. You do not need an empire to meddle. It is totally naive to think no one meddled in Iran in 1979. The direct involvement of Jimmy Carter is beyond dispute.

Back when the Brits did all

Back when the Brits did all those things, they were the empire where the sun never set. Back in 1979, they were already the land where the sun never rose. Difference 

Oh, okay, then nothing to worry about anymore.  Glad everything is okay now and imperialism doesn't exist anymore, and foreign intelligence agencies are not active in Iran and haven't been since the 1950's. Thanks for the update Parham!

It may seem insane to you...

... I don't think Khomeyni and the Islamic Republic were installed by the British.

Back when the Brits did all those things, they were the empire where the sun never set. Back in 1979, they were already the land where the sun never rose. Difference. : )

Baron

You are mostly right. The one thing that makes me happy is the self destructive patterns of Britain in particular. The USA is also self destructing although it is not nearly as malevolent as Britain. Nevertheless both are sunk.

Parham

So then does it seem to you logical that these intelligence services would have sat out the Iranian revolution and had no participation in it whatsoever?  That they would not try to exploit the instability, or assist their favored faction to take power?  

The British ousted the Qajar monarchy from power to put in place Reza Shah.  Anglo-American allies ousted Reza Shah from power to put in place his son.  The same Anglo-American consortium ousted Mohammad Mossadegh from power in favor of the Shah.   According to many credible insiders, on both the US side and the Iranian side (including the Shah himself), it was the same Anglo-American interests who ousted the Shah from power and installed Khomeini.   And of course, even today, the very same foreign powers seek regime change under various other excuses for Iran today.

Notice a trend here?   It's blatant British subversion and interference in Iranian politics and society to the core, for at least a century.   You can think whatever you want about the background of Khomeini, and the British intelligence role in the Iranian revolution, but to me it's insane to suggest they had no role in subverting the revolution and installing Khomeini. 

Baron

Yes, I believe they do things clandestinely. Yes, I think they have destabilized and subverted governments for strategic purposes. Bugger off for the next question. Yes, they have been active in Iran. The CIA since 1953, British intelligence for long before that (if it could be called "British intelligence" at the time). They probably do their best to still be active in Iran, yes.
And no, I know what intelligence agencies are.
Anyway, so?

Foreign interference

There is no question that foreign powers have meddled in Iran. For centuries is has been a documented fact! There Russians and British basically divided Iran. Then Russia funded and created the Tudeh party. While West came up with the Shah and Savak. There are not just guesses they are facts. I find it hard to believe we are even debating this. No *** they were messing with Iranian affairs "duh"! And we were not the only ones the game was played globally and still is.

Not to mention Iran herself is meddling with other nations. From Afghanistan to Lebanon to Bosnia. They all mess with each other. Spy vs.spy and it will keep going on. Should have got a job with them guaranteed job security!

PS: The problem with the job security is the short life of spies !!

Parham

Let's discuss more basic questions.  Do you think foreign intelligence agencies do *anything* clandestinely, yes or no?  Do you think that, among the things they do, they subvert and destabilize governments for strategic purposes?  Do you think that when they do these things, they announce it, talk about, or wear a sign on their forehead that says "Hi, I'm from MI6, and I'm destabilizing your country?" Have foreign intelligence agencies been active in Iran? For how long?  Are they still active in Iran?

You act as if none of these things even exist.

Parham

Let's discuss more basic questions.  Do you think foreign intelligence agencies do *anything* clandestinely, yes or no?  Do you think that, among the things they do, they are trained to subvert and destabilize governments?  How long have foreign intelligence agencies been active in Iran? Are they still active in Iran?

Mamane-Omid

How about we talk Nicaragua? I have a friend who is very involved there. He is an Amercian philantropist who goes there all the time. A while ago he spoke to an old man in a village. My friend asked him "when were you best off living there". The man responded "During Samosa regime". My friend was shocked to hear this but in reterospect it was right. People need to be educated before they "chose". Without education they fall for manipulation and deception.

Vance and JC are idealists who do not live in the real world. In the real world we do not have highly educated populations. We have rotten; selfish people who will use others. Once they become leaders they milk the population. Do you know Ortega pretty much gave all the wealth to himself and his cronies? His opponents have a way of dying! Oh and he thanks JC by stabbing him in the back. What a guy but at least Ortega was better than Khomeini. I don't want to even mention Castro.

JC and other idealists have been responsible for more misery than anyone. Marx was another idealist who did not understand the human mind. People are inherently selfish. If there is nothing for them they refuse to work hard. Ants are perfect communists they all work for the common good and have no ego. We are not ants we are people. JC not only wrecked Nicaragua and Iran he also ruined America. By letting a right wing *** like Reagan take power.

RE : VPK - Regarding Machiavellian coup

"So let us see what reasons would various nations have.

USA: Shah was a real friend of the USA so it did not make sense for them to overthrow him. However the President at the time was Jimmy Carter. He in my opinion is an idiot. His dislike of the Shah is well known. He also admired Khomeini and thought of him as a man of God. His UN representative Andrew Young called Khomeini a "Gandhi". Others in his administration like George Ball were also anti-Shah. Jimmy Carter decided to withdraw support for the Shah and put it behind Khomeini. This is not in question rather a historical fact. The miscalculation cost JC his presidency and his legacy. To this day he refuses to admit his mistake. The USA obviously did not benefit from this." 

Post 79, Iranians in the US judge Jimmy Carter, as you said, as an idiot. Nothing can be further from the truth. 

If you're  old enough to remember late 70s and early 80s, Iran, Nicaragua amd Phillipins went through political transition at the same time. A US foreign policy doctrine, named after Cyrus Vance, Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State was the intelectual foundation for this transformation.

Simply put, Cyrus Vance doctrine stated this at the height of the cold war with USSR:

Populace of any third world country (Iran, Nicaragua, etc.) should themselves want to be in the Capitalist camp instead of being forced to reject Communisim by a dictator like Shah, Marcos, or Samosa. This meant, the populace be given a taste of political and social freedom enjoyed by the people living in the first world, to be followed up with trade and economic prosperity.

Most of us having lived in the west all these years, by now should have learned that in western democracies decisions and plans are made strategically and on a long-term basis.

Although results may not be immididiate or exactly as expected (it took Nicaragua abut 20 years and Phillippins many years to stabilize and Iran has yet to do so). But in the long run it is fruitfull because it is based on sound logic. Many attribute fall of the Berlin wall to Ronals Regan and Bush Sr., where the seeds of it were planted during Jimmy Carter's presidency under Cyrus Vance doctrine.

Mamane-Omid

Parham

I am well aware of the discontent. Remember I was there too and I am not a young man. My family was a "natural ally" of the Shah. We were one of those who should have supported him. You don't know how many sleepless nights my father spent. Fearing Shah would go off one day and throw him in Jail for no reason. Other than getting up the wrong side of the bed. I was there and saw it first hand. Shah alienated people who should have supported him.

Not even my father was going to put his neck out for him. Now he curses the name of the Shah and holds Shah responsible for the IRI disaster. I know JC hated the Shah. He was a "human rights" kind. He also did not like the way Shah was so close to Nixon. The Shah was a weak man and being ill did not help. Shah looked at America for advise or more accurately orders as what to do. JC pretty much told him to pack up and go. Arrogance and weakness are a bad mix. Shah had both.

Prophet dear

You know, I was around then, and I used to listen to BBC reports. I personally don't think BBC was really doing anything more than broadcasting their usual way, or needed to. The fact that Khomeyni moved from Najaf to Neauphle-le-Château made all the difference in the world in his message getting to the people, especially more since local sources didn't let anything out on him.

This said, I'll repeat that I do think the west played a "laisser-faire" role (meaning just let it happen and perhaps even facilitate things here and there every once in a while) --in the case of Jimmy Carter it was more because he was the human-rights type of guy-- but again, in my opinion, I don't think the west manipulated much of what happened.

Now if some day any concrete proof is presented, I'd be willing to apply to it, but the way I see it, that's the way it happened. You just can't imagine the amount of discontent that was present among people at the time, after 1975. It was incredible.

Dear Parham

First of all I want to say that over time my respect for you has increased. I realize you are knowledgeable and know things I do not. However please do not dismiss the idea of Western propping of Khomeini. It was there.

Jimmy Carter really did consider Khomeini a "Man of God". JC did think of him as a Gandhi; despite all the American "intelligence" available. So either JC was an idiot or he had bad motives. I personally think both but mostly that JC was an idiot.

The British on the other hand were not idiots. They knew what they were doing. And they did want to set us back. Now we did not need to fall for it but we did. Yes Iranians were overly religious. But how do you explain all the BBC propaganda for Khomeini.

Baron

Well if there is any proof, why don't you show it, then?

My argument is not that incomprehensible if you thought about it with a free mind instead of trying to repeat the same thing over again. I don't think Khomeyni even needed to manipulate the people into anything that much. I think he just needed to sit there and watch them manipulate themselves into thinking he was a Gandhi. More, it's an Iranian characteristic --usually-- to side with the one they think will take it, more than the one they know is right. Most Iranians are nauseatingly opportunistic people, i.m.o. Add to that the underlying religious teachings present in most --even in those who pretend not-- and...

And I don't appreciate your tooth fairy gobbledygook. That's cheap shooting that I could do too. I could call you a country-bumpkin to believe in all the foreign manipulation crap. Will that help the argument? No. So please.

Parham

I agree that the mass discontent of people and the revolution for freedom and independence was natural, but I'm saying the manipulation of those groups to the direction of Khomeini was orchestrated.  I hope we can agree there. 

Otherwise, I can't make sense of your argument.  You argue that the situation was so complicated that it was above and beyond the capabilities of the joint efforts of the most advanced intelligence agencies in the world to subvert the Iranian revolution. But then in the same breath you argue that one guy - Khomeini - clevery manipulated the whole world and made himself master of Iran without any help from any government.  If you study political subversion and its tactics, the Iranian Revolution is a textbook example.  If you believe in the tooth fairy, you can believe that a mysterious 80 year old cleric came came from nowhere to being promoted daily by the BBC and Western media as the "leader" and spokesman of all Iranians.  

Also, there is a lot of open source evidence of foreign subversion of the Shah's regime and clandestine double dealing between Western democracies with revolutionary factions, lead by Khomeini.  This further proves a relationship of cooperation between Khomeini and certain Western intelligence agencies, most prominantly that of Britain.