"25 Years of Service"

Pahlavi-era government publication

by Darius Kadivar
Book published in late 1960's by Iran's maternity services organization. Includes photos of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, his wife Farah and son Reza.

more from Darius Kadivar

Rosie Joon, this is a long story...

by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

You may not come back to see my response, so I make this short (if I can). Also Jamshid said most of what I could say, I think along the lines of his thinking with some minor differences here and there.

1. I believe the main reasons for the revolution were:

(a) People simply did not know much about anything political or religious. Jamshid is right that shah suppressed publication of any anti-mulla, anti-islam material. That turned people into idealizing mullas and islam. They really trusted khomeini without knowing who he was and what his position was. Also they believed his exaggerated claims, like shah had killed 600,000 -- a number that was perhaps smaller by a factor of 2,000 or so. They really believed him. So the problem was simply lack of reliable knowledge about so many things: mullas, islam, and a realistic (western-style) democracy.

(b) People of very diverse backgrounds lined up behind khomeini: fanatics (still in charge), opportunist thugs (still in charge), sincerely religious (now anti-IRI), leftist, intellectuals, and blind emotional rank and file followers. Some trusted khomeini and some thought of khomeini as a stupid mulla that they could use and then push aside. Alas, the only group that really knew what they were doing were the fanatics and thugs and that is why they succeeded.

(c) People did not know as much as they should have about iran and iranians in the past century. Intellectuals were isolated from commoners. The oppositions to shah were of diverse and conflicting nature. People ignored the "conflicting nature" of the opposition. Surprisingly, lots of people did not know much about shah's corruption or his prisoners, but could see girls without hejaab, and they did not like it on religious ground; they could see music, dancing, foreign films with partial nudity on TV and they did not like it, etc.

(d) Lies, lies, and lies. People were lied to immensely and confidently. And bought into those lies without questioning them. Why? Because it was coming from a representative of god's words, aka khomeini, and therefore it could not be lies. Alas that he was the biggest lier, maybe in the history of iran.

(e) Iranians fundamentally do not accept or adjust well into authority, and they detested authoritarian nature of shah's regime.

(f) Iranians easily compare themselves to others and come to unreasonable conclusions. You see often on this site that reza shah is being demonized not because what he did or did not do, but because he was uneducated and a villager and bald (!), and yet became king. So, a lot of people ask themselves: I am educated (compared to him), from a city, and not bald, so why not me, why should he be the king and not me. And this leads to some unexplainable animosity.

(g) Yes, there were dissatisfaction with lots of things, mostly due to rapid changes in the society. E.g., There were waiting lists for internally-built cars that promoted corruption (just like in any other society); but why? because people were getting rich and demand was high and people were impatient. Many many examples along the same lines existed. But people could not see the rapid changes, they could not see that the corrupt people were ordinary people and it would have been very difficult for shah (one person) to control corruption at the level of a car dealer who is an embezzler. And people around shah were no better. Sometimes they were the best that he could find (with some loyalty to him) and they turn out serving themselves.

People are still uninformed and are fooled using the same old tricks. In the last election, people who voted for the president had read only an official page about him, based on which some 17 million (?) voted for him. They should take responsibility for their vote. That is why I am so harsh on iranians. But yes, it is rooted in lack of knowledge.

2. Tortures, etc. I totally agree with you. Torturing one person is too many, and we should immensely condemn any such act. But surprisingly, most who detest shah do not bring these issues up. They just dislike him because they dislike him. We should also consider, but not use as excuse:

(a) And we see that mistreatment and corruption is so widespread even in democracies. It is norm in that part of the world as well.

(b) And some of those victims of the shah turned out to be very nasty characters. Shah tortured them and they committed mass murder once they got the chance (example: ayatollah rafsanjani, the architect of hanging by cranes).

3. I guess I talked about corruption. They claimed initially that shah had embezzled $20 billion, they soon changed it to $6 billion. I have not heard much about it lately and I do not know the extent of corruption. Yes there were corruptions and should be condemned but:

(a) corruption is everywhere that human being exists, even in democracies.

(b) corruption was far more internal to the country as opposed to in IRI which has taken international form, shuffling money into external bank accounts, supporting arabs of various causes where a typical iranian has no idea about why and for what, let alone being comfortable to sending his/her lunch money to this and that group for suspicious aims.

(c) even if we assume the $6 billion dollar accusation (which is very likely to be totally false) to be true, then 6 billion over a period of 38 years of shah's regime, compared to his achievements and compared to corruption in other countries is not out of ordinary.

4. Islam is very complicated subject.

(a) true nature and history of islam is unknown to many due to (i) lack of impartial education under shah as well as IRI (ii) language barrier as most material about islam is in arabic and very very few people are verse in the language (maybe less than 1% really understand arabic).

(b) but a vast majority of people who are religious are really totally harmless - they are really good people who would not hurt anyone or approve of hurting anyone. So that is fine really to practice their religion at home -- that is between them and their creator.

(c) but political islam is a nasty thing -- those are the ones who want to oppress on behalf of a ruthless, yet coward god, who needs to delegate his atrocities to mullas. This is the source of all our problems (and maybe problems elsewhere in the world).

Well, I do not expect this issue to be resolved so easily. We need time, we need education, and we need objectivity. Unfortunately, it is already 29 years. Another thing is that, always the worst of us get into politics and become leaders and representatives. We switch sides as soon as we are in the club -- that is what happened to khomeini who was screaming for years that shah was wasting iranian wealth and killing people, as well as being submissive to the west.

It just hurts me to see people are still pro-IRI and do not see the condition of ordinary people. I see 10-year old girls selling small items in the middle of a hot summer day for as little as 5 cents. I see primary school kids doing their homeworks on the sidewalks on a piece of card-board box. I see teenage girls turning into legalized prostitution, aka sigheh, not because they want to, but because they need the money and cannot find jobs. I see prostitution turning from a narrow profession into a part-time job that people "with family" need to do to have food on their table. And who are the customers, the same religious bunch who consider it okay as long as they can read a couple of verses in arabic upfront.

I think people visiting this site are actually more pro-IRI than a typical iranian inside iran these days. The last polling that I know of was that some 14% inside iran were pro-IRI. I think it seems reasonable to me. And I don't think anyone can change anyone's mind by these discussions as most who still like IRI is because of their religious background, hatred for the shahs, or just like the IRI because of their aggresive position on opposite side of the west. Well we see similar attitudes in the west as well.


Re: Rosie

by jamshid on

You are surprisingly very knowledgeable about some of the very complex issues regarding Iran.

1. Accountability. People did not know much about khomeini's agenda because of the Shah's supression of the media. On the one hand his government did not allow materials from the likes of khomeini to be published/discussed among people. On the other hand, his government did not allow anti-mullah materials to be published/discussed either. So in those times we had a youth that was familiar neither with the pros nor with the cons of the Islamists. That made us an easy prey for the Islamists when the right time came along. I blame the Shah's supression of media for this.

2. Torture. There were approx. 3500 political prisoners when the Shah was in power. That number was exagerated to 300,000. Most of those 3500 prisoners consisted of those who wanted and finally DID destroy Iran by paving the way for khomeini's ascendance to power. Half of them were the same butchers who are in power now and are butchering my people today. The other half were the likes of MEK whom I consider to be the same than the mullahs. In my opinion, to protect Iran, they did belong in prison or in exile in those times.

As far as torture, yes there was torture, but not systematically as advertised by opposition. Perhaps a few here and there were mistreated. How do I know? I ask you, how ANYONE could know exactly? I can only do the math and make a guess based on other available information. Most of the exagerations of executions, killings by the army, number of political prisoners, number of demonstrators, etc, were by 2 order of magintudes (multiplied by 100), and for a good reason. The Nazis and later the marxists had realized that in general, this is the maximum you could exagerate something while not losing its believability among the masses. Is it a coincidence that ALMOST EVERYTHING was exagerated by 100 times during the revolution?

Would it be logical to ask if this order of exageration was applied to torture as well? In my opinion, it was. So based on this, I concluded that a few dozens political prisoners must have been mistreated. This is the reasoning that shaped my opinion. I am presenting it here and others don't have to agree. But there are many who do agree with me.

3. Corruption. The key question is corruption compared to what? I will always ask compared to what, until someone show me a blue print of a form of government that could be 100% corruption-free, even in theory. So again, corrupt compared to what?

In the abscence of evidence showing the contrary, I believe the corruption of Pahlavis was minuscule compared to...

a. The corruption and corruptability of the Iranian people in general. And,

b. The corruption in the governments of other countries, be it capitalist (US), communist (former Soviets), socialist (France, UK), third world (India, Mexico, etc).

Having said that, not only I no longer criticize the shah's government for corruption, I even give credit to it for keeping the corruption so miniscule. I understand this will upset many people. But these are my conclusions and I am still waiting for a challenge that is not based on baseless rumors and false accusations, or "it just feels right that the shah was corrupt" sort of thinking.

4. Islam. I have repeated many times that I will be the first to respect Islam to the maximum possible limit by a none-moslem human being when moslems are willing to tolerate none moslems freely preach their religion without being persecuted by moslems. This could happen in a secular AND mullah-less Iran. (This excludes a regime like the shah's since it was secular but not mollah-less).

I am completely objective about the shah. I do criticize him regarding many of his mistakes. I am willing to challenge die hard monarchists on those mistakes. But I do consider the shah's regime to be overall much beneficial to the people of Iran, and least beneficial to the Islamists, leftists and bazaris who together represented the opposiste of what the shah stood for. We are seeing this fact with our own eyes today.

Rosie T.

Well, yes Jamshid, but...

by Rosie T. on

a lot of people are still wearing those shoes.  And as far as I can see there can't be steps taken toward a positive resolution of this discussion until four issues are squarely faced:

1.  accountability.  How much did people really know about Khomeini's agenda and of what they didn't know, how much was their own will NOT to know in 1979? You made great strides in this discussion by delineating four specific groups which constitute that "generation" in response to Nazi Kavani's "My generation."  That kind of scrutiny is a very good beginnng. I still have serious problems fathoming how Khomeini's agenda could have been unknown, regardless of his rhetoric of freedom in '79, when he was the architect of velayate-faghih 40 years before, an inherently medieval and autocratic political ideology, and he never publicly renounced it. And a leopard doesn't change its spots. This is basic.

2.  Tortures.  Yes, Shah tortured and yes former opposition has admitted figures were intentionally grossly exaggerated.  So there were no "good guys and bad guys" in this issue.  Both sides are tainted and I already explained below the psychological effect it has on the "left" when certain people deny the Shah's tortures, or remain silent about them (which is as much a form of apologism as remaining silent about the attrocities in IRI).  I'm a funny person because I'm a pacifist but I can somehow live with and accept that a 20th century leader tortured and it doesn't make him totally bad. It was part of the Zeitgeist. CIA tortured more than anyone. Just not inside US so much but that's irrelevant. Their tortures in Latin America rivaled Torquemada. Torture was actually a taboo but implicitly de facto acceptable practice of "civilized" governments in the turbulent, explosive 20th century but it is UNACCEPTABLE for the 21st and the issue of the Shah's tortures must be faced, accepted and put to bed.

3)  Corruption.  Well, I respect Rashidian. I was surprised by his reply on the Bhutto thread. But as far as I can see Rashidian is someone who generally falls squarely in the center (which is why so many people tried to character-assassinate him by aligning him with all kinds of strange groups, they can't accept that he's just not that polarized, it makes them uncomfortable).  To me he's a litmus test and if he finds corruption of the Shah to be a major issue, then it must be so. So it must be scrutinized. How corrupt?  And even if very monetarily corrupt, how much does it matter from the bird's eye view in terms of other aspects of his legacy which are very well delineated below by Another Anonymous. He bult the schools, the infrastructure.

4) Islam.  An absolutely clear distinction must be scrupulously observed between Islam (which is only a word which means what any individual practioner says it means for them because it is a word that signifies a religion and a religious is a totally nebulous thing--in my opinion, Khatami, Bishop Paul Moore and Rabbi Michael Lerner have much more in common with each other than with their so-called co-religionists on the radical right). --and Islamicism, velayate-faghih in Iran which refers to a VERY SPECIFIC totalitarian system of government. And it's not just a question of making the distinction, it's a question of showing actual RESPECT for the various Islams that individual people believe in which are not politically odious, because in this polarized climate, if they don't receive respect for these beliefs which they call Islam, they fall into the hands of the totalitarians because they think they have nowhere else to go. I already told you, they ARE inherently theo- but they are NOT inherently fascist, most of them, not at all...

And I really believe, that inroads can be made in this discussion with the people who "detest" the Shah, whether they're Muslims or ardent secular humanists, like Rashidian.  How can one wholly detest a family who left the legacy of modernization of the Pahlavis based on what-if scenarios about 1953, when 98% of the people of Iran backed the architect of a doctrine as repulsive to the modern sensibility as velayate-faghih?


I believe in part they detest the Pahlavis so much because they still detest themselves in some profound way for their role in all this and they don't want to face it. tAnd,  I suspect something similar is going on with you in the obverse. I don't think you've completely forgiven yourself for your role in the Revolution either and that's why you can't forgive them. And it makes you sometimes unobjective about the Shah's misdeeds and also what your position should be vis a vis Islam--which as you know Ithink you should leave it completely alone


You are spot on when you talk about Issue #1, accountability, responsibility and agency, not just for 1979 but for the whole damn century. Who owns Iran, Kermit Roosevelt or Iranians? But you tend to downplay #2 and 3, and as for Islam, well, I already told you--I think your rhetoric polarizes ordinary people and pushes them to places you DON'T want them to go. And it also makes you sound like you're not what you are:  a secular parliamentarian.  It makes you sound right-wing and that polarizes people.

I hope I haven't made myself clear as mud.

The discussion's not over. Most of you HAVEN'T been there, done that...in my observation over the past two months..and I said to Another Anonymous: the case is FAR from closed.


Re: Rosie T.

by jamshid on

"just put yourself into the shoes of those who detest the Shah..."

I don't think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of those who detest the Shah. Because most of us WERE in those shoes at some point in the past.

We've been there, done that. We know exaclty why they detest the shah... For the same false reasons most of us once ourselves detestd him in the past.

Rosie T.

Dear Another Anonymous,

by Rosie T. on

This is far too good to be hidden on an old blog.  Please refine it and publish it as a new blog or an article. The important thing is to bear in mind the intended audience; it's pointless to preach to the converted. You want to win hearts and minds, you want to place the Pahlavi legacy objectively where it rightfully belongs, not as a monarchist but as a humanitarian, and you are speaking to people with such phobias about looking squarely at this issue. I'd be careful about these kinds of statements:

?and sorry to say, but beyond what iranians were ready for -- as they have proved in their multiple elections since 1979):

A conversation has recently emerged on this website since JJ published Daughter of the Revolution and it is about middle-aged Iranians examining what actually happened in 1979 and their own role in it. And many of them simply didn't know and feel they were duped by the "Revolutionaries." I have a serious question about this: although it appears to be true that Khomeini made false promises of freedom in '79, how could intellectuals have trusted the person who was the architect of velayate-faghi forty years before? It's a very serious question; nonetheless these people feel they were seriously misled and Jahanshah Rashidian documents the ways in which once Khomeini was in power he systematically and ruthlessly destroyed all oppositon.  So certainly there was a large amount of self-delusion involved in intellectuals following Khomeini but there was also a systematic, calculated imposition of a theocratic totalitarian regime. In this context it is not fair to speak of "elections" because there have been no free elections in Iran from the referendum of 1979 which posited only two alternatives, Islamic republic or monarchy, until the present day. Therefore it's not entirely fair to speak of what people "deserve".


Another issue that must be taken into consideration is torture. It is my understanding that the Shah certainly tortured but he did so to set examples rather than because he was a wholesale butcher, and the numbers were grossly exaggerated by the opposition.  This does not redeem him because torture is unacceptable but it does place things in their rightful perspective, because obviously the CIA was torturing all over the third world, as were many other countries. The issue of torture must be squarely faced, especially because it has become a symbol in the minds of those who detest the Shah and allows them to rationalize the attrocities of the IRI, which in my opinon have been worse, on the basis of, well he tortured AND was in bed with the "West", we torture but at least we do it on our own....sigh....

Iran cannot have an autonomous democratic future until she faces, accepts, and processes the truth about her recent history. It simply cannot happen. So as I said, this discussion MUST take place and it IS starting to take place, and your critique deserves much more than to take place here alone with Rana on an already "buried" blog.


Please let me know what you intend to do and I cannot urge you enough, every step of the way, just put yourself into the shoes of those who detest the Shah, and explore their reasons, and when they are right, admit it, and when they are wrong, find cogent counterarguments which reflect compassion and understanding of their point of view.

DON'Trest your case. ARGUE your case. Refine your argument. Stay flexible. Stay open.  Evolve your case as serious debaters challenge you. The time for this discussion is long overdue,

Best regards,



by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

You partly countered your issues raised in your first paragraph with your second and third paragraphs. I have also provided a more detailed response (in fact along the lines of your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) as to why both pahlavis made immense contributions to iran and should be respected. All the issues that you raised in your first paragraph were inherited by reza shah -- had he not taken over from ghajar, there would have been no iran as we know today. Iran that he inherited was weak and depleted and he bet on the wrong horse at the end, but made significant contributions in only 16 years. Please read about my experience that I copy here for you to see a different point of view. As for prince reza, he is simply a regular citizen. He has committed no crime and he has made no contribution and he does not really have much following, and thus does not deserve any criticism, he is just like you and me. Please read with an open mind and then judge for yourself, and keep in mind that iran that pahlavis inherited is not like the iranians that you see in the west or even in iran today. I have another piece about how backward-thinking people were even during the reign of last shah, and it was magic that an uneducated nobody (as you said) was so progressive and nationalist that could make significant difference in recent history of iran. These are my reasons:
(I) If Pahlavis (reza shah and M.R. shah) had done nothing at all except for the educational system that was developed under their reign from nothing (except for mostly maktabs with mullas teaching religious texts during ghajar) to the best in the world, they deserved immense praise. Let me paraphrase the head of engineering department of stanford university (the best engineering school in america after MIT in case you do not know): iran has the best engineering school in the world. Do you know what he was referring to? He was referring to the university that was established during pahlavis, with shah personally being its overseer (not under ghajar nor under mullas). Overall literacy rate grew from single digit to 60-70 percent during pahlavis. If that is the only thing that pahlavis did, they saved iran from being like a mixture of afghanistan and pakistan (which has literacy rate of 50% today) today. I know some don't care about this achievement at all, but others do care a lot about this huge achievement. If an anti-shah does not agree on the immense importance of this matter, then we really belong to two different universes with totally different rules and therefore have nothing in common, to discuss, to agree, or to conclude.
(II) For those who go to iran often, should look around carefully to see what major institutions they see: Here are some examples:
(a) schools and educational system with formal curriculum (free under shah but not in IRI),
(b) universities (free under shah but not in IRI),
(c) steel mill,
(d) refineries,
(e) telegraph and telephone communication network including first communication satellite that iran rented/purchased,
(f) hospitals and clinics,
(g) paved roads,
(h) railroad system across iran,
(i) airports and airliners,
(j) radio and television stations,
(k) banks and banking system,
(l) power distribution network and electrical power generation stations across major towns,
(m) piped water and sewer system in major cities,
(n) home appliance and car production factories,
(o) criminal justice system,
(p) development of identity cards (shenas-nameh) and birth and death, marriage and divorce registration system based on shenas-nameh, land and contract registration system,
(q) modern armed forces (that could take 8 years of mulla war with saddam with support from almost all islamic and western countries for saddam),
(r) the first research electronic chip fabrication facility (in north tehran - then on takhte-tavoos ave),
(s) a health system with free immunization for all children against communicable diseases (that essentially wiped out most of those diseases in a generation),
(t) Helicopter development and construction plant,
(u) the first research nuclear reactor in tehran university (built by GE)
(v) the half-built (and still half-built) nuclear reactor in bushehr,
(w) first batch of highly (western and internally) educated people (now middle-aged), including 35 well-trained nuclear scientists and engineers (as of 1979, now living in america except for a couple of them -- according to NPR)
(x) and ...
Then ask when any of these institutions were established? The answer, almost without exception is during pahlavis, only 58 years of pahlavis.
No leader is perfect and the best that we can do is to provide a comparative analysis, e.g., compared to ghajar or IRI that the people "voted" for.
IRI has now been in place for about 29 years -- about half as many as pahlavi regime, so they should have had at least half as many achievements as pahlavis had.
Alas that for a few mosques, a few prisons, a few projects that were in the planning stage in 1979 (like highways), sivand dam that is destroying iranian heritage, a devastating war, huge and continuous inflation as a result of 29-year depreciation in value of Rial from 70 to 10,000 vs. dollar, and maybe a few public toilets here and there, nothing else have been achieved during 29 years of islamic republic (ignoring all the harm that they brought to every part of the society). Everything else were built or were planned to be built during pahlavis. Any cab driver in tehran surprisingly can testify to that nowadays.
This is how leaders are judged, based on their achievements.
People in iran are worried if they have food on the table tonight, if their son or daughter returns safely tonight or is imprisoned or raped, if they have enough money for the education of their son or daughter, if their son or daughter can find a job even with education, if they can pay the rent at the end of the month, ..., people do not care anymore if their leader is a saint or not. They care if their leader can improve their lives, which shah could for those who can objectively compare the beginning and the end of pahlavis versus any other period in recent iranian history.
I search for reasons to hate either of pahlavis, but I find none. Because I only care for iran and their contribution to iran and iranians rather than what kind of personal life shah had and if he took a ride in Disneyland while visiting america. Pahlavis served iran well, well beyond what they did wrong (and sorry to say, but beyond what iranians were ready for -- as they have proved in their multiple elections since 1979), this is a fact that is very hard to dispute.
Does shah deserve criticism? Absolutely, everybody deserves criticism, but not childish outcries like those here, and in a balanced way.
So you see, shah did not fail iran on balance; Iranians who preferred a deceptive imported mulla failed iran. Shah, despite all his short-comings, was way ahead of his time for his nation. And before his departure, he was willing to compromise and hand-in the country to nationalists like Bakhtiar. People refused. He was saying at the time: "I say to those who say that 'shah must go', whom do I hand-in the country to before I leave?"
I rest my case. History will judge him fairly, without any emotions or personal vendetta, unfortunately we'll all be dead by then!



by rana (not verified) on

one reason you should detest the shah:


I'm born after the revolution. so I don't care what you guys want to say about the shah, I don't know him and I don't need to know him. All I need to know about him is that he inherited the monarchy from his father who was a nobody and was "ordered" to leave the land. which means the country wasn't really governed by him or the people but it was governed by another country. Now explain to me why my people should have liked his son?

Is this government good? there are no perfect governments anywhere in the world. You think other governments in our country would be better? Our governments would come out of our people and Iranian people are not the material that makes the perfect government. Nobody agrees what is a good government right now, if you asked every Iranian what kinda government they want , you would probably get about more than 1 million different answers. We should probably ask other countries what kinda government they would prefer for us(that's a joke).

From my own discussion regarding this topic with many people (we tend to only talk about politics these days). I've seen that people never agree on anything and want to prove themselves to be RIGHT. forgetting that our decisions would effect other lives, forgetting that we are not the only ones who have the right to have a voice. If you as a shahi has an opinion, a Muslim who wants this kinda government has the right to an opinion, it's his country too. If we don't learn to respect different points of view and different opinions we will never have a good government.


In Criticism of Shah

by Emam (not verified) on

Ey shah, there seems to be so many people that dislike you, mostly without giving any reliable reason for it. I have also been searching for reasons to detest you, all over the web, to know how much you looted iran, how many you killed, how many you imprisoned, but with little success except for so many anecdotes and accusations which are common among iranians. It seems more like the story of "yek kalaagh, chehel kalaagh". Remember when islamic republic's prime minister rajaee came to UN, he put his bare foot on the podium to show everyone the evidence of his torture in your prison; I stared at the TV tube and could not see anything except for his naturally-ugly foot and distasteful toes. Remember people were saying that you had a very young and beautiful 22-year old second wife from caspian shores that was hidden from people. What happened to that bride that mullas claimed that you had. Remember people were saying that your son, prince reza, was mute and thus could not run the country after your passing. How did he recover from muteness that mullas claimed he had. Remember mullas were saying that your mother had a lover, what happened to her lover that mullas claimed she had? Remember mullas were saying that your sister ashraf travelled not without packs of illegal drugs for her personal use, what happened to the evidence of those claims of mullas. So, many still believe that you were an evil man, and I agree with them. But very few could tell us why. Now here for the very first time I will reveal to all iranians why you were an evil man and a helpless leader. You were an evil man since you let the devils like khomeini and khamenei and his gang run loose, you were an evil man because you did not prosecute those gangster to the fullest (lawfully), rather, you left the country and handed them OUR country. Imagine, if you had nailed those bastards one way or the other - just imagine that - then lives of some one million people had been saved - those who were victims of khomeini and saddam. If you had not run away, some 2 to 3 million iranians had not turned into refugees all around the world. And so endless number of people had not suffered so much and for so long under mullas. And the country had not been looted so ruthlessly for 30 years. So, yes you are an evil man, but for reasons that not too many dare to voice (still). May god bless your father, reza shah, who had more balls than any of his children, or any of his countrymen for that matter; who saved iran from disintegration and destruction under ghajar rule.

Rosie T.

Re: Is Khomeini Dead?...

by Rosie T. on

Yes, Khomeini is dead.  Shah is dead.  Both have left a legacy and it is up to the new generation to forge something new out of their lives and deaths. Yep, both dead.  Dead as doornails.  And RP is NOT his father and Khatami was NOT Khomeini...and those "akhoonds" who are like Khomeini I felt were ready to die out like dinosaurs, like doornails, until "my" president flanked Iran militarily.  I apologize for the man's actions. 

But this too shall pass.  Neocons shall pass. And then you will see...that Shah and Khomeini are indeed both dead....and what is living...will...live.....and face their memory, honestly and squarely...there's simply no other choice...and proceed...with life.... 

 When you say you read J's stuff and he blows like the wind, do you mean Jamshid?  Well, then, if that is your impression, help him to articulate a position that is clearer to you.  At least he tries...he tries HARD.




by Mamooshak (not verified) on

Is he Dead too,

I read some of J's stuff too its too much for my small brain,mostly he says one thing the he says:
read well till you unerestand what I ment.. and then
he turns the meaning of his words toward wind direction, I look at some response ,sound like what they say in Farsi >>Rafigh e dozd va Sharik e ghageleh..<<


Praise for Emam Khomeini

by Emam (not verified) on

Ey emam, these people do not realize the blessing of your arrival. They simply are not grateful to you as they should be for the unique lessons that you taught them. The iranians had not seen a lier, a bastard, or an SOB like you in 1400 years. They could not imagine in their wildest dreams that someone could be as deceitful as you were. They welcomed your arrival and in return you turned any thief, any bastard, and any SOB in the long history of iran into a saint by being 1000 times more of a bastard. You opened the eyes of iranians, those who survived your cruelty, wide open. You murdered so many that no iranian king could ever come any close to you in murder and crime and looting of the country. Ey Emam, you are the only one in the history of iran who represented both god and nation and treated iranians like alexander, omar, Genghis khan, Tamerlane, and saddam did. Yeah, you are in the same club as those murderous SOBs that once marched on iran and yet inspired so many by their cruelty and deceit. You have been a true blessing as nobody could ever screw iran and iranians so deeply and for so lasting long 30 years so far. And as you screwed the country and country men and women harder and harder, the gullible iranians screamed louder and louder in your praise and raised their stupid fists higher and higher in support of you the devil's master. And finally when the devil called you to hell to replace him as he retired, the stupid iranians built you a mausoleum to worship your dead, to praise your crimes, and to ask you for healing and mercy. Ey Emam Khomeini, the devil, the satan, the eblis, the ahriman, together with all the evil men of history salute you altogether. May their blessings be upon you and your followers and worshipers for eternity. Ey Emam, I do not have much worth offering you in return for your blessings, but I offer you the only thing that I have that comes even close to what you deserve: I shit on you, you bastardest SOB and enemy of iran and iranians.

Rosie T.

Mamoosh, don't worry....the Shah can't stay....

by Rosie T. on

THE SHAH IS DEAD!!!  He can't stay....he left a long time ago...he died almost three decades ago, humiliated, ostracized, broken.  The vast majority of serious regular writers and posters on this website who speak favorably of the Shah--from my observations--  neither expect to resurrect Mohammad Reza from the dead, nor, if they are inclined toward monarchy (and many are not), do they want an autocratic monarch. They want a SECULAR PARLIAMENTARY MONARCHY along the lines of UK. 

And as I have said before, either they are an irrelevant fringe minority in which case, let them babble on, what do you care what they say?, or they are NOT an irrelvant fringe minority, in which case their voices embody views held by many others, which CANNOT be ignored or dismissed.




10 REASON :why I want Shah to stay (wondering thoughts)

by Mamoosh (not verified) on

10 Reasons why I wanted shah to stay in power

Anyone has more reasons can add to list:

1- For forty years we elected him freely time after time

2-There was no opposition, and no election campaign (saving our money).ALL our ministers
were hand picked for years after year have the same position same department so we would save time not electing them since someone else Will for us ,and what did we know about these ministers (Zero) the selectors knew all these hard working great people and made our life easier to select for us.
there were some sort of house of representative and Senate and Parliaments which all senators hand picked in one , the other house same old (public servant) whom supposedly we vote for.
They worked so hard to choose for us we should all be great full for this.

3- I learned early years in school than ; Shah was more Important than Iran the country, god missed it by this much (Khoda Shah Mihan) was our logo by choice, if I could I would tatoo this logo,somewhere.
4-There were no political prisoners No torturer No “shoot now ask question later’ policy
incase you had been accused politically ,You will be court martial all judges and DA.s were uniformed, military staff ,whom every morning had to take an oath of loyalty to shah first then 2nd country ,people were no part of equation (Khoda Shah Mihan) We did save lots of time because the outcome of judgment was so obvious and at the end everyone was so happy , ;no leak to any news agency .
even if news goes out then we find out according to my trusting government they were Marksist or communist or some kind of “IST” which felt like a thread if expand….

5-Free and none controlled Press. We could read any book from any author without fear (of what),
Sometimes even poems that was not so healthy for our minds..... (No controlled news no controlled radio and TV and no monitoring of information for public)

5-Saddam in Iraq, Chawchesko In Romania and Shah in Iran had their statues in most cities in almost every square or corner or top of buildings, mostly in entrance way of public hospitals I find a framed picture of a person(related) whom was visiting and bending over the bed or chair (pretending he or she is paying attention to sick kids or student, picture of a person on bed with clean bed sheet and hospital pajamas and forced smile’,
Also shah,s framed pictures were in all offices(so we remember him every second of day), sometimes with dark glasses sometime in uniform With hat without hat with occasionally with custom local traditional closing too.
::about these great leader’s statues:
Why those great leader put their own statues up and at the end people drags them down??hmmmm
Do some of these leaders see their own statue as Statue of Liberty!!!
All school books were glowing with their figures and their names on First page. So we do not forget them there was always some kid’s song about their greatness too, so we had to memorize them ,sing it as we were playing or in class or on the way home anytime was a good time for showing our love for them, also forcing ourselves to love them.... why not?? I saw that picture since first grade on my books anytime I opened my books first I kiss their picture which lighted up my day.

6-Most of streets and public arenas and facilities, Schools , Hospitals Universities carried their name or their brothers or son or wife(ves) or mom's or in-laws or cousins names on it,(shahdokht shahpoor ,alahazrat valagohar,valahazrat,valla mehr,Khodaygun,in different languages) So we remember who we have to thank , even if they did not spend a penny from their pocket and had nothing to do with building those structures (at least they cut the ribbon)in special set up ceremony, I always watch the soccer game in stadiums and remember them specially in public restrooms, I was wondering why their name is not there did anyone missed it!!!
7-we were free to think and practice our political views, I could be Islamism ,socialist ,republish ,Marxist ,nationalist ....without any worry and fear of being imprisoned, my government had no fear of me thinking the other way ,or they straighten me up.
8-I did not know, why American do not use their living president’s portrait on stamps, then I learned
A Person or president must be dead to be on postal stamps, we were not supposed to missed shah any minute of our Life so we have to have him on Postal stamp in different size and prices
, sometimes different outfit, as our regular reminders of his kindness and majesty.
9-His family had the right & copy right to any industry they want to either through commission or direct deposit ,Since the family own the country ,I am still thankful to them.
10-with all billions of dollars income in my time and big drums of “ Free Education in advance lever for all “
if you decided to go to University in Iran there was at least about
400,000 Student to take entry exam(Konkoor) and colleges capacity were (5701)new student will be accepted rest of us did not just go to school ,I remember many of my friends(Bache mahals )could not afford High school, so they had to drop, but we had the best affordable education available to us.

Do not compare ,
I do not represent any plotical group or idealogy ,Just what I ovsorved then and wonder


Re: IranParast

by jamshid on

I presented an opinion about Mosadegh. One that is not to your liking because it had a negative view of Mosadegh's policies. In my previous post, I concluded that:


1. Moadegh was a dictator because he ordered the "democratically elected" parliament shut downed. The same parliament that elected him into office. He shut it down because the parliament opposed some of his policies. You cannot just shut down the legislative branch in a democracy.


2. His "all or nothing" foreign policies could have resulted in US/UK arming and funding the Khuzestani Arabs to rise and declare independence against Iran. This was US/UK plan B for Iran which is included in the CIA released documents. Iran could not oppose this because it had neither money nor a strong military to counter this plan.


These are my views. I presented them in a civil manner. You do not agree with me. You had two choices:


1. Argue with me in a civil manner and with a healthy exchange of information (tabaadole nazar), or,

2. Attack "me", the person, and give "sho'aars", instead of counter arguing with facts and evidences.


Let's look at some of your replies which you will find below in bold:


arajif ta key? What part of what I said is "arajif"? Is it "arajif" when I say Mosadegh ordered the parliament shut down? IS IT TRUE OR IS IT ARAJIF?

ba kamal e bisharmi be azadikhah va mazhare mobarezate iran migi Mssadegh-Dictaror... In a democracy, do I have the right to question why Mosadegh closed the majlis? If I do, does that automatically make me a "bisharm"? If yes, then you don't believe in a true democracy. You are as dictatorial as the shah you criticize.

Mossadegh ajnabi parast nabood... Please show me a reference where I indicated that he was ajanbi parast. You are such fanatic that when one says that Mosadegh's foreign policies were wrong, you immediately conclude that he is saying mosadegh was a traitor. THERE IS A BIG DIFFRENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. One that unfortunately you cannot see with the Shah.

shome pish binee kardid momken bood emam zadeh beshe bad ham dictaror... Pishbini kardam? MAGEH EMAMZADEH NASHOD? va baleh agar mimoond be shedate shah dictatori mikard. bastane majles neshooneye avalesh bood. tatil kardane barkhi jaraayed neshooneye dovomesh bood.

tohmant nazan agar Froohar ba khomeini regim sazesh dash ke saresh ra nemiboridand... Foroohar, Sanjabi, Bazargan and many other mosadeghis joined khomeini in 1978. I WAS A STUDENT ACTIVIST IN THOSE TIMES AND I HAVE NOT LOST MY MEMORY. They betrayed Bakhtiar. Foroohar became Khomeini's "vazir". When some 10,000 members of the Imperial army were being summarily executed by the mullahs and MEK in the only the first year of the revolution, Foroohar did not resign. Some years later, he realized his mistake about khomeini, but by then Iran was destroyed. Sanjabi skiped town/country. Bazargan became a member of majles where they literally "too saresh mizadand". At least Foroohar died like a man.

jenaballi yek mosht MOZAKHRAF sare ham kardi... Show me where did I mention a "mozakhraf"? Provide the sentence and explain why it is a mozakhraf. You can't just insult me.

Chera fekr mikony ba tohmat zadan va arajif goftan ,dar mored e in ghahremanan mitoony mobarezan e rah e azadi e ro be lajan mikeshy... Kodaam tohmat? agar kasi khaast ke dar morded mosadegh naghd koneh in khod be khod misheh tohmat zadan? Do you now see why you have made an "emamzadeh" out of the guy? Are you even aware of your emamzadegi?

inha farzand khalaf e iran boodand... I disagree. What is my punishment? Prison? Sarkoob? Tashar? Kotak? Tohmat? All of them? You are more "allahi" than the shaholahis.

Shah yek dast parvardeie CIA bood... I disagree with you. Notice that 1) it is quite all right with me when you criticise the Shah, 2) You feel you are "entitled" to criticize him, but you do not give me a similar right.

(shah) oomad chapid ,kharejee ra khoshal kard... I disagree with you. You are just labeling the shah without presenting any evidence. Your only evidence is your raw hatred for him. This is not proof, it is only baseless accusations. 

rooze khoobi dashteh bashi... Yeah right... Call me bisharm, mozakhraf goo, arajif goo, safsatehbaz, dorooghgoo, and then wish me a nice day for the icing.



IranParast: Mosadegh, Foroohar and Jebheye Melli

by jamshid on

I don't speak for others. but Jebheye Melli (excluding Bakhtiar and Sadighi) betrayed me and many friends when they took advantage of our inexperienced youth and fed us with a bunch of crap against the shah and brainwashed us into following khomeini, paving the way to the fall of Iran. AND THEY NEVER EVEN AS MUCH AS BOTHERED TO APOLOGIZE FOR THEIR MISTAKE.


I REMEMBER BECAUSE I WAS THERE. Because I was an anti-shah student activist and "hamisheh dar sahneh" demonstrator opposing the Shah's regime. I chanted "death to the shah" more times than some of you can count. I was "proud" to have been beaten by the shah's soldiers.


It was our belief in Jebheye Melli and Mossadegh's image that energized our passion and determination. The majority of us were neither Islamist nor leftist, but we were heavily influenced by Jebheye Melli. THE ONLY REASON WE FINALLY BECAME ALIGNED WITH KHOMEINI WAS BECAUSE WE TRUSTED AND LOOKED UP TO JEBHEYE MELLI SO MUCH; AND THEY ENCOURAGED US, ASKED US, DEMANDED FROM US TO TRUST AND JOIN KHOMEINI. And we were too young to know better.


I will not forgive them for deceiving me and so many others, and for making me an accomplice to the demise of my country.



Jamshid safsateh chera, Arajif ta key???

by IranParast (not verified) on

Man shai nistam
Mosadeghi nistam
Khomeinichee nistam
asheght Iran hastam.
Jamshid chera arajif migi
Awal loghte Tyro-Mosaddegh ra migi ,bad migi na!!! va be Javerh kalam migi Mosadeghiha
ba kamal e bisharmi be azadikhah va mazhare
mobarezate iran migi Mssadegh-Dictaror
hich grouh e siasy too Iran nist ke ba ham besazand vali hame dar ye amr mowafeghand
Ke Mossadegh ajnabi parast nabood ,
zire bare estesmar e kharji ham naraft ta onja ke zendeh bood ,shome pish binee kardid momken bood emam zadeh beshe bad ham dictaror... ,Froohar v Bakhtiar va Amini hame bistar jebheie melli boodan,akse Msadegh too daftar kar e Bakhtiar bood ,Froohar ham dar neveshte has ono taaed mikard,mage inke khosoosi be shoma goftan ya be sorat e amdad e gheib shenidi ke inha mokhalefe rahe Mossadegh bodand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tohmant nazan agar Froohar ba khomeini regim sazesh dash ke saresh ra nemiboridand.(lotfan be marhoom Froohar ban nakoon and don't call me Frooharihs,oon chizy ke man az yaddashthash ke montasher shodeh khoondam.
Dashtan e aghideh azad ast amms jenaballi yek mosht MOZAKHRAF sare ham kardi ,va be onwan e tarikh behesh estenad mikoni har ke ham taaidet nakard barchasb mishasboony .Chera fekr mikony ba tohmat zadan va arajif goftan ,dar mored e in ghahremanan mitoony mobarezan e rah e azadi e ro be lajan mikeshy inha farzand khalaf e iran boodand inha jaan be kaf baraye haghe mardomeshoon ta pay e joon pish raftand (roohe shoon shad) .
Agar shah ro mikhay its your choice,amma bad nam kardan e een mobarezan Shah ro mahboob nemikoneh ,Shah yek dast parvardeie CIA bood ,
khod e amrikaeeha ham ino migan,ye bichareh ee ham bakhsy az madarek ha ro be shoma neshooon dad.
Yek nafar hatta yek nafar be shah ray nadadeh bood ,mamlekat ham erse pedaresh nabood ,oomad chapid ,kharejee ra khoshal kard ,hich hookoomt e zalemi ham abady nist sarnenesht hameie dictarorha mesle ham hast sooner or later mardom beedar mishan .Lotfan barchasb e high grouh va daste ee siasi ham be man nazan man azadikhaham va asheghe Iran
rooze khoobi dashteh bashi

Rosie T.

No, not a numbers game

by Rosie T. on

The shahis have to face that there were tortures and they were inconscionable.  The "lefties" have to face the numbers were purposefully exaggerated.

It's no game.

Nevertheless, there's a difference between a ruler who tortures indiscriminately (such as a Hitler, a Pol Pot, a Stalin) and one who does so--language fails me here, whatever word I use here will be wrong--well, one who does NOT do so INdiscrimiinately.

We have to all bear in mind that most rulers in history have tortured. This doesn't excuse the Shah but it puts things in perspective.  The United States, for example, hired ex-Nazis to teach torture techniques at the School of the Americas in Florida to be widely used against opponents of US-backed dictatorships in Latin America.  (And I ain't talking Abu Ghraib dogs and humiliations when I say Nazi torture techniques).  And while it may not be torture, the French government is the only government to have EVER sunk a ship peacefully protesting environmental disaster...and that was Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior in the '80's. 

All of these things are inconscionable but a reasonable discussion of the Shah's role in torture, neither denying nor exaggerating it, helps to put things in perspective.  Not Pol Pot, not Gandhi either.  In the new world, there CAN BE NO TORTURE.  To arrive at that point, we have to be willing to look at the truth.  That is all I'm trying to say.


Numbers Game

by Anonymous1 (not verified) on

This is not Right versus Left, this is about hurting another human being just because of their believes. Looking at torture strictly from numbers stand point will leave the door open for the future ones. Now the question is how many act of torture is fair? How many we can close our eyes on and say oh well it was ok or "but he tortured as a warning", One? Two? Ten? Thousands? Or......... how many is ok?! Let's hope for banishment of torture in the world!! whatever the reason.

Rosie T.


by Rosie T. on

It seems to me that the issue of torture is one of the big bones of contention.  Both many "Shahis" and their "opponents" are unwilling to face the question of torture squarely.  My perspective on it comes from a "soft" leftist like me (a believer in pacifism whenever possible and in mixed economies), a very learned and gentle man.  His understanding is that the Shah certainly did torture, but he tortured as a warning, to discourage dissent, and that the numbers were intentionally exaggerated by those seeking Revolution (mind you, those on "his side", those with whom he's struggled for "freedom" in the late '70's).  He also told me that some on "our side", in the face of the grotesque beast that emerged from those struggles, actually admitted that they'd falsified the numbers.

I know the man, I trust the man, and I personally find no reason to disbelieve him

I think it would be very helpful for future discussions if all shahis would admit the obvious existence of the tortures, and their unfairness (because TORTURE under ANY circumstance is WRONG), and those on the "left" would concede that probably the numbers were exaggerated, perhaps even grossly so.  And that time will tell and the truth of the numbers will be clearly revealed in time, if we can all quiet down enough to work for a viable solution in which history will be able finally to speak for itself. Clearly and wisely, much more wisely than all our noise.
That is my hope.


I respect your ideology but....

by kurdish warrior (not verified) on

Shah was a dictator. With help of Savak he suppressed many including the minorities. The IRI is even worst. They have no respect for any human life what so ever. However even though I'm not in favour of monarchy, I still believe his son can be an element to unite the oppositions. What took my attention was that he even met with some minority opposition groups to discuss the future Iran.


And more of the same again and again!

by Anonymous1 (not verified) on

And more of the same again and again! It's gonna sound like cliché but I have to say it:
Iran's future does not go through the past, and one who doesn't learn from the past will repeat it.
Albert Einstein once said "Insanity; is doing the same thing over and over expecting different result". Please stop hiding behind the past already! Stop the mental masturbation.


Re: M. Javaherkalam

by jamshid on

I think your translation software is in need of an upgrade!


shoma migid: "aya mossadegh ghabool mikard ,choon onha (US/UK/Soviets) hamchin tasmimy (tajzieye iran) dashtand,,shoma javabe aghay mossdegh ra ham pish bini kardy ke chee mibood?"


shoma chi aghaye/khamomeh aziz? shoma mitoonid tasmime dr. mosadegh ro pishbini konid?


vali osoolan sohbat az tasmime mosadegh nist. sohbat az in hast ke America/UK agar mikhastand mitoonestand khuzestan ro az iran joda konand va na mosadegh va na hich kasi digar dar iran ghaader nabood jelogiri konand.


aya shoma migid ke mosadegh mitoonest jeloye tajzieye khuzestan ro tavasote US/UK begireh?


bad farmoodid ke man goftam ke "Amrica ya Mossadegh ya shah ro entekhab mikard" bandeh chenin harfi nazadam. translation software shoma be upgrade ehtiaaj dareh engaar.


bad goftid ke: "mossadegh mamlekat ro be ajnaby bedeh nabood, baba khejalat bekesh..."


chera khejalat bekesham? az chi? az inkeh jorat kardam harfi bar zede "emam zadeh" mosadegh bezanam?


man key goftam ke mosadegh mamlekato be ajnabi mikhast bedeh? koja? key? peyda konid va neshoon bedid koja man chenin harfi ro goftam. chera harf dar miarid. man goftam ke US/UK khuzestan ro az tarighe arabha az iran joda mikardand va mosadegh jeloye in karo nemitoonest begireh. va in balaa sare iran miomad be dalile inkeh mosadegh siaasat madaare khoobi nabood.


bad farmoodid ke: "Shah ke emam zadeieh shomha shodeh..." kheyr. Shah emam zadeye bandeh nist. shoma doroogh va tohmat mosadegh-olaahi be man darid mizanid.


shoma bad migid ke: " bia terhran benin har saal dar salrooz e marge mossadegh che ehsas e melli garaee hameie shahr ro migireh..." man tehran boodam va intor ke shoma bozorg mikonid be hich vajh nabood.


tazeh kojashod didid... berid salrooze marge "emam" husseine arabe paapati ro bebinid mardoem iran che mikonand. ghameh too sareh khodeshoon mizanand va zanjir be tan, chenaan mikonand ke be salgarde marge mosadegh begim zeki.


vali aya in dalil misheh ke "Hussein" vaghan hala kasi bood? mardome iran aadat darand ke az mordeh ghahreman besaazand. in dalil be hich chi nemisheh. shoma kheiy manteghetoon zaif hast.


Foroohar donableh roye raahe mosadegh bood? Foroohare ba "bey'ate" ba khomeini be mardome iran va be armaane mosadegh khiaanat kard. aya mosadegh hargez ba khomeini "bey'at" mikard? hargez!


be cheh jorati shoma bakhtiar va foroohar ro dar yek gorooh gharaar midid? khejalat nemikeshid? aya in digeh veghaahat nist?


va be cheh dalil shoma mosadegholahiha har gooneh tajzieh va tahlileh doraane mosadegh ro agar kamtarin nedaaye manfi baraye mosadegh dashteh basheh be in shedat sarkoob mikonid?


in hagheh man va hagheh har iranie digar hast ke aghaayede khodesh ro dar baraye shah va mosadegh be zaboon biaareh. mosadegh dictator bood, vali shoma mosadegholahiha az khodehsh ham dictatortar hastid.


Jamshi ;een LATAELAAT chie migee

by M.JAVAHERKALAAM (not verified) on

man englisim khob nist Farance sohbat mikonam va farsi,matne(comment shoma ro be Farance baad be farsi tarjomeh kardam ,be gofteie shoma
"US had in mind for both the Shah and Mosadegh or any other " ays mossadegh ghabool mikard ,choon onha hamchin tasmimy dashtand,,shoma javabe aghay mossdegh ra ham pish bini kardy ke chee mibood?????
be gofteie shoma:Amrica ya Mossadegh ya shah ro entekhab mikard: agar mitoonest ke ehtiajy be shah nadasht ....
mossadegh mamlekat ro be ajnaby bedeh nabood, baba khejalat bekesh.
lotfan matn e sokhanranee ie (speech) mossdegh ra dar Sazman e mellal(U.N.) bekhoon.
shah talash kard 30 sal esme in morde melli-khah ra be lajan bekesheh natoonet,
hala nobat e shoma shdeh??
agar mosaddegh mimoond "tyron"("tryanic Mosadegh" mishod ,bana bar pish binee shoma??
Shah ke "emam zadeieh "shomha shodeh ,chara fekr mikony mossdegh ham mishod, bia terhran benin har saal dar salrooz e marge mossadegh che ehsas e melli garaee hameie shahr ro migireh az rah e door sahatha ranandegee mikonand ke bian Ahmad abad sar e mazar e oon marhoom... ba voojodde khafeghan fazay e sisasie iran.(ta emrooz hich madraky daal e bar vatan frooshy ya ajnaby parasty az in ghareman peida nashodeh)vojdan ham chize khoobieh.....
nang bar shoma ke be khodet joraat e hamchin moghayeseh ee ro midi,

Shapoo re Bakhtiarha Frooharha....donbleh rooy e rahe mossadegh bodand,
shoma ba in madarek e man daravardi omadi esme oon marhoom ro be lajan bekeshy !!
chahar nafar na agah tar az khoodet ham bah bah chah chah bekonannd baba dast khosh!!


Thanks Jamshid

by aryamehr11 on


I fully agree with your post regarding the circumstances to PM Mossadegh's dismissal - and I was trying to convey this historical fact, albeit i get very emotional dealing with these ignorant people that have been told something and blindly regurgigate it. In fact I don't think this "King Killer" character even read your statement! Just look at how pathetic this character is going on about the PM Mossadegh being a "ghahreman melli"! Even after many of us have told him that he illegally shut down the democratically elected parliament and was endangering the national integrity of the country by appeasing communist groups! These knuckleheads think that because Iranian oil was nationalized under PM Mossadegh that is all they need to know to call him "ghahremane melli" - when in fact oil nationalization had its roots in PM Mossadegh's predecessor PM Razmara (not surprisingly murdered by Islamists)! Yes it's great that Iranian oil was nationalized but to what cost?

Bedaaneem, Beandeesheem, Bepaakheezeem!
Beedari, Paaydari, Peeroozi!


Rosie T.

It's true. It's important to read the whole post before replying

by Rosie T. on

My two cents.


Re: Minoo and King Killer

by jamshid on

Did you guys read my WHOLE post or just the first 2 paragraphs? Also, I never talked about the Shah's "selection."

Natalia: you are welcome.


Jamshid.....motashkkeram/Sepas for the answers...

by Sasha on

 I am still listening.........even when it seems I am not. Iranian history, especially Iranian political history is fascinating. :o)




Natalia Nadia



by MINOO (not verified) on


JUST want to do a "Fact Check"


Thank You Jamshid

by king killer (not verified) on

Sorry fou hursh language;

Because this guy do not understand any other way ,He started calling all of us names and
nasty words,so to me it looks like there was no other way to talk to him ,I respect your opinion and my applogy to you and all other readers whom find my response in poor taste.After so many years we still call Dr. Mossadegh "Ghareman e Melli",and he will be for ever.Thank you for clearing the subject ,and explanation of Democraticly electoion and forceably seletion.


Re: King Killer and Aryamehr

by jamshid on

To King Killer: the number of swear words you have used in your post, only serves against you and your ideology. You should control yourself.


To Aryamehr: Mossadegh was the "democratically elected" prime minister of Iran. The coup against Mosadegh removed our first "democratically elected" prime minister from power. No one can deny that.


However, we must ask why do we say that Mosadegh was a "democratically elected" official, eventhough the people of Iran did not vote for him directly? Answer: Because a "democratically elected" parliament voted him into office as a prime minister. That's why. This is how Mosadegh came to be known as a "democratically elected" prime minister. 


What does that mean? It means that it was the vote of the "democratically elected" parliament that gave credibility and merit to Dr. Mosadegh. It also means that the "democratically elected" parliament was "above" the elected prime minister Mosadegh in certain areas.


Some times after Mosadegh was appointed by the pareliament, disagreements began to emerge between the both "democratically elected" branches of the goverment, the executive branch (mosadegh) and the legislative branch (parliament) on domestic and foreign policies. This is natural and how it should be in any democratic government. Look at the two executive and legislative branches in the US or France for example.


So after disagreements began to emerge between Mosadegh and the parliament, what did Dr. Mosadegh do with the "democratically elected" parliament who appointed him in the first place? He SHUT IT DOWN, BY FORCE. That's what he did. Imagine in the US, Bush ordering the military to forcefully shut down the Congress and Senate because they dared to oppose his policies.


What does that make out of Dr. Mosadegh? A tyrant, a dictator. And what does that make out of Dr. Mosadegh's decision? A coup d'etat against a "democratically elected" legislative. His colleages warned him against shutting down the "democratically elected" pareliament, but Mosadegh refused to heed them.


And what was one of the major reasons the "democratically elected" parliament, the Shah and many others opposed Mosadegh's "all or nothing" politics? Because you don't play "all or nothing" with three superpowers at the same time (US, Soviets and UK) when your own country is so weak, economically, industrially and militarily. A good patriotic politican would use a "siaasate kajdaar va mariz" to save the country and to gradually lift Iran out of its weak state.


The released CIA documents clearly indicate what the US had in mind for both the Shah and Mosadegh or any other Iranian, should they choose an "all or nothing" approach. They had planed to fund and heavily arm the separatist Arabs of Khuzestan (which at the time were the aboslute majority in Khuzestan) to rise against Iran and declare independence. IRAN COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. In the 1950s, we did not have money nor a strong military to stop this. In those plans, they even considered what to do about the Soviets and how to have them go along with the break up of Iran, by giving them Azarbayjan.


Even if the Shah, the legislative and everyone else had joined force with Mosadegh's "all or nothing" politics, Iran would get the "nothing" part of those politics. Today, Khuzestan would be a rich and independent Arab country very much like Kuwait, and Azarbaijan would not be part of Iran. Iran itself would be less than Pakistan. We would all be refering to Mosadegh as the the tyrant who destroyed Iran.


The problem with our habit of making "emam zadeh" out of people is that we do earn a hero for ourselves, but at the cost of ignorance. I assure you that had Mosadegh remained in power, we would have made an "emam zadeh" out of the Shah instead. We would be talking about the "tryanic Mosadegh" and the "democratic young patriot shah".