Name One Good Thing That the IRI Has Done for the Iranian People in the Past 31 Years

Anonymous Observer
by Anonymous Observer

We heard it every day fro IRI cheerleaders:  the IRI is the greatest thing that has happened to Iran since the word Iran was uttered by some someone with love for that piece of real estate three thousand years ago. So, here's your chance.  Please list ALL of what you think the IRI has done to improve the lives of the Iranian people and to improve their standing in the world.  

Please do not safsateh about Islam, Iraq, the U.S., Palestine, etc.  We want to focus on Iran and Iranians.  What has the IRI done in the past 30 years that any other regime could not have done (probably ten time better)? Please also note that IRI's "accomplishments" cannot be fixing their own screw ups.  For example, you cannot claim that it defended the country against Iraq because if it wasn't for IRI, Iraq would not have dared to attack Iran.

Please also refrain from giving speeches.  Kindly focus on facts and numbers.  This way, we can better understand IRI's glorious achievements.   



Recently by Anonymous ObserverCommentsDate
The 1979 Devolution Was The Perfect Fit For Iranians
Nov 24, 2012
Bring Dr. Mohandes & Vildemose Back!!!
Nov 08, 2012, David Duke or "Storm Front?"
Oct 12, 2012
more from Anonymous Observer
Darius Kadivar

oktaby I am speaking from viewpoint of the Intelligenstia Not ..

by Darius Kadivar on

from the perspective of the Foreign Powers, their leadership ( even if I mention Carter and Reagan) or Conspiracy theories ( which are not always entirely Theories by the way in that there is a truth to them at times).

But the intelligenstia at large and by that I mean mostly the educated middle class did share alot with the French May 68 generation as much as the Vietnam generation.

Farrokhzad himself who was a monarchist by heart did not hide his attraction to socialist and marxist ideas:

Farrokhzad on the responsability of the Artist and Political activism:


To understand what happened in Iran from the perspective of the educated Middle and Upperclass Iranian society who were influential to the success of the Revolution one needs to understand the era and particularly the international and generational context of the mid 1960's and 1970's.

Most educated Iranians had traveled abroad either to get an education or see the world often encouraged by the regime. They were exposed naturally to new ideas ranging from die hard leftwing to liberal or socialist or simply democratic ideals of the enlightment philosophers. In short they got to see that there was a different world out there which contrasted with that of their own lives or that of their family condition.

From this point of View Benross made a pertinent comment which I think echoes my own opinion in regard to the Pre-1979 generation in that the most Staunchly anti Pahlavist could be found amongst the most privaledged Iranian backgrounds. Many had become Gauche Caviar and I recall many of my fathers friends who were hardly religious and had had the best of times under the shah only to hypocritically become religious overnight or MKO or hardline leftwing without ever sharing the slightest common ground with the so called mostazaf:

Farrokhzad Best defined them below 

Farrokhzad Iroony boodan:


A good example is Marjane Satrapi ...

Satrapi and Cohn Bendit  ( May 68 Icon)


What did she have in common with the so called lower class ? Nothing !

They were Gauche Caviar at Best feeding on Charlie Hebdo, Le Monde and Libe to shape their political views on the Shah's so called tyranny:

GAUCHE CAVIAR:Charlie Hebdo Coverage on Shah (1975)

Western Educated at schools like Razi or Jeanne D'Arc. Her family belonged to the former Qajar Aristocracy who had lost lands and hated the Shah and the Pahlavi kings quite understandably. After all the Qajar's had reigned for 600 years and the Pahlavi Dynasty was a young dynasty founded by a Bee Savad - however Self Made Man and they had all the reasons to envy the Pahlavis for taking over.

Spotting the Shah's weakness' or so called blunders in the Western Press had become a national sport for these people. Not that they were not always sincere in their left wing ideals or convictions but they were driven more by a feeling of revenge and the fact that Mossadegh a Qajar Prince had become something of a national celebrity or Icon however you may want to call it was a convenient pretext to crystallize around the events of 1953 the MYTH of a COUP when in Fact LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY it was a COUNTER COUP !

That does not mean that it was a GOOD THING but that it WAS LEGAL !

I think that from that point of view 1953 crystallized many frustrations amongst the Intelligenstia for the wrong reasons. The Events of 1953 very much like the Nuclear Dillemma Today HAVE NOTHING to do with  DEMOCRATIC DEMANDS !


But it became an ideal argument for all the Left Wing Opposition to compare the Shah to a kind of Pinochet dictator. His Dark Eyeglasses and military regalia did the rest to make him an easy target for the international press which in turn echoed the frustrations of this educated GAUCHE CAVIAR Iranian expats who were studying abroad like Ebrahim Yazdi or Gobtzadeh only to return back to Iran as Revolutionaries.

pictory: Shah of Iran's State Visit to Finland Amidst Student Protests (1970)

The Mumbo Jumbo Left Wing Intellectual discourse was then mixed with the Religious ideals of the likes of Shariati and Soroush in later years to shape the bulk what was to become the Islamic Republic's intellectual pillars which equally influenced the hardline and reformists as we see them today.

They actually share more in common with the MKO than meets the eye:

pictory: MKO leaders meeting under Khomeiny's portrait (1978)

But the Educated Middle Class particularly educated in the West were like all people of their generation deeply influenced by what was taking place both in the Western Bloc and Eastern Bloc countries in the late 1960's up to the late 70's: The Student Revolts, the Vietnam dissillusionment, the crushed upheavals in Prague or Hungary as well as the Military Coups in Greece or South American dictatorships as well as the Terrorist Movements like the Red Brigade or the Baader Meinhoff.

THE RED AND THE BLACK: Shah of Iran denounces the Unholy Alliance (1977/78)

In short they wanted to see the emergence of a more free and liberated society. What they failed to understand was the GAP between their way of thinking and the Society at large.

What they shared with the May 68 generation in France was their eagerness for Change combined with often Immature demands while both countries ( France and Iran) benefited from relatively booming economies and virtually full employement (which was no more the case in France after the Oil Boom of the 1970's as opposed to Iran).

However what saved France and did not save Iran was the democratic experience itself.

French society was familiar with the practical realities of democratic practice.

It  had no other choice but to pull itself together and admit that Anarchy for Anarchy won't get them anywhere particularly given that France was part of the European Community and at peace with it's neighbours and at some point was accountable for it's own behavior. It could not like during the French Revolution of 1789 count of a foreign waged War against it to defend itself.

We on the otherhand were equally educated but Politically Immature as a Society at Large. Where as that immaturity in France could at that juncture be blamed on merely the students revolt. Actually the Working class had little sympathy for the Student Anarchism which explains why the May 68 Revolution was far more heterogenous than that of the Iranian Revolution. 

Iran on the otherhand was surrounded by hostile nations ( like Iraq and the Soviet Union) in a very unstable region where the geo political realities were conditioned by equally the Israeli Palestinian conflict as much as the Cold War.

To satisfy the legitimate democratic demands of the people was constantly confronted to the extremist elements of society best represented by the Chereekies or MKO's .

REPUBLICAN OFFSPRING: Massoud Rajavi at Tehran University during Presidential Campaign (1980)

pictory: Ahmad Khomeiny Training with Cuban guerrilla fighters (mid 1970's)

pictory: Ahmad Khomeiny receiving RPG-7 training in Lebanon (mid 1970's)

pictory:Yazdi Meets Castro, Cuba (1980's)

pictory: Yazdi, Castro and Pretty Interpreter (1978)

From this point of view the case of Gole Sorkhi is symptomatic of the Gap between not only the Regime and part of the most radical yet marginal elements of society at the time.

Golesorki however bold would probably become a Yazdi or Massoud Rajavi at best had he survived.

These radical elements were to mastermind the Revolution's success and give Iran on a Silver plate to Khomeiny and the clerics to their own dismay.

But they were determinant in rallying support in the Iranian population at large because they were the missing link that bonded the so called Proletariat, the Bazaris and only lastly the educated Middle Class who joined ranks.

As in all revolutions the most radicals are the most likely to have the last word. Only with a Larger than Life character like Khomeiny what the left wing did not realize was that he had the support of an even far more radical portion of society which was composed essentially of the traditional minded citizenry.

Khomeiy became the CATALYST that became the hidden Imam with Mythilogical proportions turned into a superstar ironically thanks to the Propaganda tools acquired from the leftwing circles who trained them. Only by then the student had surpassed the teacher. Distributing fake tapes in rural areas who thanks to this massive propaganda were to rush into the cities and join the massive rallies which were to turn those of Shapour Bakhtiar sadly insignificant:


So in conclusion if Foreign powers did play a significant role in isolating the Shah and his regime, they were less influential in controlling the outcome of the revolution which at large was in the hands of the most radical elements of Iranian society.

But without the KHOMEINY FACTOR and THE SHAH's FATAL ILLNESS things could have had a very different outcome despite the role played by leftwing and radical elements which ultimately could have been marginalized in public opinion as mere trouble makers and anarchists at best.

But for that the country needed a Shah or Prime Minister Firmly determined to control the situation at the expense of spilling some blood.

But Alas instead of being a De Gaulle, the Shah appeared in the eyes of his people as an ageing  King Lear or as Historian Abbas Milani would put it an Indecisive, tragic and Isolated Hamlet unable to live up to his father's powerful legacy...

Metaphorically of course ...

My Humble Opinion,






by capt_ayhab on

Did you have too much sauce again?

Oniam ke land kard 7................ never mind ;-)



Hamsade, my point has been focused on the question of the blog

by oktaby on

but expanded to RCA. I have passingly referenced some historic facts but not to list the reasons for Shah's demise. He has been gone for 31 years and IRR thugs still use him to justify their miserable existence. reminds me of the bear joke (man kherso vel kardam, khers mano vel nemikoneh). The reasons you list are valid and worth analyses but separate discussion.

My point is rather succinct and in its general form well accepted in the context of colonial/imperialism methodology. IRR, shepherded to power by foreign interests, was not interested or tasked to improve or build Iran. The weaknesses of Iran's political and social system were exploited as I detailed earlier, and the discontent of Iranians (rastakhiz and all) were successfully channelled to create a 'revolution' and then directed to ensure an islamist version takes the power. Initiate a war and you make sure it can fully consolidate power and then isolate it to ensure it will make the bargains you want because you cannot micromanage the devil you released. Being short sighted and capital driven, of course, you do not look far enough to see how this devil you release can grow and serve your potential competition like China or revamped Russia. This is what happens when military/industrial complex plays foreign policy for whom IRR has been a wild success. Just look at global arms sales after 79 mutiny and further after demise of soviets and declaration of 'end of history' by "think tanks' full of clueless academics and 'experts' like Fukuyama. You can't get lost in any hell hole in the world without running into an arms cache anymore. "you create sufficient forces of unrest..."

Back to Iran, that is how you transform the most moderate country in the region, to its most radical but you have accomplished your objective; sucking it dry and creating a super power out of a tiny puppet country of Israel. That AIPAC and israel lobby have turned the slave into master is a different discussion. Meanwhile, you create this massive PR that they all hate each other and have AN and Natanyabooo call each other terrorists as they do brisk business. Without natanyaboo AN has no platform; and vice versa.

In short, the question AO asked is addressed at its core. Can a regime that has been created in this manner be a servant to Iran and Iranians? No, that would be an existential threat to IRR and a juggling act they cannot master, nor interested in mastering. So the alternative, becoming a pariah state and saying we'll do whatever including raping the people and culture of their occupied land, for 'independence' actually makes sense in their twisted context.  Of course, by the time that pig flies, it is no longer clear who/what you are. Ala the Pheel (elephant) in Shahre Ghesse.


hamsade ghadimi

dk, oktaby

by hamsade ghadimi on

you both provided good points on partial reasons for the demise of the previous regime (excess, shah's arrogance, other nations' view of the shah during the oil crises).  i like to add that banning opposition groups and creating a one party system also took away the pressure valve that the opposition needed.  and yes, corruption and nepotism (taken to a whole new level in today's iran). i don't buy too much into shah's illness: there was the whole monarchy apparatus and his son who were stakeholders of the previous system.  not to mention his pride.  and the whole talk that the shah had a plan (a 20-year one?) to phase the monarchy into a constitutional monarchy.  i don't buy that either (why would he pull the rastakhiz deal before such a plan?).  there was a disconnect between the elite and the rest of the population which was highlighted by the 2500 year commemoration (dk's point) and arbitrary change of the friggin year on the calendar (not that i'm crazy about the reference year of our current calendar!).  it was a tempest.

but, we digress from the point of the blog.  what was it about again? :)


Oktaby: thanks for the

by vildemose on

Oktaby: thanks for  expounding on that significant part of history. The French complicity is alsoe apparent now in the way Total run Iran's oil.



by Gavazn on

I have just done a search on the Islamist you mentioned and he is absolutely HORRIFIC! The stuff of nightmares ....




vildemose, of course he did

by oktaby on

The quid pro quo deal was a requirement and a key decision point for Margaret Thatcher to fully turn her flat and ugly back on Shah despite advice of at least two of her ministers. With that agreement in Place the British released several rounds of funds directly and indirectly, the initial one of which was about 85 million. These were aircraft/aerospace contracts that Shah had stated won't be renewed. It was possibly his way of getting back at the brits a bit. You will hear some of that anger with Brits in his latter interviews where he referenced British spending beyond their means (in the context of Iran giving them loans) as the downfall of the British economy was in full swing. A few years back Margaret Thatcher had referenced the 79 mutiny and Reagan's election as two most important events of the latter part of 20th century. Looking at the past 30 years, it becomes rather clear why.

Similar agreements had been reached with French at least.



Oktaby: What were those

by vildemose on

Oktaby: What were those British Military deals? Did Khomeini keep his promise to Brits?


Oktaby: That was a very

by vildemose on

Oktaby: That was a very nice recaping Iran's recent history in a nutshell. Very well written.

VPK: agreed. To this date, the mullahs are supported by the British. Why is PressTV allowed to operate in Britiain? It just doesn't make sense


DK, Mai 68 spun out of control may sound good but does not jive

by oktaby on

With established information & documents. There is also little commonality between Iran and France in terms of political/social maturity and how those impact movement formations and progression. 

Shah was powerful (and egoistic) and had too firm a hold to allow a small event spin out of control as you suggest. I was a close witness in 77 via an uncle in government on how 'political subversion' was dealt with in several cities. Second, there are many statements, timeline and forensic evidence to connect Shah's 1973 Oil contract plans (expiring in 1979), the 73 embargo (meetings of Iran with other oil ministers led by venezuela, in cairo), specific statements (known and behind the scenes by Carter, Reagan and other high ranking people.....and an 18 month period of escalating protests. BBC?ABC and other major media at the time clearly demonizing Shah, their old friend, and promoting khomeini. Your buddies the French had a house with 26 phone lines, support staff and security ready for khomeini's arrival from Iraq. Khomeini's pre agreement to extend british military deals that Shah was to cancel...

These are not signs of a May 68 spun out of control but a systemic and systematic conspiracy to bring an islamic government to Iran.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


British people were good to us too. In fact some high ups warned us well ahead of what was going to happen. Interesting how they *knew* a year ahead that Shah was going. They warned us because the individuals wanted to save us. 

However when it comes to the government I have not sympathy for Britain. I want my people i.e. Iranians to be free of this damn known as Shiat Islam. Their government to this day is propping up the IRI. Their own people are sick of them but are helpless. That is why in frustration and anger they turn to things like BNP. Not that I like BNP I don't. But it is the result of people's impotence in changing their corrupt government policies. They see their nation going to radical Islam and the politicians welcoming it.

It is enough to turn a sane person mad!  I have no solutions for Britain. I live in the US and we have our own problems. At least we don't put up with Islamic terror here.

The negative side of US is rampant racism. But it is mostly against overtly Islamic types. If you don't act Islamic you don't get the abuse. Most Americans sympathize with Iranian people's desire for freedom. Ironically right wingers are most sympathetic.

Anonymous Observer

Nicely put Oktaby

by Anonymous Observer on

And I also liked your previous comment about the safsateh.  Indeed, aside from a bunch of irrelevant statistics and a lot of talk, we have yet to have an answer to the original question that was the subject of this blog.



by sag koochooloo on

I have family in other parts of Europe but work in UK. Hopefully move out permanently when certain things happen. But must say British people have been so good to me (I judge by individuals, not Politics). That is the sad part, I feel sorry for friends who will be left with this problem.

Darius Kadivar

What Happened in IRan was actually a Mai 68 that spin out of

by Darius Kadivar on


It was less a Revolutionarly Phenomena in the begining at least than what the French would call a "ras le Bol" ...

Watch : Paris Uprising May 1968 ( English):


People particularly the thriving middle class and intelligenstia were more fed up by the bureaucracy and lack of political pluralism more than anything else.

The Shah was appearing in the eyes of many as An Ageing monarch who like De Gaulle was in Power and the Public Eye for Far too long.

He had become an easy target and after the Persepolis Celebrations the Commemoration of the 50th anniversary of his reign was truly seen as another arrogant claim when in fact it was a tribute to the stability and prosperity ( he felt) the country had acquired in one of the most troubled regions of the world as President Carter said quite rightly in his toast to the Shah back in 1977.


An impression confirmed also by his successor President Reagan:


I have personally have always believed that had the Shah not been fatally ill the events of 78/79 could have had a different outcome.

But we all know it was not the case.

In many ways the revolution of 79 was as De Gaulle Would say a Chianlit aka a Shit hole which the people created for themselves aided in that by an irresponsible and frustrated intelligenstia without maturely evaluating the consenquences ...

That said Iran under the Shah was not a democracy like France was even in 1968 but we did have a Constitution and a civil society and Iran was NOT a TOTALITARIAN State but rather a mild dictatorship in the lines of neighbouring Turkey ( which did not witness a Revolution but had Every reason like Iran to also go through a similar experience).

But the Shah's disease was a huge determinent factor. To think he only died a year after the revolution. Had he been in good health he probably would have been more alert and determined to find a solution knowing that he wished to see his son succeed him.

It is impossible to redo history. But I truly do think that 1979 was a missed opportunity for both the monarchists and the democrats to reach an aggreement that would have reconcilated Iran with it's Constitutional heritage and turn Iran into a truly functional parliamentary democracy.

We all know that was not to be ...

But I do look forward to a day when that will be possible if the pre-conditions of a Restoration are understood and clarified in the minds of the people as to the aims and goals that such a Restoration wishes to achieve in terms of democratic practice and respect for Human Rights:

HISTORY FORUM: Nader Naderpour on Iran's Constitutional Revolution and European Rennaissance (1996)

Recommended Watching:

pictory: France's De Gaulle Visits Iran (1963)

pictory: Political Pluralism and Freedom of Press in Pahlavi Iran (1961) 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Re: vpk: I hear the UK is

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on



There are not enough bad things in the world to wish on the UK. Those **** made the Akhonds and Shiat radical Islam what it is. Not to mention the infamous Mosaddegh coup was directly their plan. They figured they will screw up the world and suck its blood. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

Sag: Do yourself a favor and move. Britain is damned and doomed. Its karma is going to catch up with it and no force in the world will save it. UK will turn into the same Islamist hell hold it tried to turn the world into. The smart ones will move to US or Australia. So take my advise and move. No point remaining in the UK.

UK makes the Titanic look like a good bet.


hamsade ghadimi

dear benross

by hamsade ghadimi on

thank you for your comment; however, it did not change my position.  therefore, there is no need to discuss it futher per your request.


Oktaby jan

by sag koochooloo on

What you say is very interesting - I am trying to learn more about Iranian Politics/ history. It is just that my family ran away from Islamists under threat of death, and now in a country where we have found peace, they are accepting them by the droves. It seems I am an Islamist magnet. It is a sensitive issue.   :-)


Dear hamsade ghadimi

by benross on

a great proportion of iranians (certainly not shah and his supporters) rejected monarchy and welcomed the promises and ideas of justice and prosperity that was put forth by khomeini

I know this description is convenient for you. Had you used the word 'dictatorship' instead of 'monarchy', I could let go. But since this wording is revisionism in history, often used by dictators such as IRI to justify their rule, I should comment on this.

Shah and his supporters, who mostly left the country in early stage of the revolution do not fully represent monarchy supporters. In fact, I haven't seen a genuine expression of support for monarchy, neither during Pahlavi nor from first victims of Islamic revolution. I saw a genuine support for monarchy only after the revolution and establishment of the power of IRI, and I saw it inside Iran.

Your second remark about 'prosperity' is also should be clarified. Iran under Pahlavi was prospering constantly. The rate of growth in the society was sharply declined in the last years of Pahlavi because of some severe misadjustment of development plans of the government in global economy and external pressure. Ervand Abrahamian has a good review of that situation that helped greatly propagation of Khomeini propaganda.

And about 'justice', you know quite well that he didn't promise anything but Islamic justice.

Whenever you took your head out of the sand, we can discuss it further. But for the time being, leave monarchy out of your self serving analyze.


Sag, I didn't suggest islamist running over UK solves anything

by oktaby on

It is the hope that they get a piece of what they sow. I and others have commented on historic aspects many times and don't wish to repeat but Iranians rose for democracy. Nothing else. Because we had or getting the rest and wanted a representative government.

No one asked for theocracy but with help of the West, Shah never putting away the islamists enabling their base of operation via 5000 mosques he built, several hundred million dollars to khomeini and co from British et al, Shah's increasingly nationalistic and independent demeanor, global coordinated media support...the islamic regime was opportunistically and cleverly created and positioned as THE opposition to Shah (and quickly usurped all opposition) DIRECTLY by the western powers in continuation of an all out assault on USSR started with the John Paul II and Poland, then extended into Green belt.... followed by "dual containment policy" to put away two rising economies of ME (Iran and then Iraq) with Oil interest in both cases, and in Iran specifically because "we don't need a second Japan"...

These are not speculations but now well documented history with very few pieces missing in the puzzle (Iran Contra-Algiers agreement of 1980, former SAVAK agents as key players in the current system.... to come out soon enough). There are many well researched books on this subject. That khomeini, Taliban and radical islam was an ignorant if methodical creation of the west is questioned only by islamists.

As for the rise of the right in EU, there are a slew of reasons including the influx of people for purely financial reasons, unwillingness to adapt (helped by islamism) and the resource constraints exacerbated by global recession... 

Netherlands, a rather tolerant culture, is sure to have a an Anti-Islamist (Wilders) play a bigger role in Dutch politics. Islamists assassination of Theo van Gogh in 2004 (and Denmark cartoons...) showed the true face of islamists that won't allow the Dutch speak freely in their own country while they spew hate all over islamic world. Per CIA's "we created sufficient forces unrest in direct violation of U.S. constitution (goes all the way back to Truman's 1947 NSA)...and those chickens have come home to roost".

The problem is that this big lie called IRR is continuing its filthy existence because of an unfortunate confluence of global events. Meanwhile, the islamists and supporters as the saying goes "amr beheshoon moshtabah shodeh" and think "Ali Abad ham shahre". We are responsible for making a historic mistake but that does not mean we deserve this terrorist gang that has a chokehold on Iran.

And all of this at untold cost to Iranian mind, body and soul. 



Yes Hamsade jan

by sag koochooloo on

I agree with what you say.

hamsade ghadimi

sag koochooloo

by hamsade ghadimi on

i would qualify the statement that "...iranians ...welcomed khomeini back.." as such: a great proportion of iranians (certainly not shah and his supporters) rejected monarchy and welcomed the promises and ideas of justice and prosperity that was put forth by khomeini.  many people did not really know khomeini (including islamists) before his cassette tapes and books surfaced during the revolution. 

i do agree that we should take responsibility for being hoodwinked and for being naive and move forward for a better future for iran.


We need to take responsibility

by sag koochooloo on

It was the the Iranians that welcomed Khomeni back and accepted an Islamic Republic and went along with a Theocracy. All too often I hear the West is to blame for Iran's decline, but many of us have been accepted in the West to live there and live free lives. So I have mixed feelings about blame. My family has been treated very well and I will never be ungrateful to the West.


You already have your wish come true. UK, due to its liberal attitude does take on too many of these arsewipe Islamists. And it is turning a lot of people racist, voting for new Nationalist parties, which is a shame. People are really sick of the immigration issues.


hamsade ghadimi, beneross

by minadadvar on

hamsade ghadimi, Happy to make you laugh.

beneross, I do not agree.  They have done some good.  But, as I said, they have been such a disaster, that most people are unable/unwilling to see/accknowledge the positives.   


AO: the quality of education

by vildemose on

AO: the quality of education higher or otherwise has also declined drastically under IRI because of the political purge of qualified teachers/professors  and heavy censorhip of inoformation including the campaign of disinformation and rewritings of history of Iran and the world.


AO: Iran would be another

by vildemose on

AO: Iran would be another Afghanistan if it were not for the Shah. That is so true..thanks for pointing that out.

Anonymous Observer

For everyone else

by Anonymous Observer on

sorry I can respond to everyone at this time.  I have to return to work, and bring home the vegetarian fake bacon.  But thanks everyone, Azadeh, COP, VPK, sag, Rosie, even you Q...(but not you Sargord :-))) who have left comments.  

Alex in Florida: very nice.  And a very convoluted way to justify IRI's miserable existance.  Liked your analysis.  

MM & Mina Dadvar: nicely put. 

COP: I do agree with VPK that you should not insult monkeys.  They are loyal animals, and, unlike akhoonds, I would presume that they would perform the job, if trained, with efficiency and without an agenda. :)) 


The day islamist provide a

by vildemose on

The day islamist provide a straight answer, they are no longer true to their ideology & faith. As for logicality argument and the usual 'I know best you morons' see my parody on islamist blog '100000000000 reasons why shi't will stink for another 50 years'


Excellent. Should we expect any less from defenders of radical Islam and IRI domestic terrorism? I think NOT.

Anonymous Observer

Here's the difference

by Anonymous Observer on

between what the IRI has done (or not done, which is more appropriate) for Iran and its people, what the people have done despite IRI's existence and the natural course of a society's growth and development.

I will do this by way of comparison.  I had promised someone yesterday that I will give an example of Pahlavi era achievement which was the work of the government.  So, let's take Shah's "White Revolution".  This is an example of an affirmative act by the government.  The land re-distribution which was part of the White Revolution transformed the Iranian society from a feudal one to one with the foundation for a modern economy.  Had it not been for the White Revolution (which, btw, was vehemently opposed by the mullahs and the leftists) the Iranian rural society will still be in an Afghanistan or Pakistan like stage.  

Now let's compare an affirmative act by the IRI that effected the Iranian society.  Let's take the "Cultural Revolution" as an example.  That disaster led to the purging of universities from experienced and knowledgeable students and professors and replacing them with ideological zealots, which, in turn, contributed to the largest brain drain in Iran's history.  Simply put, students, especially the brightest ones, much preferred to leave the country and study abroad rather than having their intelligence insulted by being preached by a mullah in a cheap suit who pretended to be a chemistry teacher.  Iran is currently estimated of losing about 150,000 higher education students who go abroad to pursue their college education (see link below).

But now, we have the likes Mr. / Ms. Maybekhor.... boasting about Iranian people's achievements despite the IRI.  Just so that you know, Maybekhoor.... the only parasites are the IRI and its supporters and cheerleaders who try to mask their failures by taking credit for the efforts of the Iranian people.  The IRI has done absolutely nothing to reward the Iranian youth for their efforts. First of all, the most important universities in Iran are still the ones that were built under the Pahlavi regime.  Second, to add insult to the Iranian youth's injury, the IRI has been giving admission preferences to their lackeys (Basij and pasdar) over qualified applicants.

lastly, post 1979 devolution, Iran's universities rankings have gone down so significantly that they are not even listed in the top 400 universities worldwide.  Here's a link:


The question posed by the blog was what has the IRI done for the Iranian people, not what the Iranian people have achieved themselves.  

There is yet to be an answer to that question. 


vpk: I hear the UK is

by vildemose on

vpk: I hear the UK is already run by the radical Islamists kooks.

Asghar Bukhari’s Facebook ‘Indiscretion’

Why do the British tolerate so many different Jihadi groups in the UK? They will not be tolerated here in the US.


I second Mina Dadvar

by MM on

Many of IRI's "possible" accomplishments such as the military industries, the Tehran Metro or even the nuclear program started during Shah's time and continued under IRI.  So even if you consider, e.g., Tehran Metro, an accomplishment, there are so many atrocities that just does not balance the heavy burden of terror, corruption, torture and murder that are placed on Iranians. 

Topping it all, the IRI heads are robbing Iran's resources (talking about billions with B), filling their pockets and their supporters, mismanaging the rest while the majority of Iranians live under poor conditions.  Unfortunately, as long as the oil money is flowing to IRI's pocket, the tragedy lives on.