Focus Visually On Iran

for VPK on Why Monarchists and RP Continue to be a problem

VKP jaan,

1. Shah was NOT secular. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi publically and repeatedly claimed that he was in contact with the 12th Imam and was getting information from him that was national security. One of the charges against Mossadegh after the coup on this trial by the Shah was that Mossadegh had insulted Islam in his doctoral dissertation!!!!!!

Please read Shah’s own words.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/oriana-fallaci-interview-mohammad-reza-shah-religion

//iranian.com/main/news/2010/07/29-10

2. To propagate conspiracy stuff is moronic. No real serious leader should say the conspiracy stuff that Reza Pahlavi said. To say that the Carter administration overthrew the Shah to establish an Islamic green belt via bringing Khomeini to power is MORONIC. Carter tired very very hard to help the Shah and stop Khomeini.

To say that Mohammad Reza Shah was a DEMOCRAT is a MORONIC lie.

If a person keep saying moronic stuff then he is a moron. It is one thing for a shahollahi on LA tv to say these moronic stuff, it is totally different from a person who claims to be a LEADER and king to say these garbage.

3.

VPK: "I do not need scholarly work to prove the obvious. It is all in recorded history. The parliament run by Mossadegh pardoned Tahmasbi; it is a fact and does not need a scholarly work."

Actually you do NEED to prove a claim by using a scholarly work by a historian, political scientist, or sociologist. You cannot say stuff someone on the internet. The parliament was NOT run by Mossadegh. At that time, I think it was under the control of Kashani, who was opposing Mossadegh and collaborating with the Shah. The collaboration included the plan to murder Mossadegh on 9 Day 1331. Also you need to prove that the Majles "pardoned Tahmasebi." Again, you make claims without a shred of document. You have to PROVE your claims. You cannot just make up historical facts that you like or think you know.

4. VPK: "Mossadegh miscalculated and underestimated the British. That is also a historical reality. He overreached."

MK: There are a lot of historical documents and many scholarly works that show that Mossadegh came very very close to victory. The CIA after the initial failure on August 16 gave up and told Kermit Roosevelt to leave Iran immediately. Basically the US government on Aug 16 accepted defeat. But Roosevelt decided to stay and try again on August 19.

On the August 18 and 19, Mossadegh made several mistakes. The sheer bad luck for Iran was that Roosevelt was an unusually smart and competent man. Had Mossadegh accepted the advice of some of his advisers, our the history and the world history would have been much much different and BETTER. As I provided one example, on August 19, Mossadegh should have made the public call for the people to go to the street and defend their independent and democratic government. I admit that Mossadegh made that huge mistake. The result of that mistake has been the brutal dictatorship in the past 60 or so years.

5. VPK: " They rather spit at RP than work with him."

MK: the institution of monarchy is by its very nature an anti-democratic institution. One dude is king merely due to birth. There are no periodic free election for the position of king. Some countries have managed to be democratic and keep the monarch as purely symbolic (that is not actual power).

If RP believes in democracy, then he should announce that he opposes this anti-democratic institution. He could simply organize his followers into a conservative republic party. Then, he has proven that he believes in democracy. We will closely cooperate with him.

Why in the world democrats should work with someone wanting to recreate an anti-democratic institution?

RP should know that the monarchists constitute a small proportion of the population. We think that RP wants to pull what Khomeini did in Paris. Except he is not doing as good a job as Khomeini. The supporters of the Pahlavis on this very site have proven that they are terribly genocidal and fascistic. The overwhelming majority of monarchists on this site are extreme Shahollahis. They say that the Shah did not kill enough people. So, if they come to power again, would they kill more or less???????

In conclusion, there is NO guarantee that a monarchy in Iran would be democratic. It is terribly unwise for the democrats to work with a group that is obviously so terribly dictatorial, continues to be unrepentant, has not apologized for the crimes against humanity that they committed against the Iranian people.

Best,

Masoud

Vildemose

I could not have explained it better than Masoud there. Except for one thing, the constitution of 1906 was, to my knowledge, more "copied"/"inspired" by the Belgian constitution rather than the British. But then Masoud is the expert.

WHY Pro-Democracy Forces Should Stand Up to Shahollahis

Dear I despise fascism and stalinism,

1. The prevalence of conspiracy theories is very harmful for democracy. The role of real leaders is to educate the people, not to further throw more conspiracy stuff. If one really believes the garbage then one could not help with the real world of politics. If RP really believes that stuff, it is very very sad. If he know what he said is false, but said so, then it shows that he is lying to further confuse the people. We need to have HONEST analysis of what happened.

2. Referenda is the democratic method whereby the people decide what should be done. Therefore, Mossadegh using referendum to dissolve the Majles is fully democratic. The 1906 constitution had a looooooooooot of flaws. It did NOT provide answers for many issues. Thus using referendum was fully democratic and legitimate manner to decide what to do. The constitution itself is legitimate if the people one way or another vote for it. And when there is any stalemate in a country the BEST way is to use a referendum.

For example, right NOW there is a real crisis in Iran. The BEST way to resolve the crisis is to hold a referendum. In a referendum the people directly decide what to do. Now Khamenei may not like it or say that his constitution does not allow it. The point is that referendum is the best way to avoid violence and resolve the problem in a democratic manner. And this is precisely what Mossadegh did.

I do agree with you that when there is Khamenei, any opposition group attacking another opposition group is benefits the fundamentalist regime. But I do not see you saying our friend VPK is crazy for attacking the PMOI is the most venomous language repeatedly. I do not see you saying that all our shahollahis attacking JM and Mossadegh are crazy.

When the shahollahis attack the pro-democracy forces, it is necessary, I think, to respond and attack them back. If we do this a few times, they might learn a lesson, which is to stop attacking the democrats and instead attack the fundamentalist regime. But the democratic forces will not remain silent and turn the other cheek again and again. We will attack back.

The existence of monarchists (and their behaviors) does divide the opposition and thus help the fundamentalist regime. If there were no monarchists, it would have been easier for the democratic forces to mobilize the modern middle classes. The monarchists are (in my estimation) something about 5-10 percent of the population. So there is no way that they could ever win any democratic elections. But by their activities they draw vital resources from the democratic opposition which does have the social base which is the majority of the population.

At different historical periods, one group or another is able to mobilize the masses. Germany was democratic earlier but in the early 1930s, due to the economic situation, the Nazis were able to mobilize and overthrow the previous democratic system.

In 1953, we had a lukewarm democracy. The 1953 coup and the Shah’s brtualization of the Iranian people so disarticulated the modern middle class democratic opposition that the pre-modern fascistic fundamentalists were able to gain millions and millions of supporters. The situation of 1978 was the end result of the Shah’s brutal dictatorial rule since 1953.

If my writings teach a lesson to the shahollahis and they stop attacking the democrats and instead concentrate on attacking the fundamentalist regime, then my writing on this blog and elsewhere has done a huge service to the struggle against the fundamentalist regime. If my writings help the pro-democracy forces to gain education, then it has been helpful for the struggle.

Best,

Masoud

Dissolving Majlis

Is Obama allowed to call a referendum to push his agenda. No of course not it would be unconstitutional. The only legal options are to:

• Amend the constitution.
• Hold a constitutional convention. Never done before.
• Work with the congress as difficult as it it. Then hope for the best.

As we speak the congress is in the process of rebuking Obama over Libya. What should he do not dissolve the congress. For crying out loud there are laws. There is a process. If you violate it then you are basically doing a coupe.

In US some states have referendums some do not. When they do there is a process. You need to get some signatures; then put it up for a vote. Many times its results are challenged in courts and overturned. That is a nation of law. You don't just get to call a referendum and call it democracy. I fact majority rule is often tyranny. That is why we got protections for minorities which may not be overturned with a simple vote. We Iranians appear to have a lot to learn about how to run a nation.

MK

Here we go:

• Shah was obviously not a democrat but he was secular. The proof is his years of running Iran.
• Reza Pahlavi is not a moron. That is just name calling and I will not dignify it with any further response.
• I do not need scholarly work to prove the obvious. It is all in recorded history. The parliament run by Mossadegh pardoned Tahmasbi; it is a fact and does not need a scholarly work.

Mossadegh miscalculated and underestimated the British. That is also a historical reality. He overreached. I would have gladly bribed the British with some oil in return for leaving us alone. Then built the power required to kick them out. Yes it was touch and go. Those are not odds I would like. Rather lure your enemy into a sense of false security; then hit them. Mossadegh was a hot head and figured he could go against the British. If they owned the parliament was that wise!

I have said my bit. I have also given up on JM and the Mossadegh followers. They are not going to be of help. They rather spit at RP than work with him. Result is that Mollahs will run things until they self destruct. No thanks to JM and Mossadegjh.

Again, I respectfully disagree

Dear Masoud,

When we have Khamanei and Ahmadinejad, attacking Reza Pahlavi with such venom is crazy, I think.

 Secondly, on the US Presidential power, you cite consitutional power, which is exactly what I was talking about. Did the Iranian costitution give the prime minister the power to call snap refrendum, in the capital only, to dismiss the parliament. What guarantee was there that he would sit the parliamnet again.

Dissolving the parliament, possibly through uncostitutional means, by saying it doesn't represent the people or is undemocratic is the exact same argument used by tyrants all over. I'm not calling Mossadegh tryant, I, however, strongly argue dissolving parliament without a constitutional mandate was a mistake, was illegal.

 Of course Iranian people were not ready for democracy in 1978. The proof is obvious. Protesters in the streets called for 'freedom' but overwhelmingly were either motivated by religious fanaticism or communism. If they were ready for democracy, then democrats would have been able to muster just as huge crowds into the streets to oppose Khomeini's dictatorship. Only a small group came out to support democrats and they all soon withdrew. Undemocratic elements were  much more muscular.

for I despise fascists and

Dear I Despise fascists and stalinists,

I.

1. If we believed monarchists were secular democrats, we would be in close cooperation with them. We believe that the monarchists are more dictatorial today than they were in 1979. Just look at the writings of monarchists on this site. Or compare what RP just said with his father’s admission in his "I heard the voice of your revolution."

2. Those who got into Majles via corruption could not continue to do so with open free press and democracy and clean elections spreading from the big cities to all over Iran. It was lack of democracy which allowed the big landowners to get into Majles.

3. Actually Iran came very very close to having victory. We were extremely close to gaining our esteghlal and democracy in August 1953. Just a few mistakes by Mossadegh and a lot of luck and intelligence by Kermit Roosevelt destroyed our independence and democracy.

II.

In hindsight,

1. The British should have accepted our right to be independent and control our oil. They did not realize the era of colonialism was over. It is weird that in 1947 they did leave India, but in 1951 they still insisted on their colonial control of Iran.

2. The Shah should have told the British and CIA, no, I will not collaborate with you. The Shah should have accepted and fully supported Mossadegh. The problem with the Shah was that from the getgo he was puppet of the British, he was power hungry and wanted to be absolutist king.

3. On August 19, 1953, Mossadegh should have called upon the people to go on the streets and fight back against the coup plotters. Dr. Mossadegh made a mistake on 28 Mordad. And because of our mistakes on 28 Mordad there more brutal savage tyranny from 1953 to 1979 and then again from 1979 until today.

III.

1. In the U.S., there exist the process of amending the constitution. The American people can CHANGE EVERY single thing via the constitutional amendment. Moreover, they can also authorize meeting for another constitutional convention.

2. Many states do have referendum. It is usually called Proposition.

3. The U.S. President has the power to dismiss/adjourn the Congress in case of disagreements.

//www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec3

Article 2, sec. 3:

"he [the President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.."

Best,

Masoud

Reza Pahlavi is a moron

VPK jaan,

Could you please show me one scholarly work in which it states that Mossadegh "pardoned Tahmasebi"???????

Virtually all scholarly works say that the judiciary during the rule of Mossadegh was the most independent it has ever been in our history. I have never ever read that the JM cabinet or Mossadegh issued an order to the judiciary to pardon Tahmasebi. As far as I am able to determine the judiciary let him go. Kashani who at this time had left alliance with Mossadegh and was close to the Shah welcomed him. At this time period, Kashani and Fadaian Islam were hostile to Mossadegh and getting closer and closer to the Shah. Even to the extent of making an assassination attempt on Dr. Fatemi and planning another assassination of Mossadegh. Therefore, the premise of your assertion seem utterly wrong. You have not produced an iota of evidence showing the premise of your assertion to be true.

On the larger fight between JM and monarchists. The monarchists are getting worse and worse every year. They are becoming more and more dictatorial and genocidal. ALL the other groups in Iran have been evolving in the past 32 years and becoming more and more democratic except the monarchists. The monarchists are getting more and more dictatorial. This is the case not only among their social base (as we can read everyday on this site) but also Reza Pahlavi says utterly stupid stuff. For example, see:

RP says:

تا زمانی که به بلوغ سیاسی نرسیده باشیم و الفبای اولیه دموکراسی را درک نکرده باشیم، عملا نخواهیم توانست پایه‌های دموکراسی را بنسانیم تحت لوای هر سیستمی که فکر می‌کنیم بهترین است. اگر از من بپرسید کجای کار هستیم، در تمام طول تاریخ، این اولین باری است که کشور ما به این مهم نزدیک شده

Is this dude saying that today is the FIRST time the Iranian people are learing the alphabet of democracy??????  What about when his fascistic father killed, tortured our pro-democracy leaders and activists??????  RP, his father and grandfather did NOT know the alphabet of democracy.  But we did.

more LIES and stupid stuff by Reza Pahlavi:

رضا پهلوی: اینقدر حرف‌ها به مردم ایران و اغلب به دروغ در باره آن دوران گفته شده... پدر من تحصیل‌کرده سوییس بود و با یک دید بسیار دموکرات و خیلی جلوتر از زمان خودش وارد ایرانی شد که در طول مدت کوتاهی، پدربزرگ من از یک مملکتی که  هرج و مرج بود و کوچک‌ترین نهاد عرفی وجود نداشت، کشور را به جایی رساند که از آن عقب‌ماندگی بیافتیم در جهت ترقی  و پیشرفت بهداشت و آموزش و پرورش و غیره. آیا فکر نمی‌کنید که این همه هزینه که می‌شد که به جامعه سواد بدهیم، یک روزی توقعات جامعه بیشتر می‌شد از نظر آزادی و دموکراسی و مشارکت؟ پدر من گفته که من این کار را می‌کنم که پسر من یک جور دیگری نقش خودش را ایفا کند. بگذریم از اینکه جنگ سرد بود و هزار ویک مداخله خارجی از همه طرف...روس‌ها کمونیست‌ها و انگلیس‌ها و آمریکایی‌ها...اما جهت پیشرفت مملکت به سمت باز شدن جامعه می‌رفت. از اکثر روشن‌فکران آن زمان، حتی مخالفین امروز بپرسید که کشور به کدام سو می‌رفت، مسلم بدانید که [می‌گفتند] به طرف لیبرازیساسیون به هر حال پیش می‌رفت...کما اینکه وقتی بحران سیاسی اتفاق افتاد و نیروهای سیاسی به پدرم گفتند که از حد و حدود قانونی‌اش فراتر رفته...گفتند ادیگر از این حرف‌ها گذشته و کل نظام را باید پس زد، که امروز افسوس می‌خورند که از آن بستر استفاده نکردند، نسل من و شما با شرایط متفاوتی روبرو می‌بودیم، چون اجبارا به آن جهت می‌رفت...اگر آقای گورباچف زودتر می‌آمد شاید کار به جای باریک نمی‌رسید، اما با اما و اگر نمی‌شود مساله را حل کرد.

- بحث را به «بهار عربی» و مقایسه کنار رفتن حسنی مبارک و شاه می‌کشانیم که ۳۳ سال پیش یک ژنرال آمریکایی در دوران کارتر به ایران رفت...چند روز پیش از انقلاب...

رضا پهلوی: شرایط متفاوت است. تز اصلی دولت کارتر در آن زمان، ایجاد کمربند سبز مذهبی بود برای جلوگیری از نفوذ کمونیسم در منطقه، و وقتی دیدند که زیاد صرف نمی‌کند که از شاه ایران پشتیبانی کنند، بر سر حقوق بشر و ... به عقل مبارک‌شان رسید که از آقای خمینی حمایت کنند. در کنفرانس «گوادولوپ»، ژیسگاردستن، هلموت شمیت، کارتر و دیوید کالاهان بودند، کارتر روی‌شان سر داستان خمینی فشار آورد که باعث شد خمینی به ایران بیاید...غافل از اینکه این مساله به ضرر خودشان شد.

Reza Pahlavi is either a total moron or he is lying. The Carter administration did not want to use the Islamic green belt in Iran by overthrowing his father and bringing Khomeini. The Carter administration helped the Shah a loooooooooooooooooot. The Guadalupe conference was AFTER months and months of support from the Carter administration for the Shah massacare after massacre of the Iranian people. In the Guadalupe conference after successful oil strikes the major powers became convinced that the Shah had to leave. The U.S. asked the Shah to try to first ask JM (which Dr. Bakhtiar accepted) to form the govt or use military govt.

What is amazing is that Reza Pahlavi is older than me and should know all these simple stuff. Other than Dai Jan Napelon nutcases and ignorant persons who get their (lack of) knowledge from the idiotic LA tv stations, anyone who is involved in serious politics and has read a few book knows this stuff.

It is one thing for some moron to say these stuff and quite another for a person who claims to be a serious political leader to repeat these stupid stuff. A real leader needs to read scholarly books and know the basics. A real leader has to educate the people, and not to follow the most stupid and repeat the most moronic stuff.

The notion that in 1977-1978 the communists were about to takeover Iran and thus the Carter administration overthrew the Shah and brought Khomeini to power is sooooooooo stupid that it boggles the mind.  And this dude wants to be taken seriously as a leader and become the next king in Iran!!!!!!??????

Best,

Masoud　

Shah and coup

I have it on very good authority that Shah was opposed to the coupe. He was forced practically at gun point to participate in it. Again I know it because of some friends with relations that I am not able to go into. 

Shah was in a very difficult position. Not exactly a brave man but very patriotic. He rightfully did not trust democracy specially after the coupe. He got paranoid and opted for a direct rule. This was a mistake as it undermined institutions that may have resisted the Mollahs. I wish you JM and Monarchist folks would shake hands and join. Or watch the Mollahs run the nation into the ground. Your choice and the wrong one makes us all pay for it.

MK part III

IMHO Mossadegh had a choice give up oil for a while in exchange for democracy. He wanted both and just did not have to power to get it. If I were him I would have let the British take the oil for say 25 years in return for being left alone. Then establish democracy and let it take roots. It would have been a small price to pay. The British were like gangsters with a gun to his head. Your nation or the oil. He opted for both and the gangsters said fine and fired the gun. 

Never overreach or underestimate your opponents. Shah was left with a very poor hand. He owed his power to the British. So he could not exactly opt for democracy as he would have lost. He also had to give up the oil because of his debt to the British. So we lost on both accounts. Now would it not have been better to lose oil for 25 years and get democracy for good? I think it would have been as good a deal as we could get. Unfortunately Mossadegh wanted both and got neither.

Dr. Kazemzadeh, I respectfully disagree

Masoud Jahn,
I respect you and especially your aspirations for Iran. I also fully believe that secular democrats should not spend time attacking each other.

I disagree with some of your analysis.

Firstly, if, as you argue, British could so easily sway the parliament, then it was certainly the case that democracy was serving the British cause and interest.

Secondly, even a democratic/populist move that is not permitted by the constitution is illegal. For instance, it is not legal for a United States president to use a refrendum to dissolve an unpopular congress.
Most successful democracies limit the power of the head of the government; and also limit the will of the majority to the constituional process.

Third, sir, there are indepedent scholars that have questioned Dr. Mossadegh's decision to dissolve the parliament with a refrendum held only in areas where he was assured to get his desired result. De-classified American files have confirmed that the Shah was an unwilling partner in the coup until he was spooked by Dr. Mossadegh's decision to assume extra power for himself.

I wish, in hindsight, one of these three scenarios had happened:
1) the United States had played an active role in resolving the standoff between the UK and Iran and had prodded the British to give up on their insistance of controling Iran forever - something that happened, nevertheless;
2) That Dr. Mossadegh had not dissolved and had worked within the framework of the constitution;
3) The Shah instead of running away from his duties had stayed in the capital. By running away he disgraced himself.

I would also argue that the United States' fear of Dr. Mossadegh was not over the prime minister's democratic credentials, rather over real or preceived dependence on communists. (In my view the Eisenhower administration made a mistake by not trying to assess the situation better and come up with a different solution than to end Mossadegh premiership.)

MK part II

MPs selling their votes? As they say "I am shocked to see gambling in this establishment". Welcome to democracy. Right here in the USA votes are for sale all the time. It is in the nature of representative democracy. 

If you prefer we could have something like the Swiss. Where people vote directly for things. But there also people are influenced by money and advertisements. The only antidote is information. People themselves are most resistant to it. That is why some here deride democracy as too subject to manipulation. So what gives? Referendums are the worst as they get the most uninformed to make the most important decisions. No good way around it I am afraid to say.

MK

I would not be surprised if Shah had a hand in the killing or Razm Ara. But it still begs the question of why did Mossadegh pardon him. Let us face it there is no way to get out of this. He messed up. 

Plain and simple and there is no excuse for it. Now why not admit it and move on. This feud between Shahi and JM has gone on for long enough. Both sides must come clean. Admit their screw ups then make peace and work together.

Fatollah

If by trait you mean "hero" worship; then I agree. But I prefer to kick dead horses because they don't kick back. If you kick a live horse it may joftack and it really hurts! 

result of the referendum

Simorgh,

The anti-Mossadegh gang (Islamist forces such as Kashani) boycotted the referendum.  But the people listened to Mossadegh and voted for the dismissal of the Majles.  That explains the result. 

Islamist forces and monarchists were totally free, had their publications and could participate fully in the referendum.  They boycotted because they knew they were in the minority.  And the only way the anti-Mossadeghi forces (Islamist and monarchists) could win in 1953 was with tanks and bullets, and not with ballets.

The Shah opposed free democratic elections (1953-1979) for the same reason Khamenei opposes free democratic elections today: they know they they would lose in a free democratic election.

Masoud

Kermanzadeh

Here we go all nover again! The Referendum which Mossadeq purported to have one claimed he secured 99% peecent of the votes in favoilur. That is crooked as a dog's tail. Yoeu.can't peddle such nonsense please.

On the Use of Referendum by Mossadegh to Dismiss the Majles

Dear Vildemose,

The only clean elections were in the big cities. In Tehran most deputies were elected in clean elections and therefore the Shah could not interfere easily; so most of the deputies elected were from the JM.

In rural areas, the big landowners would haul in their raiyat (peasants) to vote for them or their designated person. The gendarmerie and the Shia mollahs in rural areas were almost always in the pocket of the big landowners. The exception were in some ethnic areas where tribal leaders could count on their own tribal leaders to vote for them instead. If the tribal leader was opposed to the Shah, then he might ally with democratic and progressive forces (e.g., as occurred with Qashqai tribe in central Iran, and Sanjabi tribe in Kermanshah). Some Bakhtiaris also sided with anti-Shah forces (but not all of them).

So, most members of the Majles got to Majles through electoral process that were not clean. Money would simply "produce" votes. Many who wanted to be elected would literally go and talk with the British (and their agents) who would supply the money. Most significantly most members of the Majles would SELL their votes. So the British would simply buy their votes. Only fear of the people would stop the Majles members from these votes.

In August 1953, Mossadegh correctly understood that the CIA, MI6 coup plan was to have the Majles vote against him, then have the Shah sign his dismissal. The British would simply BUY the votes of Majles deputies. To counter the CIA-MI6 coup’s "legal figleaf" plan, Mossadegh came up with the referendum to dismiss the Majles. Mossadegh (correctly) argued that while the Majles is dismissed (waiting until the next elections for the Majles), the Shah could not dismiss the Prime Minister. According to the 1906 constitution (modeled after the British system), the monarch could NOT appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister at will. That is the power of the Majles. The monarch only symbolically signs the decision of the Majles. Indeed, this is the PRIMARY difference between a constitutional monarch and an absolutist monarch. In a constitutional monarchy, the parliament has the power to choose and dismiss the prime minister. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch does so at will.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQ_0ebaN4M

In conclusion, Mossadegh’s use of REFERENDUM to dismiss the Majles was the democratic method to counter the CIA-MI6 coup. Basically, Mossadegh had two goals (nationalize our oil and establish democracy). The British did not want to give up their colonial control of Iran (both oil and politics). From the getgo the British plan was to get rid of Mossadegh and re-establish their colonial control of our economic and political life. The Shah was a nokar of the British and did what was in the interests of the British until August 1953 and after that the Shah was a puppet of the US. Democracy in Iran was NOT good for the maintenance of British control over Iranian oil. The Shah was both power hungry and greedy. So, he collaborated with the MI6 and the CIA so that he could loot Iran and be the absolute tyrant in Iran (serving himself and his foreign patrons).

Best,

Masoud

the Shah and the Assassination of Gen. Razmara

VPK jaan,

Please read the materials I posed from the top scholar of Iran on this subject. Farah’s words are false.

We are 100% certain that the Shah ordered the assassination of Gen. Razmara. The conspiracy included Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Alam, Seyyed Zia (Shah’s liason with Fadaian Islam), and Fadaian Islam.

Soon after 30 Tir 1331, Kashani broke from Mossadegh and sided with the Shah. By 24 Aban 1331, Kashani was collaborating with the Shah.  On 9 Dey 1331, the Shah and the Islamists (inluding Kashani) tried to murder Mossadegh and claim the people did it spontaneously. 

Dr. Fatemi, was the target of attempted assassination of Fadaian Islam on February 15, 1952 (25 Bahman 1331). Later on the Fadaian Islam also planned to assassinate Dr. Mossadegh.

Fadaian Islam played a major role during the 28 Mordad 1332 coup according to its own newspaper, and according to the CIA’s own secret history.

The Shah had good relations with the Fadaian Islam. According to Dariush Homauyn, THE SHAH had allowed the murderers of Kasravi to be freed without prosecution:

//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2010/07/100727_shah_annive30_homayoun_religion.shtml

Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power in Iran (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1990), pp. 82-84.

Professor Katouzian is widely regarded as one of the very top scholars of Iran. In my opinion, Professor Katouzian is the number 1 scholar of Iran. He is currently at the University of Oxford. The following are from his book:

Musaddiq having thus refused to co-operate, the shah and his friends began to think of other means of dealing with the fearsome general.

Razmara was assassinated on 7 March 1951 while attending a funeral service at a mosque in Tehran. The self-confessed assassin was Khalil Tahmasibi, a member of the Fada’iyan-e Islam....

Immediately after the assassination, Sayyed Zia had confided in his friends that he believed that the shah was involved in the incident. The Sayyed had related that was with the shah when Alam – who had accompanied Razmara to the mosque where he was shot dead– had hurriedly arrived at the palace, and joyfully told the shah: ‘They killed him and we are relieved.’ ....

However, Colonel Musavvar-Rahmai’s detailed discussion of the event in his recent memoirs had left little room for speculation that the plot had had sides to it. Thus he wrote:

"An army sergeant, in civilian clothes, was chosen for the deed... He had been told to shoot and kill Razmara with a Colt, the moment Tahmasebi began to shoot... Those who had examined the wounds in Razmara’s body were in no doubt that he had been killed by a Colt buller, not by the bullet of a weak gun."

Furthermore, Musavvar-Rahmani relates his conversations with Colonel Daihimi shortly after the event, and the letter from Daihimi to the shah which the latter had read out to him, ending with the following words (which Rahmani emphasizes he is paraphrasing from memory): ‘As Your Majesty knows very well, no one had a greater role in getting rid of General Razmara than Mr [Asadullah] Alam and this servant.’

======================================

1. We know for 100% certitude that Alam asked Razmara to go to the Mosque (Masjed Shah) on 16 Esfand 1329.

2. We know for 100% certitude that at the same time, Khalil Tahmasebi and an Army Sargent with a Colt arrive at the same time. Even the IRI’s site for Navab Safavi admits to this.

3. The liaison between the darbar and Fadaian Islam was Seyyed Zia. Alam and Zia had been working for MI6 for a long time.

4. Shah was terrified of Gen. Razmara and was working hard to get rid of him. The Shah asked Mossadegh to become prime minister in order to undermine Razmara, an offer which Dr. Mossadegh refused.

5. We have evidence that Col. Daihimi was asked by Alam to organize the assassination. Col Daihimi discusses this with the Shah. Col. Daihimi says that an Army Sargent was assigned to shoot Gen. Razmara if Khalil Tahmaseni’s assassination did not work. The evidence is that the wounds on Razmara indicate that the mortal wound did not come from the weak gun by Tahmasebi, but by a powerful gun like Colt (the kind used by the Sargent sent by Alam).

Based on the evidence, Mohammad Reza Shah and Alam decide to assassinate Gen. Razmara. Alam personally brings Gen. Razmara to the place where he was killed. Alam also has Col. Daihimi send an Army Sargent with a Colt to be present and ordered to assassinate Gen. Razmara. Alam has Seyed Zia to coordinate Khalil Tahmasebi to be present and assassinate Gen. Razmara. Tahmasebi proudly confesses that he killed Gen. Razmara. At least three shots were fired. How many of the shots are from Tahmasebi’s weak gun and how many from Alam’s Army Sargent’s Colt are not known.

Mohammad Reza Shah, like Reza Shah, had assassinated many powerful individuals. There are many "theories" on Reza Shah killed soooooooooo many of his own lieutenants. One speculation was that because Reza Shah was a heavy opium uses, that might have caused him to become paranoid and kill his own top aids. One top scholar, Professor Stephanie Cronin, argues that Reza Shah’s heavy use of opium many not be the explanation of why he killed sooooo many of his own supporters. Professor Cronin argues that Reza Shah was getting old and he believed that his son was too young and inexperinces and that his own powerful lieutenants might make a coup and get rid of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Therefore, Reza Shah killed all those who MIGHT one day undermine his son. See Stephanie Cronin, Tribal Politics in Iran: Rural Conflict and the New State, 1921-1941 (London and New York: Routledge, 2007).

The following is on page 173 of Cronin book:

The shah’s fear of assassination had become very visible from at least the mid-1920s and these fears only heightened with time. By the early 1930s he had become dominated by a sense that his own life and the future of his dynasty were in danger. Although he had little concern about any rival to himself, he was extremely conscious of the vulnerability of the succession, owning to the Crown Prince’s youth and weakness. His own health was suffering, his use of opium taking its toll, his morale further damaged by the attitudes and behaviour of those surrounding him, and he became morbidly preoccupied with the real or imagined ambitions of those closest to the court.

==============================================

In conclusion, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah have a long history of killing other powerful individuals. In order to avoid responsibility for killing them, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah made them look like suicide in prison, or assassination by other groups.

Dear Parham: But were they

Dear Parham: But were they democratically elected by the people?? Who elected these people? Was there a nation-wide election??

Vildemose

It was filled with people who were either under the control of the Brits via bribes/deals or the "darbar", which really came to the same. There were also some ex-Mossadeghis who had turned coats for various reasons.

Fatollah and Prophet

Why did I think it was stupid shahollahis who were like that?

So the parlimant was filled

So the parliament was filled with British agents?? I'm confused...

Prophet

that's an Iranian trait! Guess what, the problem is not those men that had such impact in our lives! but us, always! as maast ke bar maast ...

by the way, the subject is worn out, and discussing it with some is like kicking a dead horse.

Dear Ali P

Thank you for the link I have this from it:

24 Aban 1331:  Government of Mossadegh frees Tahmasebi and is
triumphantly received and thanked by the same Kashani, the sipritual
leader of the terrosit Fadaeeyan Islam.  

The problem with followers or Dr. Mossadegh is they are blind. They refuse to admit any wrongdoing by him. It is like a religion and none may say anything about him.

anglophile

Funny how I didn't even mention the British and their "involvement" with the majles deputees and you knew it already! That's exactly why Mosaddegh dissolved the parliament.

Ali P

Thanks for the link to that discussion, I wish I was there during those days. I also wish I had read Abrahamian's book, there was something there I didn't know or heard about in one of the quotes.

Yes about dissolving the Majlis ...

That Majlis was made up of the SAME members who voted Mosaddiq in a year before!! How come they were good patriots then but a year later they were British stooges? Sorry old chap but the old demagouge couldn't have it both ways.

Please suggest a "fair" history book to tell a different story.

This could be interesting to some:

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh...

And also try this

Tahmasebi was executed alongside Navvab Safavi.
What you have to do is to apply the frame of mind of the time to the events, not today's view.

Try this

Because based on past experience, it's useless to argue anything with you.

As for others, my guess most don't even know who Khalil Tahmasebi was and couldn't care less. Somewhere, I'd say they're probably right too.

The silence

is deafening come on now. Whenever I mentiond "Tahmasbi" suddenly all goes dark. Why do you people not tell me either that Mossadegh did not pardon him or defend his action.

I am still

waiting for someone to justify why Mossadegh pardoned Tahmasbi. Meanwhile people treat him like the second coming. A man who was not wise enough to see the obvious reaction of Britain.

We need leaders who are cunning and wise. Not hot headed and rash. The business about Mosaddegh is much more complex than people make it. I would have preferred not to have had a coup. But it was Mossadegh who let it happen. Without his unwise decisions it would have never happened. Not to mention pandering to idiots like Bazargan and the Islamists.