PAHLAVI
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Was the Shah delusional?
05-Jun-2009
A review of
“The Shah’s Story"
An autobiography
by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
“[Mosaddeq] was certainly a completely irrational being, but since, in politics, everything must make sense, I finally reached the conclusion that underneath this diehard nationalist here lurked a man who was closely tied to the British.”
-- Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
I had compiled this article just before the death of my father Nosratollah Amini and now in his memory and on the occasion of 29th of Ordibehesht (18th of May), Mohammad Mosaddeq’s birthday, I am posting it. My father was an honest, kind and caring human being who was not just the attorney to Mosaddeq, but to many others, including Gholam Reza Takhti and Shamshiri. May his memory live in the hearts and minds of those who knew him.
The following are excerpts from the Shah’s last book translated from the original French by Teresa Waugh and published in Great Britain by Michael Joseph Ltd in 1980. As I was reading this interesting text, I came across these few passages. His majesty did not stand by his own Prime Ministers in both cases and the rest is more distortions of history. The book is a must read for those who would like to learn Iranian history from a delusional perspective.
On oil nationalization
“On May 20, 1951, the nationalization of the oil industry was ratified. It is easy to imagine that I was the most convinced partisan of this nationalization. I have, however, already said that it should have been followed or preceded by negotiations. It was suddenly enforced, and despite my efforts, followed by a cut-throat diplomacy.”
On the coup and Mosaddeq
“In August 1953, strongly supported by the United States and England, who had finally adopted a common policy, and after I had discussed the matter with my friend Kermit Roosevelt, the C.I.A.’s special envoy, I decided to call it a halt.
“The awakening of the Iranian people [!]
"It was only on reaching the edge of the abyss that the Iranian people awoke to the immensity of the danger which threatened them, but first there were three days of rioting in Teheran. The first two days were organized by the partisans of Mosaddeq and the Toudeh. It was not until the morning of the third day, August 19, 1953, that with extraordinary courage, workers and artisans, students and professional men, soldiers and policemen, even women and children confronted the guns, machine guns and even tanks of the raving dictator and reversed the situation. A single warning shot fired from a loyal tank at the house of the ex-Prime Minister put an end to three years of demented politics. Dressed in pyjamas, the President [!] climbed the wall into neighboring garden and took refuge in a cellar belonging to the director of postal services. He had had twenty-seven gallows erected in Sepah Square where he meant publicly to hang his enemies some of whom were former members of his own party [!]
"I returned to Teheran where I was greeted with popular enthusiasm. Throughout Iran the voice of the people called irresistibly. Before, I had been no more than a hereditary sovereign, but now I had the right to claim that I had really been elected by the people[!]
"In front of his judges, Mosaddeq continued to play his part, he was at times pitiable, he fabricated stories and behaved extravagantly. He continued to make a spectacle of himself in front of the international press. Since his mother was a descendant of the Qajars he may have hated our dynasty[!] I do not know. But I knew that he would certainly be condemned to death. He was convicted of treason.
"I told the court not to take into account his actions against me. Freed after three years in prison, he went into retirement on his large estate at Ahmad-Abad to the west of Teheran and died there in 1967.”
"It took nearly thirty months for the Iranian people to see Mosaddeq as the prototype sorcerer’s apprentice, incapable of controlling or dominating the forces of destruction which he himself had unleashed. Although by the end of August the rabble no longer ruled and honest citizens could once more live and work in peace, the country was nonetheless ruined and indebted. The damages suffered by our economy amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars and we had wasted three years.”
On Tudeh Party
“The communist plan consisted firstly in using Mosaddeq to topple me. According to some papers discovered, belonging to the Toudeh, Mosaddeq was to be eliminated two weeks after my departure. I have seen postage stamps printed in the name of the People’s Iranian Republic which was then to be proclaimed. The uprising of the masses in my favour took the conspirators by surprise [!]”
“There being no doubt about the political and financial support given by the Russians to the Toudeh, Great Britain and, more especially, the United States were said to have financed the overthrow of the Mosaddeq. But the most accurate documentation proves that at the time of these events the CIA had spent no more than 60,000 dollars. I really do not think that such a sum is enough to make a whole country rise up in a few days.”
On Amir Abbas Hoveyda
“On March 17, Bazargan asked for the trial of Amir Abbas Hoveyda, my Prime Minister for thirteen years, to be suspended. This highly deserving man had but one fault: his extreme courage led him to recklessness, and here I must make some explanations.
"In the Autumn of 1978, many different methods were used to discredit the imperial administration. Amir Abbas Hoveyda was made a scapegoat. His administration of public affairs was to be attacked as a means of attacking the regime. A very cleverly organized cabal was set up and it seemed to me that Hoveyda, whose open and loyal character was known to me, was not aware of the dangers that threatened him personally. There was to be a trial with all the constitutional and legal guarantees which would doubtless have justified Hoveyda and others who had long been part of this government. He had nothing to fear from a just trial [!]”
[On April 7, 1979 Amir Abbas Hoveyda was shot to death by the henchmen of the Islamic Republic.]
On Savak
“Savak was instituted in Iran to combat communist subversion after the disastrous Mossadeq episode…. It is not for me to judge the attitude adopted by Western countries towards their communists. Savak was created, then, to put an end to subversive activities which constitute, for outside and inside, a serious danger to Iran. The organization was entrusted to General Bakhtiar, in 1953, and he called in the CIA to advise him. Subsequently many Savak officials went to be trained by the CIA at Langley. They also went ot other Western countries to observe the methods used there. “
“I cannot defend Savak’s every action. It is possible that people arrested were roughly handled. However, precise instructions were given in order that no abuse might take place. When, a year later, the Red Cross wished to investigate, the prisons were opened to their representatives. Attention was paid to their recommendations and, from that moment, we heard no more complaints...
"With regard to those who were arrested for political reasons-I cannot include arsonists and saboteurs in this category-I affirm that they were properly treated and they were never molested in any way. No one can tell me the name of a single politician who has been 'liquidated’ by Savak.”
On the role of the British
“According to Mosaddeq, so many setbacks to our economy had been inflicted on us as a means to free our oil from British domination. Now, not only were the English still in possession of our oil, but their possession of it no longer brought us any rent: it remained uselessly stored, whilst Great Britain was simply buying more oil from Iraq and, particularly from Kuwait where it cost them less. I think it was nine cents compared to thirteen. Great Britain was gaining on both sides. Everything was happening as though Mosaddeq’s real aim was the contrary to what he said. (it must be added that Mosaddeq was abandoned by his English ‘friends’ as soon as he ceased to be of any use, which was as soon as a world oil cartel seemed possible without him.)”
“The British hand has lain heavily on Iran for most of this century. This did not really change after the American entry. Western support of my rule had always been tempered by a need to exercise a sufficient amount of control. True, the definition of ‘sufficient’ varied with changes in the international scene, but western efforts to ‘clip my wings’ go back to Mossadegh’s day. They were revived whenever I struck out on my own [!]”
On American leaders
“I made it my duty, and it was in fact an honour for me to attend the funeral of this glorious soldier [Eisenhower] and great citizen. I have not forgotten him. It was under his administration that the United States supported me against the policies of Mosaddeq, which were thought to be disastrous for the free world and likely to head Iran to her downfall. It must be acknowledged that America’s foreign policy, directed at the time by Foster Dulles, was very powerful and unarguably efficient.
"Since 1953, I have been tied by solid links of friendship to Richard Nixon. He was then Eisenhower’s vice-president. Under his presidency our relations with the United States became excellent ... I must say that I have always found him [Henry Kissinger] to be true to himself. He stands by his principles and serves his country in the full knowledge of the power wielded by the United States and of America’s responsibility in the balance of power and the maintenance of an honourable world peace. I might add that his geo-political ideas coincided perfectly with mine. Henry Kissinger is possessed of a truly superior intelligence.”
On media
“As for television, the most powerful of all instruments of propaganda, I was very late in having proof that it had been infiltrated, particularly by communists. In January 1979 only a hundred out of a thousand executives and technicians stayed at their job. But the former communists who had sincerely rallied to the Revolution of theShah and the people, and who worked in television, were loyal to the end. This is why Reds and Blacks insisted that, along with many others, they should be shot.”
On past mistakes
“Undoubtedly I was wrong to have looked so far ahead, to have tried to move too fast. But is it not obvious that certain foreign agents intervened and that I stood up to powerful forces more easily than I resolved certain problems? One last comment. Although Iran existed before Islam, let us not forget that the Prophet praised his contemporary Iranians whom he called ‘searchers after truth.’ I have sincerely tried to seek the truth by recognizing my mistakes and trying to make amends. During my reign Iranians did not seek for lies…”
| Recently by Fariba Amini | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Forgotten Captive | 61 | Nov 27, 2012 |
| The Bride and the Dowry | 3 | Nov 27, 2012 |
| Enemy Number One? | 64 | Sep 07, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Unanswered question
by Ali P. on Sat Jun 06, 2009 01:42 PM PDTThe Shah believed Dr Mossadegh was out to get him, overthrow the Pahlavi dynasty(returning the throne back to a Qajar monarch) or possibly abolish Monarchy.
This is my understanding of it after all I have learned about the Shah/Mossadegh saga. Whether this was in fact Dr Mossadegh's intend or not, this is what the Shah believed.
Am I right?
What I have not yet found an answer for, is what Dr Mossadegh's real plan was (if any). If the coup had not taken place, or was defeated, what would have happened, or what did Dr Mossadegh want to see happen?
Bear in mind, this was before SAVAK was ever founded. Dr Mossadegh was a huge monarchist. Shah, and the monarchy, had support among people. Even Dr Mossadegh , a namaz-reading shia moslem, signed the back of a Koran(emphasizing his loyalty to the Shah) and sent it to him.
His VP, Dr Fatemi, on the other hand-as Shahollahi mentioned- was openly calling for the execution of all the members of the Royal family.
Where did Dr Mossadegh stand between all this?
Without substituting your belief for his, could someone answer my question?
Sorry
by Alborzi (not verified) on Sat Jun 06, 2009 01:25 PM PDTShah's actions in the end was not just delusional, illogical and plain stupid in the end. There is no way to defend leaving his loyal backers in prison, while he flew to his resorts. Actually his apologists bring up that and argue, this could have only be done by a sick fellow.
However, when we look back we see the same pattern,
in fact he did exact same thing during Mossadegh era, and the Americans had to try hard to get him come back.
He did exactly like the Akhunds, he closed newspapers, political parties. He had approve who ran for what, he tortured people, ignored laws and ...
In fact he thought these guys, how to rule, his memoirs and Farah's (I have read both), is nothing but a biased memoirs that only mentions, neutral issues.
There was not a meter of railroad that was done during his rule. He was a puppet and nothing more.
مصدق در پیشگاه کاشانی
Farah RustaSat Jun 06, 2009 10:51 AM PDT
حالا بازم بگید چرا انقلاب شد
//www.jamejamonline.ir/Media/images/1387/12/1...
FR
Shah was a product of his times
by Mola Nasredeen on Sat Jun 06, 2009 04:50 PM PDTwith his downfall Iran became and independent country. "No to the West, No to the East" was what the leaders of this revolution professed. Shah was smart, educated and modern, a product of his time. He was also an old school dictator and it led him to his downfall. No man or woman can rule a country all by himself in modern times, nobody.
Reading Assadolah Alam's memoir (Shah's chief of staff and one time Iranian prime minister) reveals Shah's hands-on approach towards Iranians' politics and affairs. He never wanted to share this power with anybody. When he finally fell he fell all by himself, a disillusioned tragic figure at the end of his life, very much like his father. His downfall started a new era in modern Iranian politics.
Souri khanoum
by Kaveh Nouraee on Sat Jun 06, 2009 09:25 AM PDTI'm thinking the exact same thing, that someone else actually wrote the book in his name. I don't think Shah wrote the book.
FA
by Shahollahi (not verified) on Sat Jun 06, 2009 09:15 AM PDTDear lady: Let me first send you my condolences on the death of your father. May god bless his soul and reward his patriotism and his love for the country that was iran.
Let me see if I can make a few comments about the late shah in view of 30 years of hind-sight experience with people of iran and those that complained for decades and still complain that he was not good enough, from a different perspective.
As far as his book is concerned, as DK said, it was written by a dying man on the run and you have quoted a couple of pages of a whole book and being a human being he could have easily slipped and made mistakes or tried to repair unsuccessfully the accusations against him at the time. I am sure that far more delusional quotes can easily be found in the holly Qoran that so many people then and now follow, or far more delusional quotes can be found in khomeini's books that 98% of people throw the shah out to replace him with and a simple curse of him can anger so many today and land one in jail for a long long time in iran.
None of us can be fair in assessing the shah, even now, since we are emotionally involved with his period one way or the other. Only history can judge him fairly and balance his contributions with his misdeeds.
Shah was not a saint, but none of the rulers who ruled iran were, and none of us, the observers, are; but he WAS a total saint, a patriot, and a major contributer to the progress of iran "compared to" ANY of the gangsters that has ever since been ruling iran. That is what matters. It is an utter mistake to evaluate the shah as if he was ruling the Switzerland while dealing with iran and iranians.
Shah was placed in that position by fate. We all know and often attribute to him his black misdeeds, but out of emotion we often ignore his white deeds (and often claim that those would have happened anyways -- the same that has not been happening ever since) and turn his grey areas into black out of our emotional hatred for him.
Reza Shah and his son came to power under very difficult circumstances, within a muti-dimensionally difficult iran and iranians, and nonetheless, despite all the criticism against them, provided the best days of iran in the past hundreds of years; days that I and you, and most if not all the readers of this site, and our families could nonetheless live there in iran voluntarily and often prosper, get a good education and financially prepare to leave when the occasion arose in 1979, and days that we, the iranians who hated the shah, could not even duplicate when he departed ever since and had no choice but to run-away, some of us with our lives at stake.
Pahlavis as a whole came to power in a failing country, with many groups, supported by various powers, trying to rip the country apart for personal gains. That failing country, like afghanistan of today, had to be turned into a country first before anything else. Prof. Katouzian makes an impartial evaluation of what was going on in that iran before most of us were born.
Pahlavis came to power in a country overshadowed by illiteracy and ignorance. The literacy rate in Qajar period at the turn of the previous century was around 1% according to dr. shafa. It was not easy to turn that country into one with mid-high double digit literacy rate, with universities, doctors, engineers, and tens of thousands of iranian students studying in the best schools across the globe. A country with an industrial base that over a span of few decades turned from a backward country into a country with pipe water and sewage system, schools and universities, broadcasting and telephone systems, and so on. A country whose poulation were infected and infested with various nasty diseases and parasites, rampent with saalak, kachali, tarakhom, shepesh, kerm medeh, kerme poost, vabaa, sel, ... was turned into a country of at least some clean cut people. Ask your great grand parents to see how that generation had all sorts of diseases and often infected with likes of vabaasir or kerme kedou, not to mention far more nastier diseases. Those diseases were wiped out to a large extent in a few decades, and some of which are now back in IRI.
Pahlavis came to power in a country fanatically religious, a far more modern version of which has been burning iran in front of our eyes for 30 years now. Reading religious and historical books from Qajar period is very educational. Mr. Shamshiri has several recent re-publications of those books, to see how religious people were that they had to read verses for any and every daily act for them to be guaranteed a place in heaven. So much so that an observant person had to be busy reading verses and praying for a good portion of his day time to be considered religiously worthy. Anything from a visit to the toilet, to the public bath, or even to the private bedroom had religious guidelines to follow and prayers to say. Islam was a cure-all religion, with all your needs, from selecting the gender of an unborn child to impotency, from the routine cough to nasty leprosy, all had cures in prayers and exorcism. Those people were not easy to be brought out of the 7th century stable of ignorance. On top of that, the grip that the clergy had on people and their ties across the globe, from india and england to lebanon and iraq reveals a complex network of personal interests and barriers of progress intertwined, somewhat likes of which we see today in the far more modern islamic republic.
Pahlavis, by fate or by desire, had to behave either like Qajar kings - mind their harems, power, and wealth (as mullas have been doing) or pull iran out of its misery by force. Opposition to both pahlavi shahs were strong, from left, from clergy, and from the so-called intellectuals. Compound that with cultural arrogance of iranians that they think that they have all the answers and they can do better than anyone else and then miserably fail when they are in charge as we have seen it in practice for the past 30 years. How can we seriously complain about shah when so few of us had the vision that a charlatan mulla from 7th century cannot do any better than the shah, and when all acclaimed intellectuals, democrats, religious innocents, and leftists, lined up behind a mulla, and bowed to khomeini, with no one that followed the shah being able to care as much as the shah and been able to rule iran at the same time ever since. How many of those left, right, intellectuals bothered to read any of khomeini's books apriori and saw that he was no saint and no cure for ills of iran. How many of those people read the Bible of religious islamic fanatics - say the books by allameh Majlesi - to see what non-sense these people had in mind.
It is now fashinable to curse the shah and endear mosaddeq. If Mosaddeq was what his proponents claim him to be, then I am also mosaddeqi and would join to curse the shah and the west for not allowing him to rule; but was he what he is portrayed to be? Are you sure?
Iranians search for heros and saints, and they find them in losers of their history; from Emam Hussain to Mohammad Mosaddeq, all losers turn into saints and cheered and all winers are cursed and detested. Was it really possible that "in iran", a country with a long history but almost no ruler as perfect as mosaddeq is claimed to be, suddenly a perfect leader like mosaddeq appears and conspired against, likes of whom either did not exist or kept quiet during the long dark ages of Qajar. And was he as politician as he is claimed to be to properly oppose the shah, or alternatively share powers with him for the good of the country. Didn't we fall into the same trap when we viewed khomeini as another perfect saint in 1979 with 98% of people voting for his islamic republic, a far stronger support than mosaddeq ever had, only to find in him a wolf in sheep's clothe. There is a lecture by dr. fatemi given in 1953, when shah had little to no record of misdeed, that makes khomeini's rhetoric about shah like pale and brings sheer scare as to what would have happened if likes of him had succeeded to get ahold of shah and his supporters or maybe the country afterwards. He sounds more like dr. Yazdi inquisitions and preparing shah's generals for execution without due process after the revolution than a democrat once he assumes that he has the position of power sealed.
Iranians kept hundreds of years of silence and passivity prior to pahlavis, but as soon as Pahlavis appeared on the scene and tried to pull the country out of dark ages, so many jumped in with criticism that that or this or they could do better; alas that they showed no such ability once the shah was gone.
Yes, the shah is gone forever, and WE failed miserably to bring even the same level of national prosperity and content to the country ever since. WE as a nation failed despite our confident claims that shah was not worthy of us and we could do better without him, and attributed (and continue to attribute) to him all the bad things that have happened to us since the fall of Qajar. We don't blame Qajar, or fanaticism with a backward religion, or then fashionable cure-all marx and mao ideologies, or certainly not us the iranians, but are obsessed with pahlavis and their misdeeds and delusions even some 29 years after the fall of their historically short-aged dynasty. There is now essentially very little sign of student confederations to march streets of europe and north america, very little sign of islamists to object to daily atrocities of IRI, very little sign of leftists and intellectuals to act against 3 decades of oppression; but we get so excited if OUR candidate of IRI choice, a lesser of four thugs, will be elected in June 12 election to offer iranians a tiny portion of freedoms and prosperity that we once had when shah was in charge and did not value. As the proverb says, iranians are taken to death till became content with fever.
I am sorry for the long response but attribute the ramble to years of frustration out of losing of a place once called home, the beloved iran.
Darius jan, Tee jaane ghourban ;o)
by Souri on Sat Jun 06, 2009 07:04 AM PDTin aks ro ghablan ham post kardeh boudi inja ha !! lol, tekraari boud ..
Fariba Khanoum Maybe He had reasons to be Delusional ;0)
by Darius Kadivar on Sat Jun 06, 2009 06:50 AM PDTWikipedia Definition of Delusional :
Delusional jealousy (or delusion of infidelity): A person with this delusion falsely believes that his or her spouse or lover is having an affair
pictory: Mossadegh The Gentleman (1950's)
Prime Minister Mossadegh kisses Iran's Queen Soraya's hand in greetings. (circa 1956)
too sick to distinguish fact from fiction?
by Faribors Maleknasri M. D. (not verified) on Sat Jun 06, 2009 05:46 AM PDTNot at all. He only did not have any competency to distinguish. He had sold his personal competencies in addition to all material and ideal wealthes in Iran. As the price he was allaud to seat on peacock thron for a while. As long as he managed for his master to operate in Iran in any way the master wanted to operate. On January 15th 1979, after 2 monthes that no Iranian Oil could be stollen any more, on this day said the peanut merchant Carter: It is better when the shah goes. His majesty the last left the country on January 16th 1979 with tears in his eyes.The shah had permanently zero competence. From his first day on.
Greeting
He never claimed to be a Democrat ...Ashraf Wrote a better Book
by Darius Kadivar on Sat Jun 06, 2009 02:26 AM PDTThis book was written in haste knowing he was going to die and I personally found it unreadable and unsatisfying in that it truly failed to give an idea of what he truly thought inside.
His family was on the Run, the Iranian government was asking for him to be Tried by an International Court like Nuremburg for Crimes against Humanity like Hitler. He had a Fatwa on his head as well as on ALL his Family and children.
This book was nearly written as a Lawyer would to defend his case against all critics not like a Sincere Autobiography. He wrote it and died shortly after and did not even see it published for it was done after his death.
Also as King of Kings he was Logical with what he saw as HIS Destiny and Mission. One can dismiss this as ridiculous but that is how he was regarded for 38 years of Reign ( 12 of which he was truly a Constitutional Monarch) as a "Divine" King.
"Divine" Kingship was always how Kings in Iran ruled like in Medieval Europe.
So as such He was not even supposed to Justify himself or his actions to us mere mortals. I know it sounds ridiculous in modern terms but that is how Absolute Kings particularly in the middle East or Ancient Europe justified their rule. They themselves probably did not believe entirely in this either, but you don't seriously think that he would go around and claim the contrary after having ruled that way all his life ?. It would be Self Denial in the eyes of his followers and supporters.
One is King even if Overthrown. That is how he answered David Frost who asked him if he considered himself still as King. He said yes unless Beheaded.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jryz8EyeN4E
May I remind you that the Queen of England has a private diary and that it will NEVER be Published even after her death.
Unlike Presidents, A King or Queen, Are not Forced to Justify Their Actions.
One may find this obsolete, ridiculous but that is the psychology that sustains the very notion of Kingship and that is Not to be accountable unless they wish to be.
That is why a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY Differs From an ABSOLUTE MONARCHY !
Once You understand this fundamental difference , you may be able to have a better understanding of the Shah's answers and the way he answered them in respect to the way he but also his people percieved him at the Time.
Answer to History was a great dissappointment when I read it. But it reflected the man's isolation and sheer paranoia of being extradicted to Iran and executed like the Caechescu in Rumania or be put on an International Trial like Nuremburg. So the book was written not like an Autobiography or a last Testimonial Message to his people but a Self Defense Speach in front of a Court of Justice.
What the Shah did not write was Much better expressed and argued by his twin Sister: Princess Ashraf in Faces in the Mirror and in A Time for Truth
I always believe that when it comes to History, Autobiographies are not enough to judge a Man and his times. You need to confront to sources as well as understand the context when the books were written.
To understand and Judge Historical figures ( and that also applied to Khomeiny) autobiographies are not enough to draw Rapid and Definitive Conclusions as to one's persona.
My Humble Opinion,
DK
Was Mohammad Reza Pahlavi delusional?
by Safa Ali on Sat Jun 06, 2009 02:07 AM PDTHe was cocky, arrogant and he loved power but he wasn't delusional.
Just watch his interviews, he talks about things that are relevant and make sense like economics, finances and oil. Watch khomeini and Ahmadinjads interviews, I dont think it's necessary for me to even state what those morons talk about.
Next time you start thinking about if the late Shah of Iran was delusional or not, consider this: He was building up Irans military, raising oil prices, promoting education, and increasing the standard of living in his country.
While he was doing that, the PEOPLE were running through the streets yelling "death to America", "death to Isreal", "Allah akbar", and my all time favorite, "we can see khomeinis face on the moon!".
If you guys want to say he was a dictator with too much power that made mistakes, your making a good point. But next time you start talking about him being delusional, please, spare me.
God Bless His Imperial Majesty
by Sassan (not verified) on Sat Jun 06, 2009 01:07 AM PDTOstaad --
Me and millions upon millions of Iranians would prefer the "gutless DICKtator" over a band of Arabized Ayatollahs who are the most sleezy, perverted, greedy, corrupted, bloodthirsty, anti-Iranian thugs the world has ever seen!
At least the Nazis were competent. The fascist mullahs, your employers, are the most incompetent vermin ever to hold the levers of power the world over, not to mention they are the most perverted pimps in the Islamic world, and that's saying a lot!
Your hero, Ayatollah Khomeini, aka, Ayatollah BBC, aka, Ruhollah Hendi, was the real DICKtator! He was the one who massacred 30,000 political prisoners in the summer of 1988. He was the one who butchered 150,000 Iranians in the first 3 years after the black revolution. He was the one who sent over 600,000 young Iranian men to their deaths UNNECESSARILY between 1982-1988, even though the Saudi's in 1982 had offered Iran 80 Billion dollars for war reparations in exchange for a truce, but Ruhollah Hendi chose to continue the bloody massacre of Iranian men "until Karbala was captured."
His Majesty, the late Shah, was a MONUMENTAL SAINT compared to the bloodthirsty Hendi mullah, who was the greatest ENEMY of the Iranian nation in the last 1,000 years! Your Hezbollahi lies will never go unanswered as long as people like me know the TRUTH about Ayatollah Khomeini, your beloved and barbaric Hendi DICKtator!
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was not delusional...
by Ostaad on Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:17 PM PDTHe was a two-bit gutless DICKtator. Simply put, his stupidity and despotic actions caught up with him and the rest is history.
dear Kaveh
by Souri on Fri Jun 05, 2009 08:51 PM PDTWith all due respect, Kaveh jan, I understand and believe that he was very sick and his illness may played a role in his mental health too.
But then in this case, why did he write a book? Somebody had to read that book before giving it to the publisher, isn't it?
I don't even believe that he has literally write that book, maybe other persons did it in his name. What do we know?
Shah or Geda
by bl (not verified) on Fri Jun 05, 2009 05:30 PM PDTthere is no Shah or Geda.... when an illness like his strikes.... it kills.
No ONe IS IMMUNE... No ONe!!
Was he delusional?
by Kaveh Nouraee on Fri Jun 05, 2009 03:49 PM PDTIt's indeed a possibility. As is the possibility his illness played a role in the delusions' existence.
Chemo can sometimes be worse than the cancer itself. It will not only wreak havoc on your body, but on the mind as well. Not to mention of course the prospect of impending death and all that it brings: depression, despondency, anger, fits of rage, and so on.
Take away for a moment all of the usual things said about Mohammad Reza Shah, whether positive or negative. He was only 60 years old. He was young and active. To be hit with this miserable f**king disease at that age, at any age, has to have a profound effect on the psyche.
Shah-na-na
by Nader M. (not verified) on Fri Jun 05, 2009 03:47 PM PDTShah actually has the nerve to accuse Mossadegh of planning to hang 27 of his political adversaries! What lies! Even Tony Blair's Foreign Secretary complimented Mossadegh publicly, saying that he had stood for "constitutional and accountable government".
//www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/jack-straw/
Was the Shah delusional?
by mehdi44 (not verified) on Fri Jun 05, 2009 02:20 PM PDTIn response to your question I have to say: Who Knows! I think only a psychiatrist after a careful observation can make the judgment on whether he was delusional or was fed incorrect information, or simply made bad mistakes like all mortals sometimes do.
He clearly misread Nixon's administration friendship -- that is if we believe the research done by Andrew Scott Cooper (see: //www.mideasti.org/podcast/andrew-cooper-mej-...).
On a somewhat tangential note on Savak -- it is important to remember the findings of Baghi: //www.emadbaghi.com/en/archives/000592.php
Once a traitor, always a traitor
by Mamane-Omid on Fri Jun 05, 2009 02:03 PM PDTLike his father "nim-pahlavi" sold himself, his country, and his prime ministers down the proverbial river to foreigners.
Well Said
by ProudToBeAnonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun 05, 2009 01:56 PM PDTSouri jan, well said. ANd thanks to fariba for sharing her observations.
dear Fariba
by Souri on Fri Jun 05, 2009 01:20 PM PDTThanks for bringing us this complete and great observation on shah's book.
When I finished reading your article, first I was feeling like in that last song of Googoosh : geryeh konam ya nakonam, harf bezanam ya nazanam..... :)
Nevertheless, at the risk of getting a few insults, I prefrred to come here and say just a few words before the real party begin!!
Here (I refer only to your text) about Hoveida, I must say, Shah acted as a very big traitor to the one person who has served him cordially and honestly for years!! Shah jailed Hoveida, right before leaving Iran definiviely. Shah is the first responsible for Hoveida's assassination. Who was he trying to fool with his book?
People of Iran, still remember all the events leading to the revolution.
"In an effort to slow down the momentum of the revolution, the shah was
advised by many of his surrounding cohorts to arrest Hoveida, using him
as a scapegoat for the past-ills of the crumbling regime. On November
7, 1978, Hoveida was arrested by order of the monarch. He would be held
under house arrest in an upper-Tehran residence often affiliated with Savak activity. Once Mohammad Reza Shah fled the country, the Savak
agents assigned with the task of guarding Hoveida, absconded from their
posts, leaving Hoveida open to arrest by revolutionary forces."
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir-Abbas_Hoveida
Suddenly they come out of wood work
by Amazed (not verified) on Fri Jun 05, 2009 01:13 PM PDTIt is interesting how quickly the usual permanent resident shah haters come out of the wood work and jump on everybody's back whenever there appears an article about him!
I guess we should now wait for "Alborzi" and "I have a crush on Alex Trebek" to attack!
baba mardeh 29 saleh mordeh velesh konin digeh! khasteh nemisheen!
You have a new Shah in Iran who calls himself something else but acts much worse than the "dictatorial" and "delusional" Shah! remember!
God Belss His Majesty!
by PersianGulf (not verified) on Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:44 PM PDTMossadegh, a Qajar price, who nothing more than a rabble-rouser (a shoologh-kon), who thought he could separate America from England, in order to nationalize Iran's oil. How NAIVE is this view of international politics???
Recently released state department documents illustrate that oil company executives met with high level US State Department officials and told them that they "rather Iran go communist than nationalize its oil."
That's because if Iran nationalized its oil, Saudi Arabia would be next, then Venezuala! The oil natinonalization domino theory. In sum, Mossadegh was waaaaaay out of his league and completely naive and foolish to think that he could bring down England in Iran with the help of America!!!
What a joke! When it comes to oil, American and British foreign policy are a mirror-image of each other! To think that Iran, which was poor and destitute, and only separated by 6 years from the devastation of occupation during WWII, could fight two big super powers with respect to oil, the bread and butter of western economies, is INSANE!
The Shah's gradual approach to oil nationalization was far more rational than the abrupt over-night nationalization policy that Mossadegh favored. Iran in those days was an extremely weak country. It was like a little weakling 5-year-old trying to push around 2 BIG BULLYS! Asinine! And the people swallowed this fool's gold nonsense completely! Iranians are some of the most irrational people on the face of the earth!
In truth, Mossadegh promoted the real "dellusional" foreign policy!
Puppet masters
by shirazie (not verified) on Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:27 PM PDTwell done.
King of Kings? must we say more?
was Modsgeh a British stooge?
well I did not know the Brits liked to Torture themselves
I am not sure there is any difference among the last three kings of Iran. They were all installed by the Brits. The first two were removed by the Brits. Shah's father was the only one who try to break away from his puppet master.
In final analysis- you have to be able to stand on your merits and deeds. None of the last three kings had a leg to stand on.
the question is- will the new Iranian Caliphs meet the same faith?
yes...
by hamsade ghadimi on Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:25 PM PDTis the short answer to your first question. i'd like to thank you for reading the book and giving us excerpts for i would have not been able to continue reading it after the first self-aggrandizing statement by nim-pahlavi. then i would have had to return to the bookstore and ask for the refund of my unread book. you shall receive a heated debate on this subject for those who believe or want everyone else to believe every word of this book. good luck and my condolences to the passing of your father.