Pictory

Dear Hoshang Targol

I am happy you like the avatar.  I chose this picture because it embodies my belief that armed struggle is the only solution for our country to rid itself of the sanctioned dictatorships it has been plagued with. 

I must say it was promising to read your comments.  Often times I am discouraged from visiting this site because of the overt bigotry exhibited by some of my otherwise likeminded countrymen.   

Opposition

to any more executions MUST be on top of agenda. Next go around we better do it right. No to any more executions: right; left; Bahai; Jew or anyone. 

Learn a thing or two from Jalal Talebani: "I will not sign ..,"

//www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7366045-...

Bachenavvab, your avatar is simply #1

I LOVE that picture & that day.

And you're right on Hovayda. They killed him above all because he was Bahai, same with Parsa ( Education Minister). They accused Elghanian of being a spy, killed him and took all his belongings. He could have bougth half of Israel!

In hind sight, when they saw no real opposition ( except from few intellectuals and  kuredestan...) to any of these executions the rest wasn't so hard!

DK's tone is sobering and refreshing. Do you have anything on Mr.Islam Kazemieh, or the newspaper Bakhtiar used to publish?

hoveyda

R.I.P       I still remember that summer in Tehran kooye fershteh playing gol koochik with some friends and he stepped out of his light blue peykan kar and kicked some ball with us (that plastic 5 zaree toop).

RR criminals will have their turn coming .         Maziar

The question is why Shah

The question is why Shah left his men behind (especially Hovayda)
who served him for decades, in prison to be ultimately executed? forex broker

Darius Kadivar, Respect Your Difference of Opinion

I knew you begged to differ, which was why I titled my article, Misinformed.  Based on the ideas you mention, your view is in harmony with your own principles, so it is rational.

My View is as the person mentioned above seeing the shah as a saint and idealistic.  It is purely instinctual, which has plenty of common ground with what you are saying and conflicts with you in the rational realm. This makes it exponentially more difficult for me to make a case (on a rational level) since one of us is using instinct/intuition/creativity the other reason/rationality.

However, look at your own points from neither instinctual nor rational view points, but from a compassionate and heart felt space.

The Shah's reading of the Iranian Constitution was Wrong.

(So who's responsibility was it to hlm accountable, if not all those benefitting from saying "it's all the shah's will" when clearly it was good for the country and for them, but they did not want to lose power over making a good decision)

He may have had no other way of interpreting it given the political realities of our country and our nation's political immaturity but It was Wrong Nevertheless.

(So if out of 22 individuals you have 22 leaders, who do not work together and are constantly undermining each other, what other practical approach would bring about freedom for all.  Clearly None. He was even unlike his father and many other kings before him the first to put Freedom for all, above his own existence.  Clearly if One goes the alternative route and Assumes your view it was wrong then what would happen to freedom first, in a country that only had 8% literacy when he assumed power and was not even in the top 80 wealthiest nations) 

Otherwise he would never had been toppled in the first place.

(absolutely True, passionetly a fact, rational, principaled also... but not compassionate or heart felt).

Remember the kings personality, he honestly felt it was disloyal to even accept a crown of a society in the state of illiteracy/mass famine/poverty.

I visited the democratic republic of haiti 3 months before the earth quake.  If there was ever a need for a democratically minded person to risk his neck and focus on social needs, combating corruption at his/her own expense and focussing on freedom it is in Haiti.  As you know that figure will risk the possibility of loss, but not the certinty of loss.

As a Matter of Fact, historian Abbas Milani believes that the shah was aiming at bringing full democracy but had asked the American's to give him time ( 20 years) to develope the country and make the necessary reforms in order to make the transition possible. But the Revolution and probably other pragmatic reasons were to jeapordize his efforts for good.

(yikes, where to start DK, logic is hard to debate but statement needs it since it misses essential points which are necessary for reflection. Shahs management and decision making approach as british foreign secretary David Owen explained had always been democratic actually let's not go there because the key element as we all experienced the revolution was not any of this stuff, yes yes most people can see and feel he wanted Iranian to be democratic and had strong opposition from within the clergy and tudeh left and right that had their own goals.  So the Key essential here is this in my humble opinion.

Shah built an alliance with the USA, he had an exceptional deal the USA, this deal was so profound it was not even named a deal or an agreement.  He had something which in legal terms is really the highest form of agreement between 2 countries with its own special legal rules.  It is something that countries rarely get into because any changes require both houses of prlament to agree on and neither side can get out of unilaterally without agreement of the otherside.  The UK had one with the USA durng ww2.  It is known as a pact. Which he had with the USA.

The Reason why he ultimately lost was not everything you mention, but because the USA in treachury and cold betrayal, stabbed he shah in the back and did not honor this mutual pact.  Sadly for America, this pact had been designed by not just Irans top experts but at the Shahs request with also the help of top strategist from many other countries so it was and is today still air tight. 

The real victim of this betrayal was not just meant to be Iran, but the USA also.  Strategists knew that the USA would never be in a position to betray Shah and thrive in the long term, which is why on the one hand they helped design a pact the Shah could have 100% confidence in durng the 60's.

And on the other hand helped elect Carter to go down a disasterous path with the realm aim of harming the USA in the long term and in it's place having access to resources in the future.  Based on history these self inflicted wounds take 35 to 40 years before they are evident.  Had the USA had the ability to win in Iraq/Afghanistan they would have been able to protect themselves from a Grim future and things are still unclear we won't know for 10 years what was the real consequence of all this. 

The reality of betrayal which could never have been counted on really negates the rest of your points of loving badly etc

I believe in a Constitutional Monarchy based on the 1906 Constitution and one in which the King or Queen Reigns and does not Rule. That is not just an option but an unconditional necessity and pre-condition to any form of Royal Restoration. I believe that Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as well as Shapour Bakhtiar would agree to this for it is in both his interest and that of the Monarchy itself in our modern age:

Too soon to tell what the modern age will look like now that all major powers are capitalistic. Let's have this debate in 2025 or at least after we have got the first nuclear world war out of the way and seen the more powerful countries ability to handle 200 to 400 million deaths their competition ultimately caused.

One cannot look back at History and not take into account some important lessons for the future. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

The Key Mistakes were in my humble opinion not those of the Shahs, but those of Carters.  And Instictually for the future I do not agree with your assesment of what is needed, due to this key disagreement.  Were Iran in the G7 I would agree with your assesment for the future, but since the USA with mullah help and Mass Iranian Niavete essentially sent Iran back to a state worse than 1906 with no real end in sight, mullahs who are firmly in control and not containable my hunch tells me we need another shah exactly like the last one we had a revolution against, except one who doesn't get people so angry every time he speaks but can sooth them.  My Instincts say we need a sensitive Ruler for Life (brooke shileds when she was young or John Wayne) who can be mean if he has absolutely has to be as the last resort (but not a clint eastwood)... then like the UK in two generations.

That is my Humble BUT FIRM opinion, you are free to think otherwise.

Best,

Alex

VAAAAAAAAAAAY!!

vaghean ke

kheili adam bayad koskesh o madar jende bashe ke be hamin rahati o ba labkhand in harfa ro bezane bad az in hame saal, akhe kir too dahan, raftin badbakhto bedoone dadgah koshtin hala kossher migin 30 saal bad?....kiram too masabe eslam o hokoomat eslamio har ki supportesh mikone!!

Hoveyda yek ensaan bood

Hoveida’s policies regarding the economy were sound and he was an honest man who tried to listen to the people.  His hands were tied because Shah did what he felt was right and didn’t care about what anyone else had to say.  Nonetheless, Hoveida was the prime minister and as such his responsibility was to the people whom he had abandoned when he became Shah’s lackey.  He never stood up to Shah, while there were numerous occasions warranting it.  In fact, his wife left him because of his inability to assert his position.  He thought doing the right thing (as much as possible) was the best thing he could do.  Of course I wasn’t there and I rely on what I have read in “Mo’ammaye Hoveida”, which contradicts this warden’s account of the events.  Hovida’s sense of integrity, love of his people and his frailties make him human.  He was a good, honest and decent man who did not deserve to be killed and so savagely at that.

dk, thanks for sharing your thoughts

just like any group with the same goal, not all individuals within the group agree on every issue.  some monarchists view the ex shah as a saint and blame the tragedy that has befallen our country on those around him (as you say his collaborators) or just the stupid iranian people (even a**h*les as someone suggested).  these ex machina type of solutions seems too simplistic to me.  your view seems to be more realistic and constructive.  now that we've seen this video, some people don't even want to point finger at those who supposedly betrayed the ex shah; they just refer to it as "system."  does system have a last name?  or is it a way of not blaming anyone in particular a la "murder on the orient express."  hoveyda blamed the system as he could not explain the entire complex nature of the monarchy in the speedy trial he got.  perhaps he thought that he would've had more time to explain his role and the role of the others in the system.  perhaps he thought his fate was already sealed and it did not serve him or those who trusted him to name names.

also the claim that the shah begged hoveyda to leave jail seems curious to me.  who put hoveyda in jail to begin with?  if shah didn't, then under what authority could he have released him?  was there a pretext for being released from jail as in confessing to be the propogator of corruption in iran? 

i agree with dk that the leader of the country should be held accountable for the crimes committed under his rule.  the leader should also be given credit for the accomplishments under his rule.  same goes for his collaborators.

can anyone confirm this Bic-pen story ala Hoveyda?

During Hoveyda's trial, he was asked what his defense was for what he had done?  He took out his Bic fountain pen and said " this pen was 5 Rials 10 years ago, and today, you can still get it for 5 Rials".

I wonder how much that Bic pen is nowadays?

AlexInFlorida I beg to differ ;0)

The Shah's reading of the Iranian Constitution was Wrong. He may have had no other way of interpreting it given the political realities of our country and our nation's political immaturity but It was Wrong Nevertheless. Otherwise he would never had been toppled in the first place.

As a Matter of Fact, historian Abbas Milani believes that the shah was aiming at bringing full democracy but had asked the American's to give him time ( 20 years) to develope the country and make the necessary reforms in order to make the transition possible. But the Revolution and probably other pragmatic reasons were to jeapordize his efforts for good.

However the Shah's reading overlooked what was precisely the major criteria for which the Constitutional Revolution took place and that is that the King should Reign but Not Rule.

As Such  I firmly Believe the Iranian Monarchy under the Pahlavis needed Reform NOT Revolution.

In that he was no different than his predecessors be it the last Qajar Shahs or his own father. Does that mean the Shah was a Tyrant ? No he was Not ! I also distinguish a dictatorship from a Totalitarian State. There are major difference between these two autocratic states. The IRI subscribes to the latter, that is a Totalitarian State which the Pahlavi Monarchy never was neither under MRP nor under his father Reza Shah. Pahlavi Iran however was politically ruled as a mild form of dictatorship. However mild it was still a dictatorship according to Western Standards. Given that the Constitution of 1906 was drafted from the Belgian Constitution of the same period, it aimed at being modeled on Western Constitutional Monarchy it wished to ressemble and be compared too (including during the Shah's reign. However as such the Shah did not reign in accordance to pure Constitutional Standards. That does not diminish the Shah's credit as a King who loved his country. But as you should know one may love but love badly ... Alas lack of Political democracy that was a shortcoming of the Shah's rule which reached it's pinnacle with the creation of the Rastakhiz Party. As such it was no different from other dictatorial Republics. Republics do not always rhyme with Democracy and I believe that is one of the hard lessons we Iranians were to learn with the victory of the Revolution. I believe in a Constitutional Monarchy based on the 1906 Constitution and one in which the King or Queen Reigns and does not Rule. That is not just an option but an unconditional necessity and pre-condition to any form of Royal Restoration. I believe that Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as well as Shapour Bakhtiar would agree to this for it is in both his interest and that of the Monarchy itself in our modern age:

Shapour Bakhtiar on the Anniversary of the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 and on Conditions of REGIME CHANGE ( LAst Public appearance in Hamburg 1989 before his assassination in 1991):

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNBFTWXz5_Q&feature=related

Reza Pahlavi Crown Prince of Iran on the Anniversary of the Constitutional Revolution:

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

Pro Bakhtiar Demonstrations in support of the Constitution of 1906 and demanding it to be applied to the fullest:

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

One cannot look back at History and not take into account some important lessons for the future. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

The British we tend to envy, were intelligent enough to understand this Very early after Crowmells Religious Revolution.

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'  

We would be well advised to follow the British on this path.  

That is my Humble BUT FIRM opinion, you are free to think otherwise.

Best,

DK 

Darius Kadivar, misinformed like a Nation who paid dearly for it

Even Hoveyda would disagree with you.  And not just because he refused to leave jail when asked by the shah. Hoveyda never saw the Shah as absolute monarch as you state. (In practice hoveyda did use the excuse it was the "shahs will" many times for political expediency to deflect blame from himself to the shah when decisions lead to failure and take credit "my choice" when they worked out.)

Hoveyda said in his Trial, the Shah was not at fault during his rule, nor was he himself, but it was the role the system required them each to take.

Hoveyda believed the system which required each to perform certain roles was flawed because it had not taken into account the role of those responsible for the survival of the state after the extra-ordinary events that had just occured in Irans recent History.

Namely an ordinary statesman, by the name of mossadegh, would seize power using populist sentiments and with solely the publlcity from foreign media sources, broadcast to the masses by radio and be able to kill or capture the existing heads of power, e.g. king/military/civil etc.who were forced to temporarily flee, and able to entirely rewrite the constitution while making himself eternal president like Castro.

Mossadeghs actions totally changed the way the system worked to ensure the survival of the system. Shah had to step up a little more than before, but was no absolute monarch or in a position to force his prime minister to leave jail against the prme ministers will.  Because he really wasn't an absolute monarch, according to the constitution or Hoveyda.

Shah had taken on extra powers which were not unlimited and as a person made all his decisions based on the prime ministers aims and a democratic consensus of his ministers.  (why when things did not work out, then all his ministers would point the finger at the shah and say it was all the shahs doing is another subject altogether, to do with the system and a self serving approach to holding power, but not the truth... which ultimately lead to the demise of all of them).

The Truth is the Iranian people never got to know who is the Shah, and all the prime ministers would use it's the shah will to keep the blame off themselves, so really it was the Iranian Prime ministers and ministers which most misportrayed the shah, undermined the shah and mislead people into really believing it was this one man "absolute monarch" making all the decisions, who had all the power.  Nonsense.

Really the Ministers including prime ministers over many years and their ongoing games were the source of damage to the monarchy.  I know this may come as a surprise to Iranians, but we were'nt exactly a nation of team players.

So when Western propaganda started calling the shah, the autocrat, the despot, the tyrant, the megalomaniac, the dictator... of which it is obvious he was none of these... people like hoveyda, eqbal, sharif emami etc and other ministers truly felt a sense of guilt for so badly misrepresenting the Shah's role as some kind of absolute monarch for so many years for personal gain when they really knew that they were the ones running the country as much as the shah.

The night he called our house

How I wish the night he called my father, when the prison's were broken into, we could saved him and ferry him out of the country, Alas.  Iran lost a great man and in his place Iranians voted one of the most horrific regime's in human history.  All because of Islam's way of thought.  Nothing is sacred for Islam, life means little and has no value.  But, this regime's days are numbered and with it Islam has reached the end of its rope.

Hoveyda and Shah

The fact is nobody was thinking about a regime change. Hoveyda was willing to be tried but in the same system not the Islamic one. More liberal version of the same system.

Hoveyda wasn't the only one in jail. There were more top figures of the regime in jail arrested by the past governments such as Sharif Imami's. Those governments had freedom to do what they were thinking is right to do to bring the order back to the country. No permission from the Shah was necessary.

If Shah had released all the prisoners before leaving the country basically it would have been meant the monarchy is over. He left the country with a prime minister and it was in Bakhtyar's hands to take any action for releasing or holding those people.

Shah left the country not because of his cowardness but because there was no other choice. The whole society was hysteric. They burned Cinema Rex
and wrote "KABAYE ARYAMEHR" on it's wall. They were seeing a Human being (if he was a human being!) face on the moon's surface! People didn't want him in Iran then he left. What is wrong with that? If Khmenei leaves the country now and accepts a referendum, is he coward or simply a responsible leader? A lot people who are criticising the Shah for leaving were against him at the time and wanted him dead. Was he a coward because he didn't kill you?

The Shah is Accountable for Hoveyda's sad fate Less the monarchy

The Shah as Absolute Ruler is Accountable for Hoveyda's sad fate. But that is Less the case for monarchy or the State's Constitution which the former Ruler chose to overlook  ... 

One can find arguments to justify the Shah's attitude but it will not diminish his responsability in the sad fate of Hoveyda. It will not wash the Shah's accountability if not guilt in his Long Serving Prime Minister's unjust death. A head of State should defend his or her collaborators and protect their immunity.

Even if The Shah probably felt that if Bakhtiar's government survives it may not harm Hoveyda or the people arrested, I have nevertheless always believed that the ruling King should be held Accountable for any good or bad done in it's name. In a perfectly constitutional Monarchy, the King or Queen has no power so it is the government and Prime Minister who are accountable to the people and the electors not the Monarch or the Monarchy as an institution for that matter.

If the monarchy is to be restored in Iran one day, it will not been done in an aim to revise history or rewriting the facts. The critics made against the Shah's arbitrary rule or conduct should prevail even under a Constitutional Monarchy and I believe that the Crown  if ever restored must in due time also express regrets publically in the name of the State for all crimes or blood spilled in it's name whether they were or not justified.  In the same way the French Republic did for instance for the crimes commited in it's colonial wars as well as for the VICHY Government as lately as under President Jacques Chirac. The Latter also made public excuses in the name of the Republic for the crimes commited in the name of Slavery ( which was not abolished despite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) as late and the mid 1990's ( I do not have the exact date on mind). Which proves that History cannot be wiped off despite the passage of time. But nations can heal their conscience by acknowledging these mistakes and moving on at some point.

Historians, writers and filmmakers will do the rest in reminding us and our leaders/rulers recurrently on the realities of what happened in our past and that there is a cost to Freedom no matter under what democratic form of government/regime we choose to live under.

For instance The British Monarchs have not been just and fair throughout their history. Todays Queen Elizabeth II's own Ancestor King Henry VIII sacrified one of his best ministers, the stateman Thomas More who opposed his demand to divorce against the rules of Catholic Church to which England's laws had to abide. He later executed More and married Ann Bolyn only to behead her.

This was illustrated in a classic movie:

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

Trailer :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RZKd1be05Q

All States and Institutions be them Republics or Monarchies have seen the blood of their citizens or subjects spilled at different times in their history.

But all nations particularly if they are Democracies ( Republic or Constitutional Monarchy) can only heal the scars left by history by officially acknowledging the wrong doings carried out in their names.

I would not be surpised to see Reza Pahlavi as New Shah or the Future Prime Minister of Iran inaugurate a monument for Hoveyda or other Jaan Bakhteganeh Raheh Azadyeh Iran in a sign of Respect for their sacrifice. Nor would I find it surprising to see a Statue of Mossadegh and Bakhtiar built in Front of the Iranian Parliment as Reminders of the Struggle for Democracy and Independance and a reminder of the limits in which the Power of the King should be confined within it's constitutional obligations and duties.

A look at Westminister where Cromwell's Statue and that of Richard the Lion Heart or Winston Churchill are exposed are a testimony to the fact that there is not incompatibility between the struggle of the British Nation for Democracy and it's Pride in It's Sovereignity embodied by it's Royal Idenity.

I believe that should also be applied to the Iranian Monarchy if People decide to restore it one day or not. The same should apply to the Republic for that matter if we chose to install that as an option for the Revolution's human casualties and collateral damages on the nation for more than a generation surpass all the crimes commited under the two Pahlavi King's reigns.

My Humble Opinion,

DK 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

They are such a disgrace themseves that any insult you try to use is an injustice to the name you call them.  They are so stupid they are an insult to the word stupid. Beshur-ahmag-peshkel-asp.

AlexInFlorida

31 years on Iranians are less productive in the government than if they had cows, horses and sheep running it, in place of Islamic RI representatives. They not only act like undomesticated animals, but look very similar to them too.

You are sort of right here. Iranians are very productive it just happens that 6-10 million of us live outside of Iran :-( We have become one of the most productive  immigrants  in the world. It is a shame that our productivity is stifled in Iran. 

Once the IRR goes Iranian inside will also prosper. Iran will flower once again. Free of the yoke of Islam nothing will stop us. The proof is right here for all to see. Just take a look at Iranians who are not under the IRR Islamic c***p.

PS: cows give milk and are honorable creatures. Mullahs are dishonorable and useless.  Therefore even calling them pigs is an insult to pigs. 

Prison Wardens Face Makes me Think

Surely this Warden wouldn't know what Jefferson or Madison wrote in their books.  This Wardens Face explains why we have a long way to go before we can become a Democracy.

In the Past the IRI used to Lie to people like this Warden as a way to impose their filthy values on weak people like him.  Now after 31 years people are using their reality to question the IRI.

Why do you all look like Monkeys?

How come your children are all retarded?

Why do you smell so bad?

How come horses, sheep and cows can run a country better than you?

Why does IRI rhyme with KIRI?

Does this Prison Wardens Face Make you Think too or is it just me?

It is told that

It is told that Hoveyda had actually been offered earlier to leave Iran on a mission to Beligium, but he hadn't accepted, and had chosen to stay in prison, and even later he had the opprtunity to leave, but still he didn't flee because he wanted to be tried and to prove his innocence.

I heard the same thing. One reason I kept back my criticism of the Shah. But because I did not know for sure I did not bring it up. Either way I know that Hoveyda did not believe he was going to get the brutal and unjustifiable abuse he got. 

It is in human nature to assume others are like them. Hoveyda figured that since he was a human so were others. He did not count on the bestial nature of the revolutionaries.  

He wanted to prove his innocence. The revolutionaries could not care less about innocence they wanted blood and got blood.  Damn the revolution and those who made it possible.

Shah asked Hoveyda to Leave Repeatidly

Shah wrote in his book that he asked Hoveyda to leave, urged him, begged him and even explained the agendas and motives of those that wanted him in Jail, yet Hoveyda would not budge.  

Shah then said to Hoveyda my only criticism of you is that you are too courageous for your own well being and our countries enemies will get to harm you for this. 

Iranians were not willing to be civilized in 1979 and lost many civilized, honest and productive citizens.

31 years on Iranians are less productive in the government than if they had cows, horses and sheep running it, in place of Islamic RI representatives. They not only act like undomesticated animals, but look very similar to them too.

Truth be told.

As the rumor says...

It is told that Hoveyda had actually been offered earlier to leave Iran on a mission to Beligium, but he hadn't accepted, and had chosen to stay in prison, and even later he had the opprtunity to leave, but still he didn't flee because he wanted to be tried and to prove his innocence.

I guess he had an illusion about the revolutionary crowd..:-)

Both "Systems" Oppressive

Both "systems" committed Tyranny and are stained with innocent blood. BUT the I.R.I. , in my opinion, is 10 TIMES worse as it persecuted and has oppressed brutally in the name of religion. The Shah did not profane a religion by his dictatorship; that took a Mullah ! 

vpk

for the most part, we're on the same page. however, i think that if shah did not jail hoveyda, he wouldn't have died the way he did.  it's true that shah didn't put the gun to hovyda's head and pull the trigger.  if khalkhali hadn't pulled the trigger, i think, that someone else would've killed him under khomeini's rule.  therefore, i don't want to whitewash shah's record and say his only crime was cowardice.  the way hoveyda died was the result of actions of many people. 

having said that, i don't think the people who took away the stools from under feet of arash and mohamad reza as they were hanging from the cranes were the killers either.  was it the judge who ordered their execution?  was it the head of iri's juidiciary?  was it khamenei? 

and not for a moment i would label the people of iran as a**h**es as you put it because they didn't give bakhtiar enough time.  the shah was not trusted.  people remember 1953, banning of political parties, rastakhiz and so on.  and hindsight is 20 20 (now we can say monarchy was better than theocracy, bakhtiar is better than...)  do you really think that bakhtiar had any power in the shah's system?  the game was over by the time bakhtiar was put in place.  they even televised bakhtiar bowing to shah as he was appointed by him to be "president." 

the point of this piece is about hoveyda and let's not get sidetracked.  i can feel the mosadegh haters are going to crawl out of the woodwork.  and if hoveyda was free to leave iran and would have been assassinated like farokhzad, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Souri

I am not DK or a Monarchist. My father was a Monarchist but now he curses the name of the Shah for leaving Iran and running away. People must take responsibility for their own actions. Nothing the Shah did will excuse the actions of those who murdered Hoveyda.

I'm just wondering why you (and DK) are so keen to repeat this term which comes as a rude way of calling the people?

Because they brainwashed my cousin. Put him up to their idiotic rhetoric and cost him his life. I am very angry at those who went around preaching freedom and bringing death. Is that not enough? How many people died for their cause.

My cousin was a brilliant young idealist: the best we had. He would have been a few years older than me now. He got into Aryamehr University. Next he got in with the Marxists crowd. After that I did not know him anymore. All he talked about was Marxism and how they were going to bring Utopia to Iran and the world. Now he is dead like so many other people thanks to the freedom fighters and their siren call. Oh yes they succeeded and cost more lives. You have your answer I hope it helps.

hamsade ghadimi

I already said that the Shah was a coward. He was wrong to leave Hoveyda a good man in Jail. 

but why did he leave one of his trusted men in jail?  was hoveyda a sacrificial lamb?  he basically signed hoveyda's execution order by not releasing him from jail before he left. 

I don't know only Shah can tell you and he is dead. I know that the Shah was a sick man both physically and mentally. Maybe we wanted to wash his guilt with Hoveyda's blood. Was it wrong: yes it was. Did Shah kill him: No. Did the Shah abandon him: Yes and that is a crime he must face if there is indeed an afterlife. If the revolutionaries were people not animals they would not have killed Amir Abbas Hoveyda: a good man and a patriot. Do not take my words as an excuse for the actions of the Shah. 

Lets move on and talk about Fereydoon Farrokhzad. He was not in jail. He got out and was still murdered. Who is to blame for his death? The real blame goes to people who did it.  People must take responsibility for their own actions. No blaming other people.

As for Bakhtiar if the people were not such a** h**es then they would have accepted him. We would have a real democracy and we would not be here now . He got out too. Did Shah kill him? No it was the IRR. Do not blame the wrong one.

vpk, phantom

vpk, i believe that phantom has a simple and valid point.  i don't know what you mean by the 'real culprit?'  the shah left the country (like a coward, this part you're right) but why did he leave one of his trusted men in jail?  was hoveyda a sacrificial lamb?  he basically signed hoveyda's execution order by not releasing him from jail before he left.  some monarchists say that people didn't give bakhtiar enough time (they don't question why shah waited until jan. 79 to put bakhtiar in supposed power). they say bakhtiar would have turned it around.  was bakhtiar also a sacrificial lamb?  bakthiar was able to flee but he met the same fate.  it seems that the shah was not merely a coward but much more than that.  the shah admitted that his government was corrupt, accused hoveyda of corruption and put him in jail.  my question to the monarchists is how do you resolve this conflict: your love for the shah, your love for hoveyda and shah's betrayal of hoveyda?

hoveyda and bakhtiar were not the only ones that paid the price for shah's rule.  there were many more who were part of the 'system' and their last words were 'javid shah.'  not to mention the leadr of the glorious country we had, the fifth (?) mightiest military in the world, with all that sophitistication and power left the ordinary citizens of iran in the hand of these psychopaths like the one in the video.  just thought i mention the people as a footnote.  hopefully thier sons and daughters will gain control of their own destiny and no longer let a despot rule iran.

As Phantom asked...

The question is why Shah left his men behind (especially Hovayda) who served him for decades, in prison to be ultimately executed?

I know what he means

and so do others. 

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

VPK

In the past, sometimes I thought that you were DK, being more polite with this user name. Then I changed my mind :)

Now I see you are using the same term "an-tellectual" which DK is always using to call the people names! What does "an-telectual" mean in an English text?

What you mean by this? The term Intellectual in English is pronounced "in-tellectual" vs. its French pronunciation "an-tellectual" which has nothing to do with the content of your comment which is written in English and I don't think your readers who are familiar with only English and Persian, would understand what you mean.

I'm just wondering why you (and DK) are so keen to repeat this term which comes as a rude way of calling the people?

Phantom

Shah was a coward I agree; in fact any reasonable person would. He ran off and left his nation to a bunch of psychopathic insane Mullahs. Are you happy now?

The real culprit however was not the Shah. It was the people who took over after him. It was also those "an-tellectuals" who paved the way for this national disaster. It is wrong to blame actions of Mullahs on the Shah. He did what he could to prevent it. Did he do a good job: No! Did he sc**w up: Yes! But there is no way you can pin this on him. If the revolution had been run by humans and not beasts none of this would have happened. Unfortunately the lowest scum of earth took over and the rest is history.