INDEPENDENCE

باز هم ممنون

از دوستانی که اظهار نظر کرده اند ممنونم. خیلی عالی بود.

عزت زیاد 

نقش ناتو پس از جنگ سرد

//www.hafteh.de/?p=20508

interdependence = وابستگی = اتکاء متقابل = استقلال مصلحتی

.

Sigh ... No Wonder the JM Screwed Up the Country ...

YES, PRIME MINISTER: A StepBy Step Guide To Mossadegh's Premiership and the Coup of '53 ...

I’m Afraid They NEVER understood the Basics of Political discourse ...

Machiavelli's"The Prince" and the "Art" of Governing  

LOL

Recommended Blogs:

Mehdi Bazargan and the controversial legacy of Iran's Islamic intellectual movement

Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the '79 Revolution 

Ari Jan there's no such thing as a «democratic» Chain of Command

When it comes to the Military there is no such thing as a « democratic » chain of command.

The Military by definition operates in a very pyramidal and « undemocratic » behavior with an hierarchy which separates ordinary soldiers from officers themselves subdivided between different ranks with specific responsabilities and duties. And the fact that we deliver Medals and honors based on the merits of those who serve proves that the Military is a Meritocracy not a democracy. 

This is true in ALL regimes democratic or not.

Now if you mean that the Commander in Chief who is at the very top of this hierarchy should be chosen democratically that is an entirely different debate.

In a Republic like France (Parliamentarian) or the United States ( Federal in this case) the Commander in Chief happens to be the Elected President.

Now one can argue whether or Not the Elected President lives up to the Job or debate on whether the country should or not engage itself in some Military conflict ( as has been the case for the US during WWI, WWII, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan) …

President Kennedy clearly did as in the case of the Cuba Crisis :

PRESIDENCY ON SCREEN: Kevin Costner tackles Cuban Crisis in "Thirteen Days"

Where as President Obama (the  Nobel Peace Prize Laureate) clearly didn’t in the case of Libya :

PRECISION DRILLING: Allied Military Operations in Libya in Progress ...

But earned some of his lost credibility with his Bin Laden Operation ( Based on work and information obtained under Torture ? or by his predecessor ? ) 

CONSPIRACY THEORY: Omid Djalili Discovers Bin Laden's Hide Out ;0) 

But regardless of the outcome the Military Chain of Command follows orders from One Person and One Person Only : The Head of State.

You may legitimately ask :What if the Head of State is Not Democratically elected then ?

To fully answer this question one needs to distinguish between two existing situations.

A) are we speaking of a dictatorship ?

OR

B) Are We Speaking about a democracy in which the Head of State is not democratically elected ? 

If it is A) then we are speaking about a dictatorship ( as was the case under the last Shah or the current Velayateh Fagih) and I don’t think I need to answer this questionn a second time:

What is it your don't Understand ? ;0)

If it is B) then I suppose it is no secret to you that there exist fully democratic and politically accountable systems of governments in the world today which operate with an Unelected Head of State.

World's Top Democratic Governments: Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2010(PHOTOS)

For instance in a Federal Republic like Germany or Italy they have a President who has a purely symbolic rôle where as the real power is in the hands of the German Chancellor and the Italian Prime Minister in these respective countries. 

The other system of government which exists is what we call a CONSTITUTIONAL Monarchy in which the Head of State is the Monarch.

In a Constitutional Monarchy the Commander in Chief remains the Monarch who is the only person who can declare war or peace with it’s neighbours or engage his or her country’s participation in a Coalition in case of an international conflict. But in practice this is just a symbolic formality for the real power and décision to engage or not the country in remains in the hands of the Prime Minister. The PM submits such important décisions to the knowledge of the Monarch who has no other choice but to abide to the décision of the PM ( himself or herself having decided with his cabinet).

PREMIERSHIP: Historian Simon Schama's Tour of 10 Downing Street

But the Symbolism remains. 

AN EAGLE HAS LANDED: Obama Hails UK-US's "Special Relationship" during State Visit

Any decision made by the democratically elected PM is ALWAYS carried out in the name of the CROWN. Since the Monarch symbolizes national unity ( particularly in times of War) and it is the Monarch ultimately who declares War or Peace (See the movie the King’s Speech). Again that is because The Crown Remains the focul point of the nation’s patriotic embodiment in all Monarchies ( Constitutional or not).

One may not like that idea or consider it absurd, that the Head of State is a Monarch and not the PM but it Exists and works quite well. For in Practice the PM is ultimately acts as the Real Head of State both domestically and on the international arena: 

PREMIERSHIP ON SCREEN: Michael Sheen as Tony Blair in "The Special Relationship"

For instance quite recently in Norway given that the King was on vacation, the Crown Prince was named Regent in absentia and it was his « signature » ( with full knowledge of his father as well as his endorsement) which officially gave the Green light forthe Military engagement of Norwegian planes in Libya :

Crown Prince Regent sends Norwegian planes to Libya

This symbolism actually served Spain for instance at the time of the Coup in 1980 when Juan Carlos as head of the Armed Forces came on Television and strongly opposed the Putchists and demanded their return to Baracks. That test for Spanish Democracy ultimately became a milestone for the Legitimacy of King Juan Carlos’ as the embodiement of a democratic King who was undemocratically put onthe Throne by General Franco :

Colonel Tojeros Takes Spanish Parliament Hostage

King Juan Carlos Speaks on National TV in Military Uniform to Oppose the Coup

In the case of the King of Greece it was to prove quitethe opposite  since the Monarch ultimately lost his crown for hesitating to oppose the Military Coup and this created an ambiguity in greek public opinion which ultimately sent the King to exile and cost him his Crown, given that the Greeks did not Restore the Monarchy despite the fall of the colonels :

From that Point of View it is interesting to note the différence between the Force of Conviction, Character and Reactivity of two monarchs when faced with their respective crisis.

Juan Carlos very Much Like Kennedy Reacted Rapidly and decisively where as Obama very much like King Constantin was hesitant and intellectualized America’s rôle in Libya which resulted in crippling the Coalition forces efficiency by imposing Nato’s Bureaucracy in a conflict which could have had not only a rapid conclusion for Libya but would have definitively discouraged the Likes of Bachar El Assad in Syria or Saleh in Yemen to act as savagely as they have been doing in crushing dissent.

In Short that the Army in general and Public Opinion tend to admire and follow a Commander in Chief who doesn’t hesitate in giving orders and who knows how to take risks when necessary.

Therefore Any Head of State(Elected or Not) has to understand the nature of the responsability it bears on it’s shoulders even if the country is not involved in a military conflict per se.

What matters to a democratic state is that the Army has to be accountable and under direct supervision of the democratically elected Government as well as the Parliament which is free to debate on issues such as the Military Bugdet, or other issues of interest in relation to the Armed Forces including social matters such as whether or not toallow Gays in the Army.

In conclusion I would say that when it comes to an Institution like Military, there is no such thing as a democratic chain of command.

There is only a Commander in Chief ... Period !

In Short someone Like an Elected President in a Republic or an Elected Prime Minister who knows how to carry the job when necessary whilst respecting the democratic institutions of the country.

Otherwise you may end up with this:

SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (FOR Soraya Ulrich & Hamid Dabashi)

Just Like in Some South American Banana Republic ... 

Or During the So Called Coup of 53 in which the Monarch we know today had no direct role:

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ?

Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"?

Alas as Iranians today we have No Iranian equivalent of a Roosevelt or Churchill to live up to those Superior National Expectations !

And I doubt with the current Defeatist Mindset in the Diaspora we will ever find one in our lifetime.

My Humble Opinion,

DK

Recommended Blogs:

Crown Prince Reza on importance of "Checks and Balances" of future regime

A Response to David ET's Blog: "Iranicans" Get Your Acts Together!!!

Other Recommended Blogs: 

ROYAL FORUM: Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican

ROYAL RHINOPLASTY: Stephen Fry On The Imperfections of the Monarchy and Why It Should Be Preserved

جوانان عجم

آقای کاظم زاده فکر میکنم حدس من از اینکه شما مقامی دانشگاهی و یا به عبارتی آکادمیک هستید درست از آب درآمده و این باعث خوشحالی است. بنده کارشناسی ارشد روابط بین الملل دارم  و شاید اگر خدا بخواهد مدرک دکتری هم در این رشته بگیرم واما سئوال اصلی این است : بین همه آن مطالبی که در متون آکادمیک میخوانیم و آنچه در واقعیت وجود دارد، تفاوتهای زیادی موجود است که حتی بیشتر اوقات واقعیت صدو هشتاد درجه با آن چیزی که در اسناد سیاسی است تفاوت دارد. بنده تقریباً همه اصول منشور ملل متحد را با این انگلیسی الکنی که دارم حفظم ولی  عملاً شکاف عمیقی بین این اصول و واقعیت های موجود می بینم. به نظر شما چاره چیست ؟ یا مثل دوستان چپ و مارکسیست باید بگوئیم که نوشته های مارکس و انگلز و به طور کلی کلاسیک های کمونیستی معیار اصلی هستند و همه واقعیت ها و اقدامات باید در پیروی از این تئوری ها باشد. یعنی اگر اگر چیزی باید عوض شود واقعیت های هستند نه اسناد و مدارک. این تقریباً چیزی است که جنابعالی و همه همکاران دانشگاهی شما همیشه مدافع آن هستید. جنابعالی نوشته های مرا عین ورقه امتحانی تصحیح کردید و همه را یک به یک رد فرموده اید. بنده قبول دارم که نوشته هایم با کلاسیک های سیاسی که معیار مراجعه شماست نمیخواند و درست نکته همیجاست. به نظر این حقیر سراپا تقصیر این سئوال مطرح است :احتمالاً ما مفاهیم اساسی علم سیاست مثل " استقلال" ، " وابستگی" ، " وابستگی دوجانبه یا چند جانیه و یا متقابل" را بد فهمیده ایم و یا اصلاً نفهمیده ایم. دولت کمونیستی آلبانی در زمان انور خوجه ، مستقل ترین ودر عین حال بد بخت ترین کشور جهان بود. آیا منظور از استقلال همین است. من فکر میکنم درک ما به ویژه طبقه دانشگاهیمان در همین حد است. اغلب وزرا و دولتمردان دهه 1950  ایران و به اصطلاح شما JM از همین قماشند. تحصیل کرده دانشگاه های فرانسه و اسیر صفحات کتب دانشگاهی. شما ها بلدید فقط غلط دیکته دیگران را بگیرید ولی هیچگاه سعی نکردید خودتان هم انشائی بنویسید. قبلاً هم عرض کردم خدمت با سعادتتان ، کاظم زاده عزیز : گازوریسکی و دیگران را ولش کن که گفته اند شاه نوکر آمریکا بود و چه و چه و چه. خودت چی فکر میکنی؟ خواهش میکنم لحظه ای خودت باش. جدا از کتب دانشگاهی و جزوات مختلف چی فکر میکنی؟ بدون مراجعه به جزوات مختلف POl 399 معنایی از استقلال ارائه بده که با واقیعت های امروزی میخواند. اینقدر لینک این ور و آن ور نده. از تجربیات شخصی خودت در خصوص استقلال صحبت کن. مستقل ترین شخصیت و کشوری که میشناسی کیه ؟ اصلاً به نظر تو استقلال خوبه یا بد؟ آیا میتوان استقلال را اندازه گیری کرد ؟ واحد اندازه گیری استقلال را تعریف کنید .

Poli Sci 101

Cyrus Moradi makes a number of statements with ZERO citation or documentation. CM terribly confuses definitions of political concepts. He does not know what he is talking about.

1. CM alleges that FDR wanted the Europeans to manage the war and the U.S. not to be involved. ACTUAL reality was that FDR strongly wanted the US to enter the war but he could not convince the Congress and the American public to support him on this issue (a result of the backlash against WWI). In actual reality FDR had assisted the UK and others via lend-lease which gave about $50 billion (in 2008 prices about $759 billion).

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

2. It is utter nonsense to say that the Atlantic Charter was in reality the end of the traditional notion of independence. In actually reality, one of the main pillars was the support for the "right of self-determination." This caused a lot of consternation between FDR who supported this and Churchill who opposed it (as being applied to British control over its colonies such as India). This was significant for countries like India which were official colonies of the UK (and Iran which was an unofficial colony of the UK).

3. CM does not understand the meaning of these terms and insults the Iranian people who opposed being ruled by stooges of foreign powers.

4. CM badly confuses the meaning of terms such as independent, dependent, interdependent.

An independent country is one in which the leaders of the country make their own decisions. They do NOT take orders from the leaders of other countries. They take into account a number of factors.

CM confuses the factors that influence the decisions with taking orders. For example, a slave takes orders from the slave owner. But when I decide what restaurant to go to for dinner, I take into account many factors such as the kind of food, my hunger (if I am not very hungry I could drive 1 hour but if I am very hungry I would only drive for 5 minutes), price of the meal (if I have a lot of money I will go to a great restaurant, and if I do not have a lot of money to Burger King).

A dependent (or colony, or puppet) country or leader is one which the rulers of another country have the say in the major decisions of the country. The Shah was nokar of foreign powers.

Interdependence refers to independent countries having a mutual relationship whereby there is a give-and-take.

In many economic relations, countries rely upon imports and exports and the actions of each may have influence on the decision making of others.

The fact that the U.S. needs to import oil from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, does not make the U.S. a puppet of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. The U.S. needs the oil and pays for it and gets oil from them. These counties can charge the rate determined via many factors including market and non-market factors. The is dependent on foreign oil, but the US is not nokar of Kuwait.

5. As usual, CM is wrong. The Monroe Doctrine had nothing with isolationism. On the contrary, the Monroe Doctrine stated that the U.S. regards the Western hemisphere as its own sphere of influence and will oppose the entrance of European powers into it.

//www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=23

The U.S. would not participate in European wars, but it will counter any Europeans trying to colonize the western hemisphere. It asserted the U.S. as the sole hegemonic power in the Western hemisphere. It was regional interference.

6. In ACTUAL REALITY, in 1947 the people of India under the leadership of Gandhi succeeded in kicking the British colonial masters out, and gained their INDEPENDENCE. Many others also succeeded. In Iran, Iranian nationalists were defeated. The Shah was puppet of those who succeeded in the defeat of the pro-independence Iranians. The Shah returned our oil to a consortium composed of British, American and a few others.

The Atlantic Charter in actual reality proposes the right of self-determination which means the right of the Iranian people to become independent from the British colonial control (and after 1953 coup the US-UK control of Iran). This right was enshrined in the UN Charter. Helooooooo

The right of self-determination is enshrined in the VERY first article. Article 1.2.

//www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"

AGAIN, Article 2 begins with strong and unequivocal support for sovereignty of each member state. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

"Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. "

7. The political leaders of our independence movement fully understood the meaning of the UN Charter. In actual proceedings of the World Court, Dr. Mossadegh won. Again, when Mossadegh personally arrived at the UN Security Council meeting, the British withdrew their case from the UNSC.

8. The UN is a verrrrrrrry weak confederacy. Each member does delegate a small amount of its sovereignty. Each member has the right to leave the UN (or any of its agencies) after proper notice. The US, for example, under Reagan left the UNESCO. (If I remember correctly, it came back under Bush II). 

9. Iran after the expulsion of the Shah has become independent. The FACT that the fundamentalists are extremists, brutal reactionaries, and incompetent and have undermined Iran’s economy are different issues. Khomeini and Khamenei are morons. But they are independent. The Shah was a puppet but he did have more competent policies. 

One should oppose the Shah because he was nokar, and brutal savage tyrant. One should oppose the terrorist fundamentalist regime because it is reactionary, brutal, tyranny.

These has nothing to do with Iranians' lack of understanding of the English language. One may read top scholarly books by top scholars. For example, Professor Mark Gasiorowski study of how the shah was nokar of the U.S. and how the US government created this subservient system in Iran. Prof Gasiorowski is a top prof at the Dept of Political Science at LSU. He was born in the U.S. and know the English language better than CM.

Mark Gasiorowski, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah: Building a Client State in Iran (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991).

//www.amazon.com/U-S-Foreign-Policy-Shah-Building/dp/0801424127/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313453255&sr=1-4

We have to use concepts correctly and be honest.

CM does not know the basic scholarly definitions and concepts and terribly confuses the concepts of independence, autarky, interdependence, internationalism, globalization, isolationism. CM is totally ignorant of the basic scholarly definitions of these concepts. CM does not know what he is writing about.

My suggestion. Before insulting others and calling them avam farib, and ignorant of the English language, CM should take a few political science classes such as "Intro to Comparative Politics," and "Intro to International Relations." Ignorance is not a bliss. One needs to take courses and learn the basic materials before insulting others who do use concepts correctly.

Masoud

Bretton Woods Agreement and its implications

Instead of an emphasis on NATO, some might, correctly, argue that the above mentioned agreement was a lot more significant in maintaing the North Atlantic supremacy in post WWII Era. The current financial turbulence to a large extent dates back to break up of that treaty. Hence worth paying attention to as the significant, crucial alliance in the West, rather than a military epiphenomenon.

With all due respect, frankly all this reminder of Nationalist's mistakes and Foroughi's  greatness is gettign a bit tiresome and needlessly repetitive. As for a contemporary read on Iranian intllectuals, and their positions and place within International Relations of the past century and now, see works of Mehrzad Boroujerdi:

//faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/mborouje/Writings.h...

Ari: Farsi translation of interdependence still needs a lot of work, your suggestions are a good start, cheers

 Independence is the

 Independence is the condition when a nation or a country or a state is under the self governing state by the residents of the country or the nation. The term is used in contradiction to subjugation. It is often *liberation from some ruling power

 Sovereignty is a pessimistic explanation i.e. the state of not being restricted by another power from end to end through colonialism, expansionism or imperialism.

*Liberation: Liberation is a way of speaking and acting freely within a country .  Or a country that has been liberated, or freed from another country's rule.

However, I like to ask Mr. Moradi, whether a rentier nation such as IRI can ever espouse any kind of substantive sovereignty firts and foremost  where it's economy is soley dependent on one product, oil?

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

Thank you Cyrous

You have brought up a discussion topic certainly worth exploring.

At this point the debate is till on whether the concept of national independence has any meaning. I propose that we can give it meaning by requiring an unambiguous chain of command to exist in the nation where this chain of command is entirely domestic. Of course there are times where we would need to yield to outside realities, but the decision to yield must come from the internal chain of command [Here we can insert the idea of a democracy as a chain of command where the ultimate commander in chief is the people, as is theoretically the case with the US].

Also a note on your mathematical analogy regarding derivatives. If I read you right, your statement is in error. Multivariable functions do exist with points where the derivative with respect to all variables is zero. In fact the mathematics of finding such absolute minima is an important tool in many sciences. For example, the Lagrangian method in physics, a very powerful restatement of Newtonian physics and beyond, is based on the idea of finding an infinite variable function where all the derivatives are zero (see calculus of variations). In fact all the laws of physics (so far discovered) can be reduced to statements about the absolute minima (or maxima) of such functions. The Universe as we know it, would not exist without this mathematical fact.

 Mr. Moradi: most

 Mr. Moradi: most Excellent and comprehesive commentary on the topic of "esteghlal"....Wish we had more analyses like yours on IC. This topic is worth much more discussion.  I hope your comment is read by as many people as possible.

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

!!!!آبیته

با تشکر از کلیه دوستانی که اظهار نظر کردند و سپاس از کسانی که نکردند ! 1-    برآیند اظهار نظرات نشان دهنده آن است که هنوز واژه استقلال جذاب است و بالاتر از آن برخی فکر میکنند که استقلال در زمینه های مختلف امکان پذیر است. عبارت ترکیبی " خودکفائی" به اندازه خود واژه استقلال دلفریب است و برخی از تحصیلکرده کردگان ایرانی فکر میکنند که کشور ما میتواند در اغلب زمینه ها روزی به خود کفائی برسد!2-    منظور بنده این است که در جهان مدرن نمیتوان مستقل بود ولی میتوان وابستگی های متقابل را به نفع خود مدیریت کرد. تمام منشور آتلانتیک سندی است حاصل وابستگی متقابل انگلیس و آمریکا. قابل درک است که بیشتر مواد مترقی آن تحت فشار مقامات آمریکایی در منشور آمده است و طرف انگلیسی رغبتی به آن نداشت ولی شرایط طوری بود که باید حتماً پای آمریکا به جنگ باز میشد و چرچیل حاضر بود هزینه ها را بپردازد. حتی برای اولین بار در تاریخ امپراطوری بریتانیا ، انگلیس مجبور شد پایگاه دریایی در خاک خود به نیروی دریایی آمریکا واگذار کند که کاملاً بیسابقه بود. 3-    به جای فکر کردن به استقلال ، میتوان به مدیریت وابستگی های متقابل به نفع طرفین فکر کرد. موضوعی که ما اصلاً در آن مهارت نداریم. با رفتن به دانشگاه نمیتوان اینها را یاد گرفت. 4-    از نظر ریاضی میتوان استقلال و یا وابستگی را اندازه گیری کرد. به عنوان مثال میزان تکثیر مگس شراب تابعی است نمایی از ضریبی ثابت و عدد نپر(e=2,71) به توان xاین xاز موردی به مورد دیگر فرق میکند. خلاصه اینکه میتوان در این خصوص که آیا اقتصاد آمریکا به نفت وارداتی  از ایران بیشتر وابسته است  تا اقتصاد ایران به سیگارهای برگ وارداتی از کوبا و یا لباس های زیر لوکس از ایتالیا به زبان عدد و رقم بحث کرد. اینکه فلان رژیم به فلان دولت بیشتر وابسته است یا نه می توان به صورت  کاملاً دقیقی بحث کرد ولی در پایان هنوز این سئوال بی پاسخ خواهد ماند که فلان دولت از وابستگی خود به فلان کشور چقدر منتفع میگردد. نفس حضور فلان ژنرال در فلان تاریخ در ایندولند نمی تواند این موضوع را ثابت کند که ایندولند در حال حاضر مستقل تر است. به نظر من موضوع خیلی پیچیده تر از اینهاست. دولت وابسته به آمریکا و انگلیس احمد قوام السلطنه توانست آذربایجان عزیز را دوباره به آغوش میهن بازگرداند و حکومت های پوشالی شوروی را در آنجا سرنگون سازد. این را میگویند مدیریت وابستگی متقابل. در حال حاضر برخی از مقامات عراقی با تخلیه کامل عراق از نیروهای آمریکایی در تاریخ های تعیین شده مخالفت کرده و خواستار ادامه حضور آنها در خاک عراق تا تاریخ های معینی هستند. این یعنی مدیریت وابستگی به نفع استقلال ملی عراق.5-    به طور خلاصه ، مرده ها مستقل ترین آدم های روی زمین هستند.

با بلاهت تمام بیطرفی تهران را به آنها یادآور میشد!

You can be independent but it is going to cost you.  Sometimes like in the case of Iraq and continued violence despite 10 years of US Military occupation and intervention it just gets out of hand no matter what you do or how independent or dependent you are. 

Everything is sacred

 RG: Too true. IRI is

 RG: Too true. IRI is independent in thieving, raping, pillaging, and squandering the nation's future generation collective wealth and putting it into its own pocket. They are extremely independent in that area...lol

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

Islamist regime is surely more "independent" than Shah...

They need nobody's permission before killing political prisoners. No "dependent" show trials to please US's demands for democracy. Islamist regime's  "independent" show trials on the other hand, are just to please the home grown, "independent" dictator.

So decide for yourself, if you want a "dependent" or "independent" tin pot dictator. That is if you are truely into tin pot dictators and can not think outside the tin box of dictatorship...  

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Thank you vildemose jan

Lotf dareed !

I hope Hegel and Heidegger concur 

;0) 

 DK: your description of

 DK: your description of the zeitgeist of that period is spot on and should be considered fully when "punditeeringing"? is there such a word?? lol

What happened to Gharabaghi?

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

 He died in 1997...Good

 He died in 1997...Good riddance.

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

Huyser did not take Charge he simply contributed to shed Doubt

within the Military Ranks due to a vacuum of Power in a period of political transition amidst internal chaos.

The Military was accounstomed to the idea of fighting an external enemy not an internal one. 

The Iranian Top Brass saw their monarch as their Only Commander In Chief particularly if they were to face a foreign Military attack on Iran but in dealing with internal turmoil the Military was crippled with doubts as is often the case when a country is plunged in Revolution. Who do you take orders from the Shah or the Prime Minister ? When the Prime Minister is a Military Commander that seemed obvious but when it's a Civilian that is less obvious in a system where the Shah was seen as Commander in Chief.

As all heads of state faced with internal turmoil The Shah was naming different Prime Ministers including a military like Azhari who were taking the Political decisions linked to major internal affairs (aimed at sparing the Head of State ( i.e: Monarch) direct criticism for any eventual bloodshed or crackdown of the demonstrators) hence creating confusion in the chain of commands when it came to dealing with internal turmoil.

But that is not a sign of lack of independence but lack of a sophisticated anti riot infrastructure to deal with internal turmoil. As strange as it may seem Iran did not even have an anti riot police as they normally exist in most democratic countries let alone dictatorships. Like effective Water Cannons to dispatch demonstrators without having to use gunfire, or a Mounted Police to charge into demonstrations when the going gets tough.

In such circumstances it is not unusual to see an American Military Commander or one of any other Allied Country arrive in civilian clothes under the pretext of being some military advisor or consultant without necessarily stating for what mission and getting all the necessary authorizations to move into the barracks and Military headquarters.

Garabaghis Role in that regard is said to have been determinent.

Diplomatic corps do that all the time. But in a Revolutionary atmosphere such things can go unnoticed or out of hand and lead to the wrong interpretations and conclusions.

The Military was actually quite loyal to the Shah to the very last minute. There is a confusion which has been entertained for 3 decades in the minds of Iranians in regard to the Army's declaration of neutrality during the Revolution. That is due to the fact that people confuse the Homafars ( actually technicians with no real military status) who greeted Khomeiny at Mehrabad Airport and the so called Neutrality of the Airforce Commanders Notably Rabii.

The Military was in no way ready to give up responsability. One merely needs to listen to Rahimi's comments during his televised interrogation by Ebrahim Yazdi and see his staunch loyalty towards the Shah whom he considers as the only Commander in Chief.

It was actually this staunch loyalty of the military commanders towards to their Monarch added to the confusion created by Huyser's visit to the Top Brass (most probably suggesting  that Bakhtiar would not be supported by the American Administration, hence creating a sense of insecurity and suspicion within the different departments) which ultimately crippled Bakhtiar's authority to impose himself despite the Shah's official endorsement of his Premiership.  

 More on

 More on Huyser:

Huyser was a command pilot and flew more than 5,000 hours in SAC bombers, nearly 2,000, hours in SAC tankers, about 1,400 hours in single engine jet aircraft and 1,500 hours in B-25, C-54, T-39 and various light aircraft.

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

What do you think Naccache or Roland Dumas did in Tehran ? ;0)

DK: I bet you there are

DK: I bet you there are more than a few American generals or army personnel right now in both Syria and Libya without Quadffi or Assad knowing. Does that make them stooges of the US??

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

The circumstances around

The circumstances around General Husyr's arrival to Iran? How was he able to come without anyone noticing? Who helped him from Iran to make this a secret mission??

This further proves that Khomeini and his so called popular movement was not "independent" and had the full backing of foreign nations who did not care about the welfare of Iranians only their interest.

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

Just my point Darius

Huyser came to Iran without the Shah's knowledge or permission to engage
in a most improtant national security issue.Can you imagine some general from another country being able to do the same with the IRGC behind Khamenei's back?

Appended to this comment later: Huyser's visit suggests a bifurcated chain of command at the top of the Iranian armed forces, with Huyser apparently more the commander in chief than the Shah when it really mattered.  This is not to say that in 1979 the Shah himself wasn't independence minded; it just means that he was not really in charge of the army that he commanded in name.

 DK: Useful info. Thanks.

 DK: Useful info. Thanks. Is this general still alive??

This further proves that Khomeini and his so called popular movement was not "independent" and had the full backing of foreign nations who did not care about the welfare of Iranians only their interest.

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

Ari Jan it did not exactly happen as you put it ...

General Huyser's meeting with the Iranian Top Brass took place without the Shah's direct knowledge and amidst the revolutionary turmoil and chaos. As a matter of fact in his autobiography "Answer to History" The Shah harshly criticized Huyser' dubious role:

The following article being one published in TIME announcing the Shah's upcoming Memoires refers to the Shah's assessments on Huyser:

Nation:Thrown Out Like a Dead Mouse (Time, Monday Dec 17th, 1979)

The Shah writes that he was astonished when helearned last January that U.S. Air Force General Robert Huyser, then Deputy Commander in Chief of American forces in Europe, had been in Tehran for several days. "General Huyser's movements were normally laid down in advance. But this time nothing ... I questioned my generals. They, too, knew nothing. What,then, was this American general doing in Iran?"

The Shah believes that Huyser's mission was to"neutralize the Iranian army" when demonstrations turned violent.

 "General Huyser remained in Iran for several days after my departure. Having arranged for the generals to abandon Dr.Shahpour Bakhtiar, head of the coalition government formed to see the country through its hour of crisis, all that remained for the fulfillment of his mission was the decapitation of Iran's army.

"He was quickly to be satisfied. One by one they were executed ... Before the parody of a trial which preceded his execution, General Amir Hussein Rabii, commander in chief of the Iranian airforce, was questioned about the role played by General Huyser. He replied to his judges: 'General Huyser threw the emperor out of the country like a dead mouse.' "

...........

....

.. 

In addition I should add that Unlike Turkey Iran was not even a member of NATO which actually prompted the Shah to develop his controversial Nuclear Program EURODIF with the help of the French Government to the dismay of the American Administration and even went on as to publicly claim that Iran is entitled to an Atom Bomb like any other developed Western Nation or European Ally of the United States: 

Shah of Iran on Nuclear Weapons

It was precisely the Shah's insistence on Military independence which triggered the harshest critics in the West:

pictory: Shah Interview with Barbara Walters and US Networks (1974-77)

Including during the Nixon Years: See Particularly the conversation between Nixon and then California's governer Ronald Reagan:

Shah to Nixon on "Revolutions" vs "Evolutions" in Middle East (1969) 

Or During the Ford Administration: 

pictory: (SURPRISE) Shah and Sadat Pro Palestine Statement (1975)

So I truly don't see how the Shah ever relinquished Iran's independence as one could expect from a so called Stooge of the Americans or a so called Israeli "puppet" as he was recurrently described  by his opponents (including Iranian revolutionaries of '79):

Shah Responds to Mike Wallace  Reading of  his CIA Psychological Profile

Shah of Iran’s Rebuttal of Mike Wallace’s use of the term « Gulf » instead of « Persian Gulf » and criticisms of the Jewish Lobby in America

Were it not for an underestimated Inner Enemy (that is the revolution), Iran's Territorial Integrity and Military Independence was no less no more under American Scrutiny than any other Western European Nation of the time.

One can legitimately argue if Iran was independent enough in comparison to other NATO Allies or whether it could rely totally on itself in the face of a Powerful Foe like the Soviet Union with which it also tried to normalize it's relations:

RUSSIAN ROULETTE: Shah's Historic State Visit to Brezhnev's USSR

 That after all is Diplomacy ...

But that is entirely different from erroneously suggesting that Iran was some kind of American or British Colony ... 

That is simply Not True , No more than Reza Shah was a sidekick to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy from whom Iran was buying Military equipement.

The Only legitimate question regarding the Shah's Era is whether Iran and Iranians could afford that type of Independence ? ...

The Revolution proved it couldn't  ...

But then one can return the Question to those in charge today or support the current regime and it's Constitution if their so called Independence is truly benefiting the People of Iran ? : 

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TicxUj93vmI

I think Not !

My Humble Opinion,

DK 

Mr. Moradi, Thank you for

enlightening us through your great article.

Decleration of

Decleration of Interdependence:

//iranian.com/main/blog/siah/participate-crowdsourced-film-it-only-takes-5-minutes-0

 //connectedthefilm.com/interdependence/

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

 A rentier nation like

 A rentier nation like Iran by definition cannot have any meaningful "independence" regardless of covert prejuidice against the West. If a Syrian or Palestinian or a Hizballah general would go to Iran, I'm sure there would be no objection..

"There is enough in this world to meet every man's need but not every man's greed." --Gahndi

Independence vs. interdependence

Independence = Esteghlaal.

interdependence (as in Atlantic Charter or strategic trade patnership) = Etekaa' e moteghabel perhaps. Vabastegi?

You are right, we tend to confuse the two concepts. But Iran now is more independent (though no less interdependent than before 1979).

Example:

Prior to the revolution, the US general Huyser traveled to Iran to confer with the Iranian Army ( some say to to disable the Army, some say to stabilize, etc.). I can't imagine any general from another country being in a position to do the same with the IRGC.