PAHLAVI

It's 2012

by I despise fascists and st... on Tue Mar 27, 2012 06:56 AM PDT

Dear Mr. Kazemzadeh

First of all, I accept that it was criminal that Reza Shah killed his former allies.

Moving on, it's pointless that in 2012 JM is still more busy attacking a dethorned and dead Shah than a ruling mullah.

It was LIES AND EXAGRATIONS that made people become overly emotiona and act irretionally, which allowed Khomeini to take over and for people to acquiesce to the bloodletting that hasn't stopped for 33 years. 

I call it a lie because you only point out facts that support your arguments. Yes Havaniruz switched sides, the military leaders declared neutrality and may others were easily arrested and executed while Sanjabi and Bazargan and Forouhar sat on the floor with "Imam Khomeini." But this collapse came more than a year after the first protests began, nearly a month after Shah left the country - all military leaders and Dr. Sadighi told the Shah the military would collapse if he left - and more than a week after Khomeini arrived. If the Shah was as bad as they said, he would have crushed the rebellion like other dictators do.

In 2012, after all that has happened, you and the likes of you are not telling the truth of what the Shah really was, a dictator that needed to be reformed or forced into a peaceful and timely retirement. If in 1978, the opposition and the people of Iran had believed the revolution was to correct Shah's dictatorial ways, to ask for free elections, just as JM had done in 1977, today you and I would be in Iran, my father would have never gone to Khomeini's jail and over half a million Iranians wouldn't have died needlessly.

Instead secular and educated leaders poured fuel on the unfounded rumors such as that the Savak killed Shariati, a lie; that the Shah ordered the killing of Mustafa Khomeini, another lie, that helicopoters nightly dropped people into Qum salt lake, a lie, that 2 million people were killed by Savak. JM allied itself with the arsonists of Cinema Rex.

Going back to Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines and South Africa, the movements for democracy wasn't about total demonization of the ruling class, it was more founded on asking for a brighter future. YOU REVOLUTIONARIES of 1978 thought nothing of the future and only of how to get revenge on the Shah. 33 years later, with 5,000,000 Iranians needlessly dead, millions driven away from home, two generations of Iranians their lives wasted, you spend nearly all your time attacking a regime that most Iranians, whether they are monarchinsts or not, agree wasn't nearly as bad as they were told.

I don't believe your 5-10% and I don't know if a majority of Iranians want a return to monarchy, possibly not, but I do know that the overwhelming majority of Iranians think if they weren't fooled into a revolution and if the previous generation, YOU, had stopped when the Shah began his liberalization their lives would be better today.

And one more thing, repeating Amnesty Inertational report of 1975 is dishonest because all logical people must know that at that time Shah was NOT "the most abuser of human rights." In 1975, Albania and North Korea had no opposition, because the government simply killed them, victorious vietnam was settling scores with thousands of Vietnamese who workef for the fallen regime, China was in the midst of Cultural Revolution, Baath regime was killing Iraqis by the hundreds.

When people say the Shah was a dictator, I accept that, when they cricise his human rights records, I feel sad that he abused the rights of our people. But to call him a fascist and anyone who believes in his son a fascist, it's just irresponsible.

Lastly about the Nazi party supporting the Shah, Communist Party USA supported Obama, does that make him a Communist?

KOOCHEH ALI...

by maziar 58 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 06:12 AM PDT

how nice of our beloved hamvatan!?

middle of did-o bazdid AND Royal green nurooz album

decidede to take us to karbala!!

1933 and beyonds

say some thing nuroozi not diroozi.

I'll go get my coffee.

Maziar

Pro-Democracy vs. Monarchist

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:33 AM PDT

Dear ISFAS,

1. If I wrote anything that is a lie or false, then you should quote the statement and then prove that my statement is false. Simply saying "most of them lies" without proving my statements false, is not constructive debate. You should enumerate ALL the statements of mine that you challenge their voracity.

2. I was teaching two classes today and had a little time between my two classes. Therefore, in the response, I could only discuss a few things. Actually, I did discuss many things. On Dr. Sedeghi. Dr. Sedeghi accepted to become PM. Dr. Sedeghi asked the Shah to remain in Iran. The Shah did not go through and did not made the offer official. Dr. Sedeghi was a decent democratic man. Where in the world I offered the definition of "fascism" to be accepting to become PM or recommending the Shah to remain in Iran. At the time, it was assumed that Sedeghi refused the Shah’s offer. Now we know that the Shah did not offer Sedeghi to become PM. At the time, Sedeghi was not an active member of JM. Later on, he rejoined the JM.

On Milani’s book. I posted the following extensive review of the book by one of the top HISTORIANS of the era. Please read the review. There are laaaaaaaaaarge numbers of errors of fact and interpretation by Milani in his book.

 

//iranian.com/main/news/2011/05/23-6

//news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2011/05/122306.php

 

YOU apparently ONLY read the stuff that you already agree with. I actually like reading the works of those that I disagree with. I have large number of peer reviewed publications in scholarly journals. They do NOT publish propaganda. In these blogs and exchanges, I do present the views and analyses of pro-democracy forces. For monarchists, the views of pro-democracy forces appear as propaganda. Obviously, you are not a social scientist. And thus not familiar with the diverse perspectives. What I do present, usually are published scholarly analyses. But from the non-scholar monarchist extremists, these mainstream pro-democracy perspectives and/or scholarly objective analyses appear as propaganda because the challenge their own extremist biases.

The Shah was a brutal tyrant. He was fascistic. He was also a coward. As I discussed, due to the fact that Carter was president, the Shah did not feel that he could kill much more than he killed. And the armed forces did collapse. When you have the Havaniro forces rebel and side with Khomeini and they resist with arms the attack by the Shah’s special Guards and succeed in resisting the Guard’s attacks, the armed forces had collapsed. When the armed forces fight among each other and the rebellion side wins and the Monarchists wing fails to impose its discipline, the armed forces have collapsed. When all the top military leaders sign a collective letter and announce that they are neutral (that they will NOT support Bakhtiar’s government) even without informing Bakhtiar while having had secret negotiations with the revolutionary side the armed forces have collapsed. When the revolutionary forces go and arrest and put on trial and execute the leaders of the armed forces, the armed forces have collapsed.

The Shah did in fact kill about 2,900 unarmed protesters. His SAVAK did in fact do some of the most horrible tortures in the world. Amnesty International in its 1975 report wrote that the Shah was the worst violator of human rights on the planet. Granted, that we now know that there were a few others worse than the Shah for that title in 1975. But the Shah had people tortured by being raped and sodomized, being slowly burned alive on specially constructed metal bed ovens. There was no freedom of the speech, freedom of the press, freedom of political parties. The Shah created his one party Rastakhiz party and ordered the people to either join it, or go to prison, or get their passports and leave Iran. The Shah had all the above fascistic policies. Now was the Shah as fascistic as Hitler? No. He was more fascistic than Gen. Pinochet and Gen. Franco, but less than Mussolini. Again, Iran’s official NAZI party members joined his administration. Darush Houmayun was the LEADER of SUMKA. Houmayun served as many positions including Minister of Information and Tourism.

Here are materials on Iran’s official NAZI party and the support given to it by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (and the CIA for the 1953 coup):

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUMKA

Iran’s NAZI propaganda video: (this group does not like Dariush Houyun).

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hswwp6wqys

　

Your assertion that my statement sounds Stalinist to you indicates that either you have no clue what Stalinism is or you could not understand my clear statement. Stalinism means the mass slaughter of millions of human being, murder of members of politburo, and central committee. To say the FACT that Dr. Bakhtiar split weakened the JM is a FACT. It is a fact that because of not telling other officials of JM, and making his own deal with the Shah, other secular democrats did not support Bakhtiar is a fact. Saying that the best policy was to tell the Shah to talk to the elected leader of JM instead of with Bakhtiar was the best policy. It is 100% democratic and proper for a political party to take a vote and expel a member that makes a major decision without the prior knowledge and support of the democratic party.

Now what is bad is what Reza Shah in fact did. Reza Shah MURDERED many of his own supporters. They included the following SUPPORTERS of Reza Shah and OFFICIALS in his own government:

Taymurtash (secretly murdered in 1933)

Sardar Asad (murdered in prison in 1934)

Davar (Minister of Justice, "committed suicide in prison")

And of course Reza Shah MURDERED any poor soul who was critical of his policies:

Farokhi

Reza Shah MURDERED Sawlat al-Dawlah (member of Majles) widely believd because he wanted to steal his lands.

Do YOU see YOUR double standard. YOU support Pahlavis who ACTUALLY murdered their own supporters, those who made a criticism, and even some in order to steal their property. But when a liberal democratic group or person who does NOT kill anyone, you use the term "Stalinist"!!!!!!!!!!!!

And finally, the 5-10 percent are BASED on the various opinion indicators. Did you even READ my blog on the subject, or made your false statement (LIE) without even reading it? Here is my blog. At least READ the blog, then make a comment.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/what-do-iranians-want

　

Best,

Masoud

Dr Mr. Kazemzadeh, First

by I despise fascists and st... on Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:53 PM PDT

Dr Mr. Kazemzadeh,

First of all, it's 2012, please stop using the same tired lines from 1978, most of them lies.

Second of all, why don't you ever bring up Dr. Saddighi. He didn't want the Shah to leave Iran. So by your definition he is a fascist.

I recommend you read the book by Dr. Abbas Milani, "The Shah" Dr. Milani is a respected scholar and no-partisan. Then you will know the Shah was many things but not quite the nokar you say.

your opininos are NEVER impartial. You always present propaganda.

I said it 10 times,  no fascist brutal dictator collapses falls unless his armed forced abandon him. The Shah had the full support the army until the day he left the country. If the Shah was the brutal dictator he was that you claim, 1000s of people would have died.

Lastly, this sounds like Stalinism to me:

MK said: "Dr. Bakhtiar badly divided the JM. Because of that, Bakhtiar did not get the support of the secular democrats. Dr. Bakhtiar should have told the Shah to talk to Sanjabi and accept his demands. And the Shah should have accepted Sanjabi’s demands. I would go further and say that Sanjabi should has also demanded a public abdication from the Shah and the Shah should have accepted this."

Moreover, your 5%-10% is a poll of Iranians around you. I recommend you talk to some poor Iranians who have to be work in lowly paid jobs in Dubai, Qatar and Oman.

birin baba basatetoono gam konin!

by tehran e Azad on Mon Mar 26, 2012 09:18 PM PDT

No matter who runs a country , there will ALWAYS be some people that will find some thing wrong with that person and will bitch and moan!

In my opinion Demcracy is well beyond the majority ( 80% plus) of iranians. The majority are stuck in barberic ages.

 

Even in the most democratic country by TODAYS WORLD STANDARDS, USA,there are some people that call the president a terrorsit.

Why even entertain people that put a particular leader down??even if god existed and came down , there will be some people that will talk SH*T about him.

 

First lets  free Iran , then in a democratic free election people should elect their leaders. As much as i personally dislike IRI, if they want to run  should be able to run too. ( obviously not the one's that have committed crimes) thats freedom!

so stop your bitching about what shah did or didn't do, he has nothing to do with Reza Pahlavi .  In My opinian he cares about Iran and he would like Iran  to be a free country!

 

If there is ever a free election in Iran I WOULD DEFINATELY RUN MYSELF!!!!! but till then unite against your common enemy! 

Democrats vs. Monarchists

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:48 PM PDT

Dear IDFAS,

1. The overwhelming majority of Iranians (correctly) despise the Pahlavis. ALL indications are that either a plurality or a majority, or a vast majority of the Iranian people want a democratic secular republic. I have not seen one single indication that in any sort of opinion indicator that a majority of the people support the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy. In this blog, I have presented several major opinion indicators on the social support for various groups:

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/what-do-iranians-want

2. Based on these observations, the support base of the monarchists is around 5% to 10% of the population. Although a small minority, the monarchists are loud, aggressive, pushy, cultish, and terribly dictatorial.

3. There is no way that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people would allow the reimposition of the hated reactionary Pahlavi tyranny.

4. The Pahlavi regime was a construct of the colonial era. That era has ended. After WWI and the Bolshevik revolution, the British remain the only colonial power in Iran. The Brists wanted to make Iran a more formal colony with the 1919 agreement. Despite all his flaws (and there were many), Ahmad Shah Qajar did not sign that agreement. The two people most responsible and supportive of the 1919 agreement (which would make Iran officially a virtual colony of the UK), were Vosugh ol Dowleh and Seyyed Zia. In 1921, the British officials in Iran helped Zia dn Reza Khan to make the coup. Reza Khan soon got rid of Zia, but Vosugh was among major top persons during Reza Shah period. Later during Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Zia played significant roles (including between the Shah and Fadaian Islam).

5. There is no doubt that Mohammad Reza Shah was nokar of the UK and US. The documents are very clear. The Shah from the get go told the UK and US officials to help him be the tyrant in Iran, and in exchange he will serve their interests. The UK was fully for this arrangement. The Americans had internal debates on this. This is very very clear. See:

 

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/shah-destroyed-our-constitution-and-established-brutal-tyranny

6. Has Reza Pahlavi been able to form an alliance or coalition with any other opposition party? What explains the failure of RP to form an alliance with other opposition groups? The answer seems to be that other opposition groups do not regard the monarchists as a positive, legitimate. and democratic force.

7. RP and the monarchists seem to be suffering from delusions. Someone should disabuse them from their delusions. RP is the leader of the monarchists. RP is not the leader of the opposition. Much less the leader of the Iranian people. The monarchists not only constitute a small proportion of the population (around 5-10 percent), they are such that others do not want to ally with them.

8. The opposite is true for JM. Most indications are that a plurality, or majority, or vast majority of the population wants a democratic, secular, republic. We ALL saw that on the streets of Iran, when massive numbers demanded "Esteghlal, Azadi, Jomhuri Irani," [Independence, Freedom, Iranian REPUBLIC], and "Naa Sharghi, Naa Gharbi, Jomhuri Irani," [Neither Eastern, Nor Western, Iranian REPUBLIC]. Moreover, I can tell you that several major parties from the left outside Iran as well as major groups inside Iran have officially asked the INF-AO and JM to make official alliance with us. For a variety of reasons, I could not discuss the matter here. I can tell the readers that INF-AO and JM have excellent relations with a number of leftist forces outside Iran, as well as with semi-democratic parties inside Iran (Melli-Mazhabis, Nehzat Azadi, and OTHERS more significant than those mentioned). I think this is also clear on this site.

9. Many have called Reza Shah Pahlavi and Mohammad Reza Shah fascist. The official NAZI party of Iran called Hezb SOMEKA, was one of the main groups that actively supported the 1953 coup. The leader of the Youth Section of SUMEKA was Dariush Homayun. Many other Nazis also played major roles in the Shah’s regime. The reason the UK and USSR invaded Iran in 1941 was that Reza Shah (who came to power by the help of the UK and had served the interests of the UK was moving away from UK and getting close to Nazi Germany in 1940-1941).

//iranian.com/History/2005/January/Kinzer/index.html

//iranian.com/Opinion/2004/June/MK/index....

 

 

10. The Pahlavi regime was a terribly tyrannical regime subservient to UK and US interests. Therefore, to establish independence, democracy, freedom, it was necessary to overthrow it. The part of the revolution (The Iranian Revolutions), which struggled to get rid of the Shah’s regime was good and positive. The part of the revolution (the Islamic Revolution), which struggled to establish a fundamentalist form of regime was bad and reactionary.

11. Had the Shah accepted the demands of the JM leaders (Dr. Sanjabi, Dr. Bakhtiar, Dariush Forouhar) in their open letter of June 1977, there would have been a possibility to maintain the Shah in power (despite all him being nokar serving the interests of foreign powers) while bringing a measure of democracy and freedom to Iran. The Shah responded by unleashing terror on the JM and other secular democratic forces. The homes and offices of JM and secular democratic leaders were BOMBED by the Shah. They included the homes and offices of Dr. Sanjabi, Dr. Matin-Daftari, Forouhar, Dr. Hasan Nazih, Bazargan, Dr. Karim Lahiji, Moghadam Maraghei, and Haji Moinian.

12. Between June 1977 and the collapse of the hated monarchy, the Shah killed about 2,900 unarmed protesters. The more the Shah massacred the unarmed Iranian people who were peacefully protesting the more people were radicalized. Due to the Shah savage blood-thirsty tactics, JM and moderate forces lost support while the support for radical measures by Khomeini grew. Had the Shah had some brain and did what Hosni Mobarak and Ben Ali did, and left after 4 weeks, then JM would have come to power. Then, we would have had a transition to a secular democratic republic.

13. But the Shah was a terribly savage and unrepentant thug. The Shah continued to kill the people. And the Shah never abdicated. He only went to a holiday!!!!!!!!! Even his son, claims to be the next king and has taken an oath to be a king!!!!!!!

14. The armed forces basically collapsed. There was a possibility to kill large numbers of people (e.g., 1 or 2 million people) to put down the revolution. That is what Moamar Qadzafi tried to do. And this is what Bashar al-Asad is trying to do. Massacres sometimes work, and sometimes end up with the killing like what happened to Qadzafi. The Shah had several problems with the use of massacre. One, was that the Shah was fully nokar of the U.S. At the time Cater was president and his policy of human rights had made it difficult for the Shah to use the massacre as his prime tool. Second, the Shah was a terribly timid and coward man. On many occasions, when there was a struggle, he left the scene. And only when someone else had done all the heavy lifting, then the Shah would arrive, and then engage in retaliation and killings and revenge. The Shah was the opposite of what Machiavelli had advised the Prince. Machiavelli advised that during the fight, the Prince had to fight like a lion, and after defeating the foe, he should be generous. The Shah was a chicken (instead of a lion) during the fight. And instead of being a fox after defeat of the foes, the Shah was a vulture. The Shah was absent during the crucial fights during the Azerbaijan crisis (Ahmad Qavam did all the heavy liftings and great help from Truman), the same during the pro-democracy movement in 1949-1953 (the MI6, CIA, Zahedi did much of the work and as soon as it appeared the coup failed the Shah escaped), and the same during 1961-1964 (Alam did much of the stuff).

15. As late as November 1978, Dr. Sanjabi was willing to accept the responsibility. Earlier in October the Shah had rejected Dr. Sanjabi’s demands. In late Oct or early Nov, Sanjabi could have brought the entire secular liberals to the government if the Shah was willing to give control over the armed forces to the PM and leave Iran. The Shah REFUSED these legitimate demands of Sanjabi. In November, the Shah did not want Sanjabi to be the PM. Instead he had an agreement with Dr. Bakhtiar. By accepting the deal from the Shah without having first informed the JM leadership, Dr. Bakhtiar badly divided the JM. Because of that, Bakhtiar did not get the support of the secular democrats. Dr. Bakhtiar should have told the Shah to talk to Sanjabi and accept his demands. And the Shah should have accepted Sanjabi’s demands. I would go further and say that Sanjabi should has also demanded a public abdication from the Shah and the Shah should have accepted this.

16. It was the Shah’s actions that undermined the position of the JM (and the secular democratic alternative). The Shah’s actions HELPED propel Khomeini to leadership.

17. By rejecting the solution by Sanjabi, the Shah basically paved the path for Khomeini. The actual events PROVES that the path of Bakhtiar ACTUALLY failed.

18. It is weird that instead of blaming the Shah, monarchists want to blame others for these policies that resulted in the rise of Khomeini. The Shah again and again and again, rejected JM’s solutions and did things that helped Khomeini. The armed forces collapse and side with Khomeini, and the monarchists blame the JM!!!!!!!!!!! Heloooooo. The gongho generals do not support Bakhtiar and instead join Khomeini, the monarchists blame the JM. Many monarchists escape instead of staying ans supporting Bakhtiar, and the monarchists blame the JM!!!!!!!!

19. JM said that by late November 1978, it was too late for the democratic forces the solely govern Iran. The Shah’s policies had made Khomeini too powerful by this time. The armed forces could not massacre several million people. By December many in the armed forces were deserting the armed forces. In fact, it was the personnel in Havaniroo who rebelled and supported Khomeini. Why the hell it is the fault of JM that members of the armed forces switch sides and support Khomeini????????????

20. The FACT is that it was the many many decisions of the Shah that helped bring Khomeini to power. JM is only responsible for its own policies. If the Shah again and again takes actions and undermine the democrats and help Khomeini, it is NOT our fault. It is the fault of the Shah. By mid-November 1978, there was NOTHING the JM could do to prevent Khomeini from coming to power.

21. The JM’s only hope was to gradually calm the situation. In fact, the Provisional Government (PG) was made up of very decent people (with the exception of some such as Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi, who was a power-hungry jerk) who genuinely believed in democracy. There failure of the PG was not inevitable. The PG was attacked from the right by the fundamentalists (who wanted to establish the rule of fundamentalist clerics) and the from the left (Fadaian, Peykar, PMOI).

22. The only chance for a good outcome was the success of the PG. The combined attacks from the fundamentalist right and the left succeeded in the defeat of the moderate democratic forces (JM, Nehzat Azadi). The earlier split by Dr. Bakhtiar had substantially weakened the JM. Had Bakhtiar not accepted the Shah’s offer, JM and the secular forces would have been in a much stronger position in the post-revolution period.

23. JM bravely fought against Khomeini. JM members resigned shortly due to the human rights violations by Khomeini and his supporters. JM openly condemned Khomeini’s dismissal of female judges in April-May 1979 (JM was the SOLE political party to do so). JM opposed the closure of Ayandegan paper in August 1979. JM opposed the vf constitution in August-December 1979. JM bravely condemned Qanon Qesas as reactionary and called upon the people tp march against (which caused Khomeini to call JM apostate).

In conclusion, JM made a number of excellent decisions for independence, democracy, freedom, and human rights against two terribly savage tyrannical regimes. JM did not have enough support to defeat the Shah’s tyranny. JM did not have enough support to defeat Khomeini’s tyranny. JM had to make a number of decisions based on what was KNOWN at that time. It is easy TODAY to say Khomeini was a tyrant. In 1978, that was NOT known. In 1978, what was crystal clear and well known was that the Shah was a savage tyrant and had to go. As long as the savage Shah was in power, Iran could not have democracy, freedom, and human rights. Whatr would Khomeini do was a mystery in 1978. Khomeini explicitly said in Paris that he would go to Qom, that he would not hold any position in government, that clerics would not become presidents, that there would be democracy, and all (even Marxists) will have freedom of expression. We NOW know that Khomeini LIED. In 1978, the Iranian people and the JM did not know that Khomeini is a charlatan, a liar, and a mass murderer. That was a mistake. JM leaders are at fault for not being psychics and not being able to predict the future.

In order to achieve a goal, various groups make alliances. To defeat Hitler, FDR made an alliance with Stalin. Should we condemn FDR for the Cold War? Was there anything reasonable that FDR could have done? Fortunately, eventually, USSR collapsed. But that was no inevitable. Unfortunately, Khomeini defeated the democrats. That was not inevitable either.

The struggle for democracy, freedom, and human rights continues until the Iranian people and the democratic forces succeed in overthrowing the fundamentalist terrorist regime and establish democracy in Iran. As we can observe, the monarchists continue to be unrepentant. Instead of apologizing for the hellish tyranny they wroth to Iran, they have the khutzba to attack the pro-democracy forces. As we say, roo ke nist, sang payeh Qazvin-e.

One can see that in 1940s, the most popular and powerful groups in Iran were the liberal democrats like Dr. Moosadegh and JM. Due to his savage brutal fascistic rule, by 1979, the most powerful and popular force in Iran were Khomeini and his supporters. This, alone, the culmination of his misrule should be sufficient for any honest observer to condemn the Shah’s savage tyrannical rule.

Masoud

Ms. Amini - Dr. Mossadegh's legacy

by Aria on Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:33 PM PDT

Nobody is trying to take anything away from him.

He nationalized the oil and that credit will be forever his.  He was not corrupt.  And, he loved his country. The above statements are all true and nobody can or should deny them. But, so are the following statements: 1. That he was a mediocare manager 2. He failed to solve the social, political and above all economic problems that the nation developed between 1951 and 1953.  He was not able to curb inflation, unemployment rate that had caused wide- spread poverty. 3. He was unable or unwilling to rein in on his foreign minister who had become too close to Tudeh party and was calling for the abolishment of the monarchy and establishment of a republic. 4. Alienating all his friends and allies to the point that almost none stuck by him. And above all 5. Violating the constitution by dissolving the Majlis. Respectfully.

Ms. Amini - statement about torture during Mossadeg

by Aria on Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:38 AM PDT

Do you know who General Afshartoos was?

He was the head of police during Mossadegh and very close to him.

Do you know his reputation?   Let's put it this way that he did not offer Beluga  Caviar and Don Perrion to the prisoners.

In your writings you often remind your audience that Princess Ashraf is RP's aunt, a sorta guilty by association implication, that is fine.

May I respectfully request that you inquire from family friends who knew General Afshartoos as to his activities and reputation.

We cannot be selective in our view of the past.

Respectfully. 

 

The notion of "HIM's" infallibility!

by Arj on Mon Mar 26, 2012 04:38 PM PDT

Amazingly, after 33 years, supporters of Pahlavis still insist on HIM's self-righteousness and incapability to make mistakes --  in the same way Khamenei's supporters feel about him! In that process, they are prepared to (and have on numerous occasions) blame the entire nation for HIM's fumbles and eventual dropping of the ball, not to mention the "traitor" leftists, JM, Freedom Movement and basically any entity who refused to join Shah's one-party, Rastakhiz rule!

Ironically, Drs. Bakhtiar, Sanjabi and Foruhar, in an open letter in early 1977 tried to warn Shah about the perils and consequentiality of his despotic rule and asked him in order to avoid a potential public uprising; to respect the constitution, allow political freedoms and free elections, release political prisoners... However, those requests fell on Shah's deaf ear, and the megalomaniac he was, he ignored such warnings only to, in just over a year, have to beg the nation for forgiveness in the most pathetic fashion -- a characteristic eventuality that all despotic rules have to face towards their very end!

Not to mention that, due to corruptive nature of the system he had created, hence notoriety and unpopularity of the politicians associated with his regime, Shah had to seek the help of these very same political opposition figures, who had periodically spent time in and out of his prisons for advocating what he eventually begged them to do when it was too late!

Nonetheless, from the Pahlavi supporters' stand point, it's still everyone else's fault but "HIM's!"  

Ms. Amini - republic vs. monarchy

by Aria on Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:18 AM PDT

Thank you for your response, I appreciate it.

Republic - if you garauntee that your republic does not become a Bashar Assad style, a Ghaddafi  like or a Saddam model republic, you may get my vote.

Constitutional Monarchy - if in return I give you a Juan Carlos, Spanish style, monarchy, will you call it tyrannical and turn it down? 

The people are the judge not the offspring of collaborators

by anglophile on Mon Mar 26, 2012 09:48 AM PDT

Ms Amini lacks the courage and the integrity to admit that if the Jebhe Melli collborators had not betrayed the interests of a nation to fuifil their own self serving interests in the first place, there would have been no Khalkhalis to even think of damaging the Persepolis. Her naive and  immature argument is akin to that of a thief who robbs the entire house but takes pride in leaving the family's portrait paintings behind!!

JM, Mossadegh, Bakhtiar and Pahlavis

by I despise fascists and st... on Mon Mar 26, 2012 09:07 AM PDT

My father loved both Mossadegh and Reza Shah but he NEVER forgave Sanjabi, Bazargan, even Forouhars and other JM people for cooperating with "Imam Khomeini."

The situation is so serious that Dr. Kazemzadeh, more or less the spokesman of the group, doesn't even think JM owes Iranians an apology.

Yes, Shah owed the people an aplogy and HE DID APOLOGIZE.

In 1978, Mr. Sadighi and Bakhtiar were on the side of the shah? Do you call them traitors and "fascist dictators?" History proved them right.

There is little historians agree about recent history of Iran, except that aristocratic Qajars gave Iran the coutnry's most blood thirsty tyrant, Agha Mohammed Khan; and its incompetent ruler, Fath Ali Shah. When Agh Mohammed Khan captured Lotf Ali Khan Zand, he publically had him sodomized, blinded him then beat him to death. The afshar king received a similar end. Still the Qajar vengence wasn't satisfied. He blinded so many people in Kerman that it became known as the 'city of the blind.' By comparison, during Pahlavis no Qajar was killed, most remained in Iran and prospered.

Sure Reza Shah confiscated land from landowners, but why not metion that his son relinguished the land and gave it all to its rightful owners, the peasants. Why condemn the Shah for usurping power and having a rubber stamp parliament but not mention that is exactly what Dr. Mossadegh attempted to do, which pushed the Shah to agree to dismiss him.

Iran's history is full of this contraditions, Reza Shah was a dictator but he put the country on the path to progress, and this "peasant" was far more benign and progressive than the peopel he rescued the country from. His son was a dictator but he was not a tyrant -- tyrants don't come to the nation and apologize when he had a military fully-capable of crushing dissent.

 I donot favor executions or a return to an Iran under autocratic king. I hope Iran will have a democratic system with equal rights for all. If a republican system brings that and guarantees it, I support it.

I abhore the irrational venom from Mr. Kazemzadeh and others, which is a repeat of the lies told in 1977-78 that lead to "Imam Khomeini." (We were told the Shah had killed 100s upon 1000s, killed Mustaph Khomeini and Shariati and set Cinema Rex on fire, that he wa the richest man in the world.)

When you look at Iran's history since 1500s, only two periods Iran benefited from relative peace and progress, during Karim Khaz Zand and Pahlavis. This must at least be partly how we judge this dynasty.

I applaud Ms. Amini for an article a while back when she said she wished the revolution had not happened, it shows that she is a fair person. If Iranians had acted wiser, Iran would have transitioned to a progressive democracy like Taiwan, South Korea, and South Africa. It didn't and for that JM and all those who threw themselves at "Imam Khomeini" owe the present generation an apology; Shah already apologized. Isn't there any room for that in your hearts and rationality?

to Aria

by Fariba Amini on Mon Mar 26, 2012 08:02 AM PDT

Dear Aria,

 I agree with you that anyone can and should post family photos on this site and show happy moments especially when these days happy moments are rare. It is fair that the Pahlavis want to share some good moments with the rest. 

All I said was that the "Royal" family is no longer.  We need to move on to a better form of government.   The Pahlavis also need to take care of their own family and prevent more tragedies.   

I have actually spokent to Reza Pahlavi and he has repeatedly said that he does not believe in the title he has been given.  He signs his name Reza Pahlavi.  I found him a reasonable person who is intelligent.  Nevertheless,  I would want someone else as head of a future government in Iran.  Monarchy is finished and no one in Iran wants to go back to the past.  

But let's look at the whole picture from a different angel. There is a hidden and open crusade to undermine Mossadegh and bring the Royal family into the scene. This is not accidental.  It is not accidental that the likes of Sabeti shows up all of a sudden after 30 years and makes false statemetns ( in order to whitewash his own actions) that during Mossadegh's governemnt there was also torture!  It is not accidental that some pro-monarchy elements and even some reformists are constantly bashinng Mossadegh and his belief in the rule of law and democracy.

In this respect the IRI and the Monarchy camp have one thing in common:  Try to erase the memory of Mossadegh. Just read the recent message from Ahmadi N. regarding the anniversary of the oil nationalization.  Not a mention of Dr. M.

to others:

I have never gone to Leonard Hotel and don't even know where it is in London.  I knew however the previous owners and she told me they called and begged Farah Pahlavi to come to Laila's rescue but she did not ;  They just sent a doctor but it was already too late.  

Last time I visited London I stayed at a 68 Euro a night hotel owned by a gentleman from Afghanistan.  Does anyone want the address? nice hotel and nice people!

The Pahlavis took a lot of money from Iran's treasury, without having to count for it.  On what basis? Because they were royal? I don't know.  

Mossadegh and his entourage like my own father were honest men with integrity.  None of them ever abused the law or misused money and again not to brag, to those of you who brag about Persepolis and our 3000 year civilization.  I repeat it was my father who as Governor of Fars stood up against Khalkahli and his thugs who wanted to destroy Takhte Jamshid.  He saved this treasure of Iran.

Men like them are rarely found these days.  I say that with pride.

to you Mr. anglo...   as we say in Persian:  Javabeh ablahan Khamoushist !  

 

حسینی جان تو هم بعله؟

anglophile
Mon Mar 26, 2012 07:04 AM PDT

شما که دیگه (به ظاهر) 
انقلابی هستی‌ دیگه چرا از بهنود و کینزر درس میگیری. خودم مثه اینکه جواب خودمو دادم: "به ظاهر"!!!

Thank God for a JM-free Iran of future

by anglophile on Mon Mar 26, 2012 06:55 AM PDT

Ms Amini, as you try to presonalise the debate by drawing distinctions between yourself and me, let me express my utmost delight in being DIFFERENT from you.

No madam, unlike you, I did not distribute Khomeini's speeches and announcements in the run up to the revolution, my father did not call on Bakhtiar to go against his oath to the constitution and to abolish the monarchy and declare a republic (as ordered by Khomeini) and did not collaborate with Khomeini's chosen prime minister,  Bazargan, only to jump the ship before being pushed and my family did not leave the country in the hell that your family created only to live a life of comfort and luxury in the saftey of France and the USA.   

Was that different enough for you? Now back to the difference between the so called royal (!!)  Mossadegh and the peasants Pahlavi! In another blog I will publish details of the lands and wealth that the big Charlatan, Mossadegh, stole from the public purse and his support of the backward fuedal regime of land owners that he benefited from (a point correctly identified by our friend Shemirani) to show you that Reza Shah confiscated the lands that were immorally and illegally owned by the fuedal and oppressive land owners ,like Qashqaiees and Farmanfarmas, who supported the Charlatan Mossadegh.

 

Watch this space. More is to come :))) 

Please watch this video clip

by ahosseini on Mon Mar 26, 2012 06:48 AM PDT

After watching this video I will be amazed if anybody wants to ave anything to do with the monachists

The video

Believe in a democracy that leaders and representatives are controlled by members at all times.

Stop lying to yourself and to young generation !

by Shemirani on Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:55 AM PDT

"Mossadegh did not take a penny from the treasury of Iran. Not a rial. He lived modestly and did not claim that he was ROYAL even though he was"

 in mossadegh's book you can read he said it himself, at that time (qajar) in Iran people used the word Mostofi to say Thief ! and he was a mostofi himself !

Mossadegh helped his uncle Farmafarma to settle ArmitageSmith agreement....its hard to believe his uncle didn't award him back for his service (by the way do i have to tell you this kind of action is qualify as a corruption !!!)

His Wealth was coming from his lands  and not because His well-dererved works. Mossadegh was a Feodal  ( cela veut tout dire !) how come people like you presents him as a philanthropist or an altruist, it  doesn't match with him ! its not because he was wearing a pyjama presenting himself as a poor victime that he was one !!

 

"Mossadegh's daughter died in a hospital in Switzerland POOR"

She died poor, Because Islamic Republic Blocked Mosadegh bank accounts, where the money was regulary transfered aboard to her hospital & for her cares. The same Islamic Republic that Mossadeg's grandson (Hedayat matin daftari) helped to settle in 1979 ! If you want to blame someone go and Complain to him or any revolutionaries !!!!

 

and Pahlavi Royal family of Iran  served Iran for two generation they deserved to have a king's style life( like any other monarchy) je dirais même plus, ils vivaient très chichement comparés aux autres ! arretez d'en faires des tones !

Mr. Kazemzadeh, Please go talk to common people

by I despise fascists and st... on Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:08 AM PDT

Mr. Kazemzadeh

I don't call JM traitors I don't like how extremists always use labels for people.

 JM certainly never provided Iran a leader who was a winner.

I listned to an 'oral history' by a former US diplomat in Iran, later hostage. He was a political officer who spoke Farsi. He had no sympathy for the Shah. When asked about National Front, he said they were a bunch of men who just held meetings and nothing more.

I think that sums up JM then and now. When I am in Dubai other Arab countries, where many poor Iranians go to work, I always talk to them about the current situation. Almost universally they are nostalgic for the days of Pahlavis. They all condemn the people who brought Khomeini to power. The younger ones tell me "che marazi dashtan mardom?"

Most of these people, who represent overwhelming majority of Iranians, have never heard of JM.

If the Shah was a fascist, he would have crushed the protestors the same way Assad and his father dealt with protestors. Iranian military did not abandon the Shah. Most senior officers wanted to crush the protests.

I recommend you read Abbas Milani's latest book, it's the most informative and impartial review of the man.

 

Fariba Amini, I am glad you never became a judge !!

by Nezami. on Sun Mar 25, 2012 08:46 PM PDT

Thank you for yet another piece of exaggerated and biased commentary here. I am sorry to see that you are unable to make a balanced judgment, and sort out the bad and the good that the Pahlavis did. Is it really that difficult to separate their good deeds and their bad deeds !!?? Or is it the hatered that is making you not see things clearly !??? 

I am no particular supporter of monarchy, and furthermore I am far less in favour of those who supported and collaborated with the Islamic regime. And that means the majority of the jebeh melli with the exception of Bakhtiar and some of his men.

Most JM leaders were inept, opportunistic, incompetent and (god knows why !! ) so totally full of themselves !! Which is why they made such catastrophic mistakes back then. Just because Mossadegh (with all his faults) was a nationalist, it doesn't mean those who took over after him were the same !! Do these JM people really think that had Mossadegh been around in 79, he would have chosen Khomeini !!?? Or would he have gone the route of Bakhtiar?? His thinking was similar to Bakhtiar's and not Bazargan and Khomeini. Mossadegh was a secular nationalist and he most probably would have been executed early in 79 by the Mullahs at the time when these incompetent JM leaders were collaborating with Khomeini. So stop using his name to gain credibilty for your JM actions.

And by the way. Leonard Hotel in London does not charge 3000 a night (£ or $). It is a 4 star hotel and the charges are far far far less. You were apparently overcharged by them :)

 

Ms. Amini

by Aria on Sun Mar 25, 2012 07:26 PM PDT

A few years ago you posted your wedding pictures on this site.  I was happy for and wished you well.   Nobody said that you did not have the right to post your wedding pictures here because you were the daughter of Dr. Mossadegh's attorney or often express strong opinions in his support.

It was a happy moment for you, your family and friends, and we wished you well as well.  

I know that you are not a fan of the Iranian Royal Family, that is fine.   But, there are many who consider them family, why can't you extend the same courtesy.  

The Future Belongs to Democracy, Not Tyranny (IRI and Monarchy)

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Sun Mar 25, 2012 07:21 PM PDT

As the discussions on this thread as well as other blogs clearly show is that today, like 1979, the gap between the Iranian people and various opposition groups on the one hand and the Pahlavist monarchists remains large and non-bridgeable. Today, as before, the overwhelming majority of the people and the opposition groups condemn the Pahlavis as nokar of colonial forces, terribly dictatorial (even fascistic), anti-freedom, and against human rights.

And the Pahlavist monarchists call those who fought against Pahlavis, and for independence, democracy, freedom, and human rights as traitors who have to apologize to the Iranian people.

Therefore, the divide is simply too wide and could not be bridged.

The struggle of the Iranian people for independence, democracy, freedom, and human rights has been going on for more than 105 years. This struggle has failed to achieve its goals after the constitutional revolution and government (with the rise of Reza Shah), the defeat of the pro-democracy and oil nationalization movement in 1953, and the Iranian revolution (around 1979-1981 with the defeat of democratic forces by the fundamentalist forces). This 105+ year old struggle will continue until the Iranian people succeed in establishing their demands for democracy. The people has so far succeeded in getting rid of the hated Pahlavis. Now they are struggling to get rid of the hated fundamentalist terrorists.

Sooner or later, we will succeed and establish a free, democratic republic in our beloved Iran.

Masoud

If Stephen Kinzer says

by Aria on Sun Mar 25, 2012 07:15 PM PDT

That there is a belly dancer performing on the moon tonight, supporters of Mossadegh say save us the front row.

But, other researchers and scholars who state facts that are not favorable to the victimization, 60-year funeral procession, of Mossadegh all come under attack: name calling and character assassinations that make Stalin look like a boy scout. 

National Front?

by Aria on Sun Mar 25, 2012 06:56 PM PDT

Reza Shah sent Bazargan and Sanjabi and a few others to Europe to get higher education and serve their county.  With the exception of Dr. Bakhtiar these Mossadegh followers  chose to follow Khomieni blindly.

When Dr. Sedighi was considering to become prime-minister, with his condition that the Shah would not leave Iran, Dariush Forouhar went to Sedighi's house to dissuade him from taking the position.  The members of National Front in those days were busy kissing up to Khomieni and his entourage.

This is the legacy of National Front.  Were they traitors or simply opportunistic?

Or, were they simply inept in seeing as to what was to unfold?

The collective wisdom of National Front is not one the people of Iran want to follow.

It is a tragedy as to what happened Mr. Forouhar and his wife.  But, they supported the clerics and paid for it with their lives.

I heard that Sanjabi had remorseful last days......

Bazargan was constantly mocked and rediculed at IRI Majlis. 

National Front?  If their past is an index for their future then the future speaks for itself.  

 

 

Anglophile Jaan, these people hate all Shahs in Iran or Sunset

by Oon Yaroo on Sun Mar 25, 2012 06:34 PM PDT

except and unless when they themselves become one!

If in a week from now there will be a line formed in Tehran for the next Shah of Iran to be selected guess who is going to be camping there a week in advance?

You guessed it right buddy, our Shah-hating friends!

Big difference

by Fariba Amini on Sun Mar 25, 2012 06:33 PM PDT

Mossadegh did not take a penny from the treasury of Iran. Not a rial. He lived modestly and did not claim that he was ROYAL even though he was. 

The Pahlavis, pere et fils, aunts and uncles, the son, the father and the grandfather took money right and left.  They lived in their many palaces. Ashraf (arrested with thousands of French Francs at the airport after the iinfamous coup) and Shams and the rest of them owned properties, factories etc. etc.  Reza Shah put his feet on every piece of land in Iran that he liked and said this is MINE. The late Laila Pahlavi stayed at a 3000 per night hotel in London before she took her life.

Mossadegh's daughter died in a hospital in Switzerland POOR.  The Swiss govt paid for her hospitalization.  Mossadegh himself lived in a run down estate. 

There is a big difference.  Mr. Anglo...  just like there is a big difference between you and I, whoever you may be. Who is waiting to bark at me.

By the way, wearing green does not make you GREEN !  The real greens and whites and reds are paying with their lives in prison. 

 

Look who is talking?

by anglophile on Sun Mar 25, 2012 06:12 PM PDT

Are you not the same Fariba Amini who delights in reminding us of Mossadegh's aristocractic and royal  (!!) roots and Reza Shah's peasant (!!) origins?

 

Just wondered! 

Fighting authorities, ....SK Rorschach test

by Siavash300 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 06:07 PM PDT

"we were confronted by a bunch of Pakistanis who were accusing us of lying and misrepresenting Sharia Law. While others in the group were a sort of startled by the standoffish demeanors of the the guys (being pre-9/11), I started quoting those verses of Koran in which prejudice and violence against women, atheists and religious minorities are clearly sanctioned as religious duties of Moslem men"Arj

Clearly above statement shows you perceived that group as an authoritative figure. That triger impulses from childhood to fight with these authouritative figures. I am sure there were so many people who were atheists and they had the same frame of mind against verses of koran as you did, but they never received death threat or treatment that your received.

   Do you see the differences?

BTW, Rozbeh Gilani's idea of politic and future of Iran is very much close to you rather than anybody else on this site. He is not one of those lumpens that you mentioned in your comment. Seemed you had problem with your own ilk as well.

Now, Soosan khanoom I don't know anything about personal life style of Iran Royal family. I respect them as they are presenting Iranian families among international community the way it should be presented.

   It is my hypothesis that perceiving anorexia has something to do with your own weight. I might be wrong,but that was the first guess came to my mind. What made you think of weight rather than anything else? The perception of pictures are important, not pictures per se.  

                        GOAL : RESTORING MONARCHY

A fallen dynasty

by Fariba Amini on Sun Mar 25, 2012 06:00 PM PDT

I think it is time to let go of Prince, princesses, kings and queens.

The Throne was overthrown in 1979.  The family needs to take care of themselves and forget about helping Iranian people. It is a bit late for that!

 

These photo ops are getting old.

Re decent lumpens!

by Arj on Sun Mar 25, 2012 02:23 PM PDT

Siavash, I give you an example and let you make whatever conclusion you wish; as I said, back in mid 90s, I learned through a classmate of mine (a female of Pakistani/Bangladeshi? origin) that there is a campaign to introduce a proposal to implement the Sharia Law within the Moslim community where I lived, and that she and a few like-minded friends were organizing an exhibition in our school's student hall to demonstrate and speak against the atrocities committed trhough Sharia Law in which I decided to take part.

However, at the exhibit, while engaging people who were curious about the nature of Sharia and what it meant in terms of women's, minorities' and human rights in general, we were confronted by a bunch of Pakistanis who were accusing us of lying and misrepresenting Sharia Law. While others in the group were a sort of startled by the standoffish demeanors of the the guys (being pre-9/11), I started quoting those verses of Koran in which prejudice and violence against women, atheists and religious minorities are clearly sanctioned as religious duties of Moslem men.

At this time, one of the Pakistani guys told me that he has cousins who would kill me on the spot if they hear that I said such things, to which I replied: "you can tell your cousin that he could ... ..." Well, you can fill in the blank! Next thing I did, was call the campus security which prompted their fleeing like rats from a floodlight!

The morale of the story is that lumpens (whether Hezbollhi, Shahollhi or whateverollahi...) are only brave on their own turf and sorounded by their ilk! Otherwise, they are mere chicken s**ts and their threats are as irritating as a fart; you just stand your ground till they disappear!!! 

P.S. The rest of your post is repetative and not worth a reply. Apparently, you have too much time on your hands! :)

Oh Come on Siavash

by Soosan Khanoom on Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:22 PM PDT

The Princess, her majesty, is suffering from Anorexia. That's too obvious. Don't tell me that you haven't noticed it ?  This family, sadly, has lost two young members and I think Farahnaz needs a professional help otherwise she will be next.  I am not kidding !! 

Now I am not sure what do you mean by me being overweight?  Although, this princess, admits  that winter hibernation as usual has contributed to a little more curves on her otherwise perfect body but usually by the summer her majesty ( me) becomes fit and happy; but, still, with some tasty meat on the bones with no sign of Anorexia..