Focus Visually On Iran

Mehrdad

I do not think Shah betrayed Iran. He did what he could but got arrogant like many other leaders. Shah really wanted Iran to advance as did Mossadegh. They both made many mistakes. 

Here are some of Mossadegh's mistakes:

• Rely too much on oil as our wealth when the real wealth is the people.
• Not anticipate the reaction from the British when he nationalized oil.
• Pardon Tahmasbi a red handed murderer.

I am not going to go into Shah's mistakes as they are well known. Unfortunately we tend to idolize people. Turn them into demi-Gods when there are just people. Then expect more than is possible from them and be disappointed.

Mossadegh:

Not appreciated enough by Iranians to stand up for him during the coup

Feared enough by the West (US & England) to plan a coup to destroy him

It will take many Mossadegh just to undo the disastrous betrayal of Shah and Khomenie regime to Iran

Rohesh shad

Mehrdad

مرحوم مصدق این بود:

تنها شخصیت سیاسی تاریخ معاصر ایران که نه با زور چماق و سرنیزه بسیجی یا آمریکائی، بلکه با رای و اراده ملت ایران به قدرت رسید. علت محبوبیت ایشان بین توده‌های مردم ایران همین هست و بس

روحش شاد.

Darius Jan

Just to let you know I did not flag up your posts. 

Please bear in mind that its not eating caviar and peacock breats in Maxim's restaurant or being a patron of the arts in Venice which validates a ruler. It is what you do that counts.

No matter how hard you try to disguise it Reza Shah was just a Cossak  brigadier  with no formal education that transformed Iran. His name will live forever and the pampered, Eurocentric Anglophile Shahs like Naseeruddin Shah Qajar - who are more to your taste- did nothing for Iran but squandred and pillaged. A humble man like Reza Shah will be forever remembered and your cultured brat kings will be cast into the cesspit of history forever.

I know its difficult to deal with but there you go.  

P.S. I may be a warmonger because I want my country to be liberated but I do not humiliate myself by literally begging the British to bestow me an Order of the Garter.  

And about dissoving the parliament

Funny how no one thinks who the parliament was made of and how they had gotten there...
Again, look in a few --fair-- history books.

There you go again...

... This is the same nonsense that Milani has also relied on in his latest book.
The "making it ripe for Soviet invasion" is only an American excuse for the coup. At the time, Stalin had just died, the "Soviet Union" was in shambles, and that actually made it possible for the Americans to stage a coup, because they knew the Russians wouldn't be in a position to stop them, so they took advantage of the situation. NOT the other way around!
Just take a look at your history books!
The Soviet thing is just an argument spread by the US that almost everyone falls for without even thinking. THINK!
Otherwise, respect for your thoughts and argumentations, Simorgh.

Kadivar

A constitutional monarch for the future of Iran but not now.  

I am no more or less Fascist or uncultured  than Reza Shah was. Reza Shah was a peasant and man of basic simple tastes. He was barely educated. I know its hard for you to accept given you desperate attempt to re-invent the Iranian moinarchy into somethign it wasn't. 

He saw the entire Qajar monarchy as corrupt and decided unilaterally to do what is right: To topple the bastards once and for all with brute force and not deomocratic reform. God bless him for that. I happy the events which turned out forced Reza Shah not to pursue a Republic but he would be no more no less deserving of Greatness. Reza Shah could not have given a hoot about a monarchy which Cyrus Ghani in his billiant book and even Reza Pahlavi admitted on VOA.

Recently, Momour Gaddaffi claims that he was in a constitutionally impregnable position and even likened himslef to the Queen because he has been in power as President for 35 years. Would his claim be less absurd if he crowned himself and became a monarch? Should the Qajar's rampage of pillage, corruption and rape merely be legitimised because they were petty Kings? Kick their ass and shove their crown down their throne. This is what Reza Shah believed and supported unanimously by all Iranians.  

I tell you what you remind me of Darius: A court jester in the King's court with a jewel encrusted belt around your waist bowing down to any ruler who calls themsleves King. You would even prostate yourself to a tyrant like Fath Ali Shah or Ahmad Shah because they wore a cheap crown over their head. I might take you up on your offer and start a royal dynasty of my own in Iran just for the pleasure of you kissing my hand and calling me 'olia hazrat'. 

Sucker! 

Anglophile - its not who you are but what you do!

The issue of the legitimacy of the 1906 constitution is irrelevant. Mussadeq's coup d' etat was no more or less unlawful than Reza Shah the Great usurping the throne from the corrupt and useless Shah Ahmed Shah Qajar. It is a fundamental mistake to believe that Iran is bound by protocils and traditions which go back to time immemorial like in Britain. Legitimacy in Iran is based on the positivist approach to law. The law of the land is what the ruler tells you it is. That is how rulers in Iran have functioed over centuries in Iran all the way back to the Achaemenid dynasty. HM QEII can boast her Royal lineage back to the Norman conquest of 1066. Reza Shah was from a humble and modest background. QEII claims legitimacy because of who she is while our Shah proves it charismatic leadership and stealth. That is the beauty of our Shah. A peasant and commoner like Reza Shah can become a King because of what he does in the service of his country.  

Unfortunately, Reza Pahlavi leaves a lot to be desired despite his many qualities. He remains a candidate for the Shah until he proves why people should accept him. 

Mussadeq's intentions were sincere but the only way he could bring about the widespread reforms which he wanted was to become exactly what he claimed to despise the most : a demagogue as you called it. My main problem with Mussadeq was not how he came to power but because he would have de--stabilised the country making it ripe for a Soviet invasion 

I fervently believe in a monarchy but I am not going to dissguise the fact that both Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (at least until the end of his reign) and his much loved father Reza Shah were autocrats. Despite the negative connotations wh this word in the modern context I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. An autocratic ruler was needed to stabilise and modernise the country as well as thwart the threat from Soviet Russia. What bothers me is that followers of Mussadeq still do not concede the point that their champion took power unconstitutionally and maintain he was democratic. He was no more democratic than our Shah was. 

What's Not Ironic is Your Obvious Ignorance of all things Royal

What's Not Ironic Simorgh5555 is Your Obvious Ignorance of all things Royal

In that case might as well declare ALL Iranian Dynasties since Yazdegerd III as Illegitimate. Not to say even Darius the Great who built Persepolis and the Suez Canal but who toppled Cambyses ( Cyrus' legitimate successor) in a Palace Coup. That in itself would make the 500 or so years of the Aechemenid Dynasty illegitimate in the eyes of 21st century democrats or democrat wannabes.

Fatemi was not demanding the head of the shah in order to put Mossadegh on the Throne as King but as President and probably thinking of himself as the next potential Vice President or Prime Minister of an Iranian Republic to be.

Hence breaking the historic link that bonds all Iranian Dynasties which have had the honor of having embodied the Royal Institution in the history of Iranzamin.

KING OF KINGS: Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi's Tribute to Iran's Past Kings and People (Nowruz 1977)

Which does not contradict the fact that All Dynasties are created by ousting the previous one by force: The Shah himself acknowledges that in the tradition of all Absolute Monarchs have in the history of Iran:

Shah of Iran Talking About His Popularity Among the Iranians

but no Iranian King ever questioned the Continuity of theInstitution as Fatemi and Mossadeghollahis do or the IRI has today:

Want a Monarchy?You Already Have One! by Bahmani

Not only the IRI rejects Iran's Royal History but has also tried to wipe thenames of our Royals from the chapters of history and encourages all forms ofhumiliations of Iran's National Heroes by even removing their statues andencouraging self denial of Iran's history and banalizing Iran's royaltradition very much as the above author is doing in his article by distortingthe entire understanding of what that royal heritage represents in the historyof Iran.

It is preciesly That belief in continuity of Royal Institutions which also prompted why many Qajar's diplomats to Joined Reza Shah and Muhammed Reza Shah's subsequent governments.

Mossadegh himself a Qajar Prince who voted against Reza Shah's establishment of his dynasty ultimately accepted to work within the Framework of the new regime and accepted his nomination as Prime Minister.

Even Curtsying to his Sovereigns:

pictory: Mossadegh The Gentleman (1950's)

The above Tradition like many others were actually copied by all European Monarchies from our own Iranian Monarchs and not the otherway round but which you in your narrow minded Fascist ignorance very much like your Likemind with a different Underwear Sargord Pirooz wish to ignore:

HISTORY OF IDEAS: Georges Dumezil, on Indo European languages and Myths (Apostrophes,1984)

But allow me to go back to the initial debate and that is that Unless you attempt to create your own Dynasty (as Was the case of the Pahlavi Dynasty as well as all previous dynasties in 25 Centuries) Once you accept the rules of a given system of government you abide to it.

If he did not then betraying your King so as to establish yourself not as King but President is nothing short of Treason and at odds with the entire notion of Royal Continuity.

The Entire historical debate surrounding the events of 1953 are precisely aimed at establishing a fair and balanced assessment of the above statement and the responsibilities of all those involved.

You claim to have the answer to these historical dilemmas, I don't. I only have questions and offer what I believe corresponds to the truth.

I do not believe Mossadegh necessarily aimed at Toppling the Shah but he was definitively not opposed to it for sentimental reasons linked to his own Qajar Lineage but also because he surrounded himself by people who were definitively opposed to the very concept of Monarchy. Fatemi wished to see a Republic like in France to be established in Iran and called for the Hanging of the Shah and Queen Soraya in the same way the French treated MArie Antoinette and King Louis XVI.

REVOLUTION DEMYSTIFIED: Truth and Lies Surrounding the French Revolution

Proving after all the European history also has had far reaching influences on our very own Iranian Intelligentsia.

The Very Ideas of the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 were largely shaped by those of the European Rennaissance:

HISTORY FORUM: Nader Naderpour on Iran's Constitutional Revolution and European Rennaissance (1996)

The drafting of the 1906 Constitution was itself largely drafted from the Belgian Model. It was not born out of the blue.

As for Mossadegh I believe he was initially at worst Patronizing towards the Man who was Effectively Head of State under that Constitution. But when he saw that their was an opportunity to see him toppled by a popular upheaval, he chose not to curb the revolutionary zeal of those of his own Cabinet and never condemned the pulling down of the Statues of the Shah and his father.

Underestimating the fragility of Royal Institutions under a Constitution which was barely 50 years old can be dismissed as ignorance for an ordinary citizen but it becomes not only shortsightedness but irresponsible when you are supposed to be the Prime Minister of the Country and are supposed to first and foremost Serve Your Sovereign.

In Monarchies Citizens are Subjects and everyone including the Prime Minister acts in the Name of the King not the people. Even in a Democratic country like UK or Spain.

Yet In practice it does quite the contrary since the so called Acts of Parliament which should ultimately be submitted to the Monarch's endorsement are actually voted by Parliamentarians themselves elected by the King's "Subjects" (i.e: Citizens in a Republic).

The Monarch never opposes them because the Constitutional history in these European Monarchies have absorbed the democratic practices long enough to avoid Institutional Crisis.

That need for Checks and Balances is precisely what lacked not only under the Pahlavis but their predecessors ( not to say all previous dynasties) and which the Restoration of the Monarchy by Constitutionalists like me as well as the man we consider our Sovereign wish to see established in our country in the future and that is a Monarchy with a Fully accountable Parliamentary System of government:

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

That was not possible in 1953 given that the nation at large did not understand the mechanisms and sets or rules under which a Constitutional Monarchy operates.

It's not enough to have a Constitution on Paper if people don't fully understand how it works. Everyone ranging from the Monarch to the Prime Minister can then manipulate public opinion one way or another.

In the events that led to the 1953 so called Coup which I believe was Legally a Counter Coup, The Shah played no role in the toppling of Mossadegh other than not opposing it. In the same way that Mossadegh probably did not play a significant role in demanding the Shah's abdication nor publically did he declare a Republic as his Minister Fatemi did but under Popular pressure and ministers hostile to the Monarchy he never stood up to oppose their behavior.

That explains why more than half a century after these crucial events we are still having this debate.

Precisely because of the bitter observation that the Constitutional Monarchy was not given enough time to implement itself in the minds and behavior of a Population which at the time was largely illiterate and a power hungry political elite ready to compromise the fragile democratic Status Quo for short term political gains. Hence Mossadegh's personal responsability in his own downfall and not that of the Shah who by all accounts was legally the Head of State with Royal Prerogatives acknowledged by the Constitution, such as being head of the Army ( something which Mossadegh demanded arrogantly in order to fully controle the State).

It's precisely Mossadegh's Patronizing behavior which shaped his political shortsightedness on the importance of the Royal figurehead in the National Psyche of our Nation.

Even in Morocco today which is attempting to achieve a democratic transition towards a Constitutional Monarchy as in Europe, the King remains the Head of the armed Forces and still has royal Prerogatives.

You cannot undo an absolutist tradition especially in an ancient country like Iran overnight.

As such I believe Mossadegh fundamentally did not truly care about Reza Shah's offspring in the same way you don't regard Crown Prince Reza as your legitimate Sovereign.

That's YOUR Choice.

Not Mine and I won't apologize for it.

That is the difference between a Constitutionalist like me who knows that the Monarchy may not be Perfect but is worth keeping:

Stephen Fry On Why Monarchy Is Imperfect Yet Should Be Preserved

by suggesting like Shapour Bakhtiar did to see it restored but in a Fully Democratic and accountable Parliamentary Democracy:

RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy

and another OGHDEYEE narrow minded Fascist Warmonger like You who claims to be a Monarchist only to take cheap shots at anyone who disagrees with him whilst cowardly protecting himself and his reputation behind an Anonymous Avatar.

But do send my regards to Sargord Pirooz, Q, Hajmanitor and your other Uncultured and Itolerant Likeminds with different underwears ...

Take Care Pesarak !

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

I rest my case,

DK

Without HM Queens permission,

the British PM cannot dissolve the Parliament in order to launch a General Election. Therefore, this Radfar fellow is talking nonsense. But the UK constitution is not Iran's constitution of 1953. That fellow Mosaddeq was acting without legal sanctions to dissolve the Majlis a point that even his most brilliant and decent minister, Dr Sadiqi warned him against but the old demagogue did not listen. His fate had already been sealeded and good riddance was in order 

Ironic that one of Kadaver's

Ironic that one of Kadaver's blog asks whether asking for the head of the head of state is treason. Although he stops short of condemning Reza Shah for plotting and removing the foul Qajar dynasty.and therefore his entire reign feeding through to his son Mohammed Reza was illegitimate by his rationale. But Kadaver will.never admit to this.

Kadivar

I agree it would be an excellent read abd perhaps it might do you a lot of beneft instead of reinventing the Shah to fit the mould of European monachs which he wasn't.

Bayandor offers Excellent counter arguments in support of Shah

Finally someone making sense in this interesting debate.

Thanks for sharing.

Bayandor is the author of a new book which takes a Fresh look at the events of 1953 proving if needed that things were not as simple and reductive as "Good Mossadegh" Vs "Bad Shah".

Recommended Reading ( Aslo Read debate triggered by readers Thread to this interview of Bayandor by Fariba Amini):

Beyond Conspiracy Theories | Iranian.com by Fariba Amini

From that point of view it seems Bayandor's arguments echo what I also tried to demonstrate in these 2 blogs:

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"?