Shadows of mistrust

Who says that we "have to" be either on the side of Dr. Mossadegh or the Shah?


Share/Save/Bookmark

Shadows of mistrust
by Sohrab Ferdows
20-Aug-2007
 

Decades after the events of 1950's in Iran, there is still a lot of heated debates about what happened, who was to blame and why? The issue which in some people's view, originated from intervention of foreign elements in order to influence Iran's political process, had profound impact on the future events which happened during the years after that. Antagonistic atmosphere of Iranian politics has always been filled with extremist tendencies and emotions towards one side or another during this period which contributed a lot to creation of many unfounded stories around those events that eventually resulted in start of one of the cruelest governing systems of the world in our country.

Logical and thorough analysis of these historical events requires true neutrality towards all sides in order to bring a fair conclusion to a chapter in Iran's modern history and find out what went wrong without looking for someone to blame. It goes without saying that historical events of this magnitude can not be result of mistakes or bad intentions of a single person considering that every human being is capable of making mistakes while others can view those mistakes with different interpretations depending on their own political stand. To this day, Islamic regime of Iran and some other extremist elements with different political affiliations have been trying to take advantage of the situation by adding to misinformation and confusion about this matter. This cycle must be stopped and Iranians need to get over the paranoia about the events that has paralyzed their ability to deal with current issues at hand.

First step in this direction is to admit the existence of an issue that needs to be addressed in order to reach a settlement and create the grounds for further progress in the politics of the nation with confidence and trust. We need to put an end to all these bickering about the issues of the past which have been used by enemies to create division among our democratic forces. Who says that we "have to" be either on the side of Dr. Mossadegh or the Shah? A realistic analysis of the services by these two patriotic leaders will clearly show that they were both working for the interests of the nation. Political differences and judgment errors based on lack of proper and mutual understanding and also miscommunications happens between political leaders in the world everyday. Why should this matter have such a destructive effect over political destiny of a nation for so long?!

Unfortunately for Iranian people, geographical situation of the country has been an important contributing factor to many problems for them during centuries. The rulings of different conquerors that came to their land for wealth and fortune since the end of Sassanid era have made the situation worse every time. Even assimilation of some of those conqueror tribes did not save the nation from being treated as "conquered" for a very long time and destructive effects and influence of that status in every stage became a preface to another disastrous chapter in the nation's history. Surely, there have been times when Iranians have had some relative peace here and there with coming of a patriotic and caring leader but every time, that period of peace has been interrupted by eruption of brutality from another treasure hunter or greedy conqueror.

Tragic endings to stories of people like Babak Khoramdin, Abumuslim Khorasani, Maziar, Yaghub Leys Safari, Hassan Sabah and countless other known and unknown figures who tried their best to counter destructive forces of occupiers and invaders is a small portion from a long list that indicate the extent of efforts which have been made by Iranians to recover from the status of conquered. Political use of Shiite religious ideology during rule of Safavid tribe in order to repel the neighboring nation which was attempting to create an Islamic empire was a genius idea at that time in giving a distinctive status to the nation and separate them from the rest of Islamic world but extremist attitude that resulted from it became a hazardous byproduct which Iranians have to deal with till this day.

The damage caused by status of "conquered" that has continued for centuries has in fact become embedded in Iranian culture so deeply that it has created a cloud of distrust and paranoia over political atmosphere of the nation. Destructive influence of powerful colonial empires particularly during the reign of Kadjar kings made this matter even worse and competence and patriotism among Iranian politicians and leaders became a rare quality.

Expansion of the culture of "house boy" during this era, in which some Iranians openly showed their dependency to this or that foreign power by raising a flag on their rooftops to enjoy the privileges of this shameful act, had completely undermined the independence of the whole nation which once was a proud empire. At the same time, western civilization was advancing with speed of light and the number of Iranians who visited western nations was on the rise but these visitors could only convey their own wonders and admirations as a souvenir when they went back home! Among them, the new generation of Iranian leaders and politicians joined admirers of this or that western nation while failing to recognize their own problems and shortcomings in dealing with domestic issues.

Extreme poverty which was direct result from looting of Iranian national wealth by cruel tribal and national rulers, along with extensive power of religious figures who linked every simple event to divine powers and had control over all aspects of ordinary people's lives, had created a lot of opportunities for prevalence of corruption and expansion of influence by colonial powers. It was under this circumstances which people like Qavam-ol-saltaneh, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and Reza khan appeared in the political arena of Iran. Qavam and Dr. Mossadegh were aristocrats with links and relations to old school of Iranian politicians and long family history in that field while Reza khan, who came a bit later, was coming from the bottom of society with a considerable bag full of personal experience in poverty and all other issues that ordinary Iranians were facing in those days. Unlike Qavam and Dr. Mossadegh who had inherited their privileged status, Reza khan had gone through an adventurous and evolutionary process to get to where he was.

In simple words, Reza khan was an outsider while Qavam and Dr. Mossadegh were insiders to the ruling system who had both tribal and political links to the ruling class at that time. One could only expect that these differences in background would have an impact on relations between those people and the way that they viewed each other in the political battle field. One thing is certain about all of them and that is they all cared about well being of the nation and the differences came from their past experiences.

While Reza Khan later had the opportunity to implement some of his dreams through moving Iran in direction of becoming a modern and stable state, Qavam-ol-Saltaneh and Dr. Mossadegh made an imprint of their name in the history of our nation as patriotic leaders who deserve to be remembered with respect and honor. The issues and differences which came up later between Dr. Mossadegh and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran over implementing nationalization of Iranian oil industry should be analyzed and examined in the same context and with extreme caution. Both sides of this conflict definitely had mistakes and failures but blaming this or that side for all the problems with a "tit for tat" mentality will only prolong the shadow of distrust between political forces and prepares the ground for enemies to take advantage of this situation.


Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Rostam

Your remarks did not make

by Rostam on

Your remarks did not make any sense. If you want clarify and I will respond. And who are you to judge me and saying i want to have the last word or this or that as you constantly do? So much like dictators...


Parham

Re: Rostam

by Parham on

Didn't you already disqualify yourself in that area by talking about a "democratically elected parliament"??

Rostam, you would like to have the last word at any cost, go ahead, be my guest. That won't stop anyone from discussing history if they feel like it.


Rostam

Re: Parham

by Rostam on

My last remarks' target was not the main thread, it was a reply to YOUR comments. It seems that it is you who are not being careful.

 

I am biased and full of prejeduce? against whom?

 

I don't know my history? Just let me ask you one question and let's see if YOU know your history. What was CIA's plan B against Mosadegh in case the Shah refused to go back to Iran or participate in the coup? Time to do some googling haan?

 


Parham

Re: "Soozan gir kardeh"

by Parham on

Rostam, based on your replies here and there, I can only conclude that:
1- You don't know much about Iran's recent history and you keep spewing forth stuff that you think you should say, when sometimes they're not even related to the topics.
2- You don't even read the articles. You only take a look and react (quite emotionally, might I say) with the same replies all over, which makes the reader think you are completely disconnected.
3- You're biased and full of prejudices. You like putting people in frames that you think are correct and you take it from there.

Stop, take a deep breath, read about recent history, take a deep breath again, and then come here and try to debate, if that's what you think you're doing.
Also, try to focus on what the articles and people really say, not what you imagine they say.
There, somebody had to say it to you!


Rostam

Soozan gir kardeh

by Rostam on

Yes, Parham, the idea for democracy is the rule of the people, not this or that person. And yes and it is about the King not supposed to rule, but the people. But it is ALSO about Mosadegh or anyone else not supposed to rule either, but the people only. Mosadegh had no rights desolving the majlis, as much as the Shah didn't have the right to depose Mosadegh. As far as a refrundum replacing the majlis: Well any ruler can always desolve a democratically elected majlis and declare a refrundum. Hitler did that in Germany. Somehow it is a proven fact of history that any ruler who overthrew a democratically elected body of the goverment and declared a refurndum, the outcome of that refurundum was in his favor. I wonder why?

 

In short you are saying it is NOT ok for the Shah to be a dictator, but it IS ok for Mosadegh to be one.

 

Iranians are suffering and you and the likes of you don't let go of technicalities. On behalf of IRI, thank you. oghdeh kaali khon be ghyemat zajre hamvatan.

 


Rostam

Re: Parham

by Rostam on

Parham,

 

In Farsi, when one says "our parents were responsible for so and so...", he is not refering to YOUR parents. He is refering to our parents generation. So please don't be insulted. I have had these sort of issues with Iranians who grew up here in the US, so I can understand your confusion. I hope it is cleared now.


Parham

Re: response to Parham

by Parham on

It seems to me that you're repeating the same thing all over. Who talked about Jebhe Melli? Whose parents made what mistake? My parents are/were very honorable people, and I won't allow anyone to cross the line on that one, even if I know the person on the other side is completely out of whack.

Try to concentrate on the word "democracy", and trace it through our recent history. See where you can apply it and where you can't.

If you can't do that, there is no point in debate, which is really not what we're doing here from the beginning anyway with your personal insults.


Rostam

Re: response to Parham

by Rostam on

Parham says "how do you expect what you call Mosadeghis to trust people who after fifty something years don't even admit that there was a coup that was orchestrated by the CIA?"

 

I would like to counter-ask, how can the people of Iran trust Jebheye Melli when after thrity years they don't even admit their role and their mistakes in making IRI possible? By betraying Bakhtiar and joining Khomeini, they betrayed the people of Iran AND Dr. Mosadegh, period.

 

The point you don't get Parham, is that these issues should be set aside. Ending the suffering of Iranians to which you may not be as sensitive as some other Iranians may be, should be the highest priority. As of you, you have learnt nothing from the mistakes of your parents. You keep repeating the same thing like a parrott. Both Jebheye Melli and the Shah paved the way to IRI by being stubborn. And today, Shah-olahis and Mosadegh-olahis continue to do the same, much to the pleasure of the IRI, and much to the chagrin of Iranian people. It would be nice to see both groups promise to quitely go to their corners and remain silent, and let the new wave of unity to take hold. Unfortunately, as long as the likes of you are in majority, that dream will not come true.


Parham

Re: Biased opinion

by Parham on

Again, the idea is not really this or that person, it's democracy. It's where the king is not supposed to rule, but the people. I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but for other people who might read this, democracy is the rule of the people by the people -- themselves. Let's concentrate on that.


Parham

Re: Which one

by Parham on

I know what you mean about unity Rostam. However, how do you expect what you call "Mosadeghis" to trust people who after fifty something years don't even admit that there was a coup that was orchestrated by the CIA?? In order for unity to be there, there has to be some trust to begin with.
As to your comments in other threads about "tof andakhtan" and "tof nayandakhtan", I don't think I'll answer them.


Rostam

Two good articles

by Rostam on

I read this article and the one you submitted in 2005. They both encourage unity and knowing what our priorities should be. I wish one day an organization against the IRI would rise that would provide an atmosphere of unity, respect and positive thinking, crediting both Dr. Mosadegh and the Shah and all other secular progressive "rejaal" who served Iran in the past.

 

I wish Iranians would then find the "bozorgi" in themselves to see the importance of unity around our common beliefs, i.e., secularism, progress and freeing Iran from the IRI. And they could see the "un-importance" of what divides Shahis and Mosadeghis considering the terrible and historically disastrous impacts the IRI has had on Iran.

 

In the past, when I read the history of 200 years of Arab conquest of Persia, I always asked myself: Despite of all the terrible crimes the Arabs committed against Iranians, why they couldn't band together and get rid of the Arabs in all those 200 years? I am beginning to see the reasons by looking at our own situation today. I won't be surprised if the IRI last another 100 years or more. Many centruries from today, another Iranian may read the history of IRI conquest of Iran, and wonder why we couldn't overthrow the IRI despite of all the favorable and anti-IRI conditions that existed domestically and internationally. I could easily answer him: Shahis, Mosadeghis, leftists, etc... mostly chose to be little insignificant men and women instead of the great Iranians they could be. They were the reason why IRI lasted.

 

 

Rostam


manesh

Dear Friends

by manesh on

I wrote something similar to Sohrab's in 2005: http://iranian.com/Opinion/2005/June/Manesh/in...

Not to advertise my writing, but just to show he is not alone in what he says.  It's a good line of thinking because it's constructive and uniting.

 


Rostam

Re: Which one

by Rostam on

Parham, I am not sure how comfortable you are with Farsi, but in Farsi we have sayings like "mesle tooti ye harfo tekrarr mikoneh". This is not belittling or insulting. maybe translated into English, it sounds insulting, in which case I apologize.

 

My point was that Sohrab is spending time trying to say that we should let go of the differences and unite around the similarities to fight against the IRI. It is as though someone spends hours, even days, and tries to explain this logic to someone, and at the end of the day the listener didn't absorb a bit of that wisdom. Back to square one!

 

Saying that the Shah was undemorcatic and Mosadegh was democratic, or vice-versa, is not only a favor to IRI to last longer, but also it is cliche and old. It is not "shick" anymore, nor does it prove intellectuality or patriotism. Quite the opposite, considering the misery that Iranians are enduring. 

 

Is it not more important to emphasize that Mosadegh and Shah were BOTH secular? That they were BOTH in favor of progress? BOTH against the "lajan" that IRI is?

 

Thank you for your article. It was an in-depth analysis of the law at the time of Mosadegh/Shah. I was handed a similar article by a pro-Shah Iranian. Unfortunately, that article and yours as well are both biased. One against Mosadegh and yours against the Shah.

 

Rostam


default

Dear friends

by Sohrab (not verified) on

I don't believe getting involved in endless debate about who stood for what will help anyone and any conclusion can be reached. This is the exact same issue which has been addressed in this article. If we try to understand and accept that there is no perfect way to do anything and also there is no perfect human as well as no perfect politician in real world, then we may be able to view things more realistically. Patriotic figures of the past did what they believed was right to achieve something which they believed would be in the interest of the nation. The degree of their success or failures should be analyzed while considering combination of many different conditions and availability of vital resources to achieve those goals. Today, our nation needs true leadership out of this mess rather than making new heroes for their past. Endless quarrels over petty issues which will have no bearings other than ignoring intelligence of people is just waste of time. I am glad that our compatriots in National Front have mostly been able to see the damaging effect of this behavior and have made changes to reflect more realistic positions on different political issues as a true political group/party supposed to.

Best regards

Sohrab Ferdows


Parvane_K

Biased opinion

by Parvane_K on

Once the views expressed by one side or the other are tinged with bias, the whole argument is reduced to a tit-for-tat exercise. Such is the nature of the article sugggested as a reference by Parham. I read the article which its link was provided by Parham and despite all the struggle that the author had gone through, he has missed, I presume deliberately, the most central point of the whole debate. The Shah's decree that removed Dr Mossadegh from being a Prime Minister was issued constitutionally and had to be followed by Mossadegh because there was NO parliament to approve or disaaprove of that decree. And you may rightly ask why there was no parliament to approve or disapprove of that decree. The answer is simple: Dr Mossadegh had already, unilaterally and unconstitutionally, dissolved the parliament (Majles). In his memeoir, his most distinguished minister (of Home affairs), Dr Gholamhossein Sadighi, recalls that he warned Dr Mossadegh of the unconstitutional nature of his decision to dissolve the Majles and that in the absence of an elected parliament, the Shah had every power to remove or appoint a Prime Minister. Mossadegh's reply: He (the Shah) wouldn't dare! History proved him (Mossadegh) wrong.


manesh

I agree with Sohrab Ferdows

by manesh on

This division between "Shahi's" and "Mossadeghi's" has been destructive, but has very obvious roots.


Shahi's were/are the conservatives in Iran. Mossadeghi's were/are liberals in Iran. In the absence of a system of government that makes room for both, these two natural forces of politics fought until a third party (Islamists) took over the country.


It could be that simple.


After the 1906 constitutional revolution in Iran, political forces, very naturally, divided into conservatism and libralism. Every democratic society has this division. But, in the young democracy of Iran, and under tremendous foreign meddling, these two forces never learned to co-exist. They always looked at each other with mistrust and suspected each other's motives. Neither side saw the other as counter-balance. Therefore, the democratic system collapsed and an authoritative system took over, disenfranchising both constitutionalist conservatives and liberals. Amazingly, the two sides still see each other the same way 28 years after both having been driven out of Iranian politics.


Yes, I do believe both Shah and Mossadegh were nationalists who gave everything to make Iran proud. I honor and respect both.


I don't think we should forget about them and move on. I think we should STOP and learn from what happened. I thank Sohrab for raising the issue.



manesh

Do not forget

by manesh on

In your recounting the dynamics of Shah & Mossadegh's actions, do not forget about the tremendous pressue foreign interests were bringing upon both of them and the nation.


Parham

Re: "Which one?"

by Parham on

Rostam,

I hope you're not here only to insult or belittle people by calling them "parrots" or what have you.
Your answer in full is given in the following article. I hope you read Farsi:

http://www.tvpn.de/ois/ois-iran-3104.htm

If you need a shorter version, I'll post one for you later. Let me know.


Rostam

Which one?

by Rostam on

Mr. Parham,

Which one stood for democracy and respect for the constituion? The Shah with his dictatorial ways or Dr. Mosadegh with his dictatorial ways?

The Shah reverted to dictatorship because he "thought" that the country was in a state of emergency, and drastic measures were needed to save it. He started by deposing the "democratically elected" Prime Minister, Dr. Mosadegh who opposed some of the Shah's policies. An anti-constitutional act. He did not stopped there. He stepped up with his dictatorial ways later.

Mosadegh too, reverted to dictatorship because he "thought" the country was in a state of emergency, and drastic measures were needed to save it. He started by desolving the "democratically elected" parliament/majles. The very same parliament that "democratically elected" him, but opposed some of Mosadegh's policies. An anti-constitutional act. He did not stop there. He stepped up with his dictatorial ways later.

So what is the difference? The difference is that Mosadegh reverted to dictatorship for a couple of years until he was removed, and the Shah for a couple of decades until he was removed. Had Dr. Mosadegh stayed in power and jailed the Shah, then half the country would be praising the Shah today.

So Mr. Parham, please advice me. Since I don't worship the dead and I an not stucked in the past, I need to KNOW which one stood for democracy and respect of the constitution? The Shah who moved against the constitution, or Dr. Mosadegh who also moved against the constitution?

I think this is the point that Mr. Ferdows was trying to make. But Mr. Ferdows will very soon learn that his logic, once thrown at the "brick" of Iran's fanatism and worship of the dead, will only bounce back at him. Mr. Ferdows will very soon learn that he is talking to parrots who after listening to him for even hours and hours, they will still keep repeating the same old bankrupt words.

Rostam


Kaveh Nouraee

 .

by Kaveh Nouraee on

 .


Parham

"Have to"

by Parham on

Nobody "has to side" with anyone , but the idea is one stood for democracy and respect of the constitution, the other did not.


FACEBOOK