COUP D'ETAT

Mr Kadivar, your question WAS answered

Unless you expect to receive an answer from the Pro-Mossadegh camp, I did answer your question in my comment further down to which Ms Amini replied in her usual vitriol by denying all things. Here I repeat my answer:

Mossadegh did not and could not order the Shah out of the country. The Shah was certainly put under the pressure to leave but at the end it was his decision and his alone. This had no constitutional implication. BUT, Mossadegh's unilateral decision to ask the his supporters in Majlis to resign and by doing so forcing the parliament (Majlis) into a state of "hung" parliament, was definitely unconstitutional and as a result the subsequently held referendum was unconstitutional. even the most arden of Mossadeghis have no defense against this arguement. Because according to the Iranian, Belgian or British constitution (which the last two had served as models for Iranian constitution) when there is effectively no parliament or a "hung" parliament, the ONLY authority who would be able to appoint or remove a prime minister is the Monarch himself. Mossadegh, in his narcisstic state of mind had assumed that the Shah would not dare remove him. History proved that he was so pathetically wrong.

ferdos or Fariba Amini ? "Majesty" VS "Dr", Bistrot Conversation

I'm wondering who is who ? In anycase I really don't see what the Shahbanou Farah has to be held accountable for the Coup or Counter Coup given that she was not Empress at the Time but Soraya.

As for the use of the Term "Majesty" Fariba Jan, you may ignore that former Presidents, Kings and Queens maintain that title even after their term or even downfall. That is the case for President Bill Clinton, President Carter ( whom you consider as one of the Greatest American Presidents which is your perfect right but I doubt most Iranians share your view on this), President Giscard D'Estaing, Chirac and Sarkozy today. This is used by respect for the Function they occupied and their constituency that supports them and who do not deserve to be despised merely because you don't like them. You will see no journalist interview Shahbanou Farah by calling her "Khanoum" or "Farah Jan" nor will they interview Mr. Tony Blaire but Prime Minister Tony Blaire for once you have been occupying the post you remain entitled to that denomination even after leaving office. This remains true even if you were not elected and took power by force or inherited it through your parents as in the case of most Royalty. You may consider it unjust and hypocritical but that is how society and even the media treats those in Power. If the people in question are pursued by an international court of Justice like Milosevitch or Saddam Hussein for Crimes against Humanity that would be different but I very much doubt that Farah Diba like you like to belittle her ( as if you were some judge or qualified person to rate a former Queen's Status to your level ) are held accountable for any crime or responsability in the events of 1953.

You seem to despise her only by personal resentment and prejudice than any form of objectivity. I am willing to drop the word "Majesty" if you Drop the Term "Dr" for Mossadegh. In both cases we would be only belittiling ourselves.

As for your rhetoric Slant on the Pahlavi's loving money and all the expenses of the Persepolis Celebrations, Give us a Break ! At least now we have a Film narrated by Orson Welles and it is one of the most watched and scrutinized films on DVD which most people enjoy watching and compensates largely for not having been invited.

Nobody to my knowledge answered my question regarding the Mossadegh's behavior towards to Constitution and whether or not he breached it from a legal point of view. The rest in my opinion is like the French say "conversation de Bistrot" aka  "Kaj Kolah Khan conversations"

This is not about  Aghdashloo VS Googoosh for Gods Sake ...

I am surprised and dissappointed that you Fariba ( If you are Ferdos) from all people  lower yourself to such levels ... 

Most of you people simply

Most of you people simply do not have a clue. Please read "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer. It is a very well written book chronologizing all the events that led up to the coup and the results which ensued.

Once you have read the book (or any book) with historical and factual backing, then come back and comment on "what happened", instead of posting stupid consipracy theories and bewildering statements in which you know nothing about.

for FactFalsifier

FactFalsifier,

1. I did use the word "Insaniyat." My bad: I meant to use "Adamiyat" society.

2. YOU used Farhad Diba’s book to prove that Dr. Mossadegh was a freemason. 

3. I used the source YOU used to prove that according to the source YOU provided, you totally falsified the source's argument. In the very next page, Diba argues that Adamiyat was NOT a freemason group. And shows that Raiin made that up as a passport in order to gain permission to publish his book.  What you did is like someone writes La allaha il-allah, "There is No God, but Allah," and you quote them as writing "There is No God."  What you did in your post, YOU falsified Farhad Diba's argument. 

4. Instead of honestly admitting that you either did not read the next page in Diba’s book or actually read it by falsified the argument, you proceed to provide ANOTHER source. This is what this source writes:

The Lodge Pahlavi (or Homa@yu@n), which was founded in the early 1950s (after three decades of Freemasonry's dormant phase) to mobilize Persian notables against the government of Moháammad Mosáaddeq,

The source you now provide makes the OPPOSITE argument. In the FIRST source YOU provided, it says that Adamiyat society was NOT a Freemason group, the SECOND source claims that Adamiyat is a Freemason group. This shows that it there is a disagreement on whether Adamiyat society was a Freemason group.  So it is not clear if "Adamyat was a Freemason group," or "Adamiyat was NOT a Freemason group," or "it was a precursor to one" .....

5. The following is from Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle For Power in Iran (London and NY: I.B. Tauris, 1990), pp. 4-5.

"By this time he had become a member of a progressive society, Adamiyat, which apparently had Freemasonry connections.... In any event, he remained in the society only for a couple of weeks, later joined the Insaniyat society, of which Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda.... was also a member. This society was radical revolutionary organization, with thirty voluntary musketeers to its credit. But the young Constitutionalist was soon to be disillusioned in his association with them."

6. Are you now willing to accept that the bizarre attacks by monarchists and fundamentalists is false?  This dude Hassan Ayat who was a collaborator of CIA in the 1953 coup and the theoretician of Islamic Republican Party (party of Khomeini, Rafsanjani, khamanehi, Beheshti) in 1979-1981, writes a book attacking Dr. Mossadegh has an agenda.  He is not interested in the truth.  Ayat is the same person who told other leaders of the IRP that they should not help with the war effort against Saddam's forces because doing so would help President Bani Sadr, and instead should wait until Bani Sadr is overthrown and then send in all the fundamentalist forces!!!!!  This dude harms Iran's interests for his own parochial interests, would not he falsify history for his own personal interests?   

7. Conclusion.

A. Dr. Mossadegh joined a group called Adamiyat Society. He was its member for a couple of weeks.

B. There is a disagreement whether this group (which Dr. Mossadegh was a member of for 2 or so weeks) is a Freemason group.

C. There is absolutely no dispute that the Freemason group Pahlavi Lodge organized to oppose Dr. Mossadegh’s government.

Are you willing to admit that your statements "more significantly Mossadegh was a well known member of Iran's Freemasonary"  is FALSE. I invite you to be honest and admit that what you wrote is FALSIFYING facts. Are you willing to admit to be wrong?

Waiting for you to admit that you are wrong.

MK

Ok, now I am getting really

Ok, now I am getting really upset.

Not because we are dealing with people who want to argue or just criticize, but people who have no real integrity to once and for all say there was a coup and there were Iranians who got paid and collaborated against their own government and their nation. Now They have the audacity to come up with Free Masonry branding.

Why doesn't anyone come up with the other side of the story? why don't you go and interview Farah Diba, Ardeshir Zahedi (whose reply in the NYTimes was pathetic with a bad English)
and all the generals and ministers of the Shah, the ones who may still be alive. Shaban Jaafari, alias Shaban bee mokh was interviewed by Ms. Homa Sarshar in a thick book she produced and even he did not have the guts to tell the truth. Ironically he died in L.A. on this very day. But hey, we take the time, we go on researching and we do the translating and we still get the ... from you.

There is only one fact and that is, that on Aug 19, 1953, a democratic government was brought down by foreigners, i.e. the British and the Americans and their agents. But you know who is really to blame ? the Iranians! They sold their country and its wealth and prospects for a democracy for a few thousand dollars and Shame on them! and shame on those who defend them.

A man who defended his nation was put on trial and the man who sold his country and later was forced to leave the country (the Shah) because his masters decided to, and because he was weak came back. But you know what comes around goes around.

I dont't see things black and white anymore. The Shah also loved Iran but he also loved money and loved that he was the King of Kings, the light of the Aryans. How much did he spend on the 2500 year anniversay of the Persian Empire? He didn't even use Persian food. They brought the food from Maxim of Paris. talk about Gharb Zadegi!

Now , let's face it you all, Mossadegh was a patriot, he was incorruptable, he went against his own family, the corrupt Qajars when he could have had it all. The Pahlavis, the nouveau riche and their entourage just hoarded money. The Shah did not even let Mossadegh be burried next to the martyrs of 30 Tir. He, like the rest of them was scared of this man even after his death. why is everyone scared of this man, after half a century, like Khomeini who was so jealous that he said they are getting together barayeh yek mosht poust o ostekhoun!

A week ago, Ann Lambton, who was an advisor to the Brtish and who told them not to compromise with Mossadegh at any cost died. But she was also too much of a coward to admit her role in the coup. She was a "scholar" who said NO Compromise with Mossadegh. it is not in our interest. why was everyone scared of this man?

Mossadegh with all the badmouthing from right and left will forever be remembered as a hero who lived a simple life until the very end. I went to Ahmad Abad and saw it with my own eyes. As a simple store clerk told me on the way to Ahmad Abad a few years ago, " he really cared for Iran, and he really cared for us."

Why is it that in all the pro-democracy student demonstrations in Iran today and yesterday, Only one person's photo is held up, always? MOSSADEGH.

You know why? Because he truly represented what is called DEMOCRACY.

Facts remain Facts

Mr Kazemzadeh and Ms Ferdos (Fariba Amini)

You are both good in mixing facts and fiction together to come up with your predetermined conclusions. My task, however, is separating facts from fiction and leaving the readers to conclude for themselves. Your pictures are entirely black and white. My pictures are in full color.

For example, in your rush to demonize Teymour Bakhtiar, more than the conventional, Ferdos suggests that Bakhtiar arrested and executed Fatemi. This is what I mean by mixing of facts with fiction. Fatemi was arrested by one of the officers of the military command of Tehran whose name was Major Mowlavi (many years later when he was a Brigadier General in charge of Tehran's Gendarmerie, he was killed in a helicopter accident (in the early 1970's) in Jajrood, north of Tehran). Bakhtiar, aside his married life, was a highly educated (Saint-Cyr) and principled officer. He had a family friendship with the Fatemis (of Isfahan) and was not happy with the arrest and the subsequent assault on Fatemi by members of Sha'ban group. If anything, he did his best to persuade Fatemi to ask for a royal pardon and was deeply sad by his refusal and the subsequent execution.…

Teymour and Shapour Bakhtiar were cousins and both went to school in Beirut. He was the bravest and most patriotic of the Shah's generals. For more information and very interesting photogallery, visit the site for Bakhtiari family which is set up by his elder daughter, Golnar Bakhtiar. See the photo taken from Shapour and Teymour in Beirut (//www.bakhtiarifamily.com/teymourbakhtiar.php). Also read how Teymour's mother, bibi Kokab, who was daughter of a Bakhtiari chieftain, gave refuge to Dr Mosaddeq while he was fleeing the government when he was the governor of Fars province.

And now over to Mr Kazemzadeh who thinks he has unproven the Big Bang theory :-))

Farhad Diba, a nephew of Mosaddeq, cannot and is not an objective biographer of his maternal uncle, Mohammad Mosaddeq. But even Farhad Diba, a seasoned Anglophile with a passion for his Qajar relatives, and a darling of their annual parties, cannot ignore the fact that Mosaddeq was a member of the Jameeyat-e Adamiyat (and not Ensaniyat as you have wrongly invented). I chose the reference to his highly prejudicial book only to show that even his close relative is admitting of Mosaddeq's membership of this secret and elitist society. There is a copy of Mosaddeq's secret membership oath nut there is no evidence of his resignation from this society, In Freemasonry, once a member, there is no way out, unless one is expelled. Again no evidence suggests that Mosaddeq was expelled. The fact that Adamiyat Society of Masonic loge is beyond dispute. See the following link to Encyclopaedia Iranica (//www.iranica.com/articles/v10f2/v10f235a.htm...). Freemasonry comes in colors and shades. Not all masons are united in one goal. Mosaddeq joined the Adamiyat lodge at the time of constitutional revolution but in 1950's a different shade of Masonic lodges appeared in Iran who were opposed to Mosaddeq (again see the above link. Besides, what you don't know or do not want to admit s that some of Mosaddeq's closest friends and supporters were mason too. Abdollah Entezam (a Grand Master) and his brother Nsarollah Entezam were both famous free masons and of Mosaddeq's allies. So were cabinet members Adham and Hey'at. By the way General Zahedi, yes the same allegedly Nazi sympathizer, was a minister in Mosaddeq's first cabinet!

So, Mr Kazemzadeh, the facts still prove that Mosaddeq was a member of Iran's Freemasonry whether you and others like it or not. Having said that NOT ALL FREEMASON'S LODGES OBEYED THE GRAND LODGE OF SCOTLAND.

Thanks Massound and Mammad

Thanks Massound and Mammad for your kind remarks. Actually I took the part about Teymour Bakhtiar right out of Wikipedia, if you go online and check under Teymur Bakhtiar, see the photo.

it's very telling. Triumphant coup d'etat chis holding a man in custody who is later stabbed, with high fever, taken from his hospital bed and executed, that is Dr. Hossein Fatemi. Only two years earlier he was standing next to Mossadegh at the reception at Columbia University.

Fariba

Fariba Khaanoum

Thank you very much for an excellent article. I truly enjoyed reading it. Dr. Mosaddegh has always been my true national hero.

In my opinion, those who deny history, or try to revise it, do not, in fact, understand it. As I said last year in an article, such people want us to inhabit a rigid information matrix, into which only their version of history is fed. History is NOT opinion. History is documented, irrefutable facts, written by historians. Writing history is a science. 

The same is true about the right-wingers in Iran. They also want to revise the 1331-1332 events in their own favor, like claiming that Ayatollah Kashani was the leader of oi industry nationalization, or completely covering the role of Fedaaeen of Islam in the coup.

Is the similarity between secular Iranian rightists and Islamic Iranian rightists not interesting?

Mammad

Mr. JR: Shah as muslim

While I agree with many of your statements, I do take issues with a few.

1. The relation between Ayatollah Kashani and Britain is not as clear cut as you say. There is considerable credible evidence that, at least  towards the end of Dr. Mosadadegh's government, British agents had established close contacts with Ayatollah Kashani.

2. You describe the Shah as a good Muslim, and as evidence you mention a few things that the Shah did. I am a practicing Muslim and Shi'ite. I do not know whether I am a good one or not, because the only judge is God. So, I cannot also say whether the Shah was a good Muslim or not. But, I can say that the evidence that you mention means very little, if anything.

Going to Mashhad and Emam Reza means nothing. In fact, the way a lot of people do it is more superstition than a true paying of respect to an important religious leader.

His claim that it was Hazrat-e Abbas that saved him during the assassination attempt on his life in 1343 was nothing but playing to people's emotions and superstitious beliefs. He said at that time that,

"All of a sudden, Hazrat-e Abbas appeared on his horse and grabbed me."

The best response to this claim was given by the incomparable humor and satire magazine Towfigh which, just a few days later, on its last page, at the bottom left corner, gave the following response, without mentioning the Shah or his claim:

 "Bilaakh, Hazrat-e Abbas dast nadaasht!"

My father, a very religious man himself, saved that response for years and showed it to me as an example of superstition. We may still have it in Tehran.

3. A true Muslim (I do not use good) does not resort to such things as above. These are superstitions. A true Muslim does not also believe in being picked by God. According to Islamic teachings, after the Prophet (and the Emams according to Shi'ism) no one is picked by God. His trinity of Khoda-Shah-Mihan was also fake, in my opinion. The Shah was not on the same level as God and Mihan. In addition, the way the propaganda went, the Shah was always written at the top, with God and Mihan being below it. That was a clear message not lost on many people.

4. The Shah had divided the Rouhaniyat into three groups:

(1) Those who were actively cooperative, and received generous contributions from his government.

(2) Those who were silent regarding whatever he did. They also received contributions, if wanted to.

(3) Those who were actively opposed to him, who were jailed, or killed (like Ayatollahs Saeedi, Ghaffari, etc.)

But, if you look at this division carefully, you see that this classification is EXACTLY the same as the one that right-wingers in Iran, from Ayatollah Khamenei down, also have.

5. During the entire period 1332-1357, the Shah tried to transfer the center of gravity of Shi'ism from Ghom to Najaf, simply because he wanted to marginalize Ghom. When any ayatollah would pass away, he would send his condolences not to important Marja's in Ghom, but to Najaf and Ayatollah Khoei. He, of course, failed in his attempt.

6. Finally, the fact that the Shah did not kill Ayatollah Montazeri, Rafsanjani, and others was not because he was kind to them. As I mentioned above, he had killed others. The reasons that he did not do so had to do with other considerations.

First, people like Ayatollah Montazeri had great influence.

Second, such Ayatollahs as Khaansaari (in Tehran Baazaar) and Shariatmadari, who were quietly supportive of him, were opposed to this, and had warned him about the dire consequences of doing so.

Third, he kept Ayatollah Montazeri (and others, such as Ayatollah Lahouti) in jail far beyond his sentence, because he was afraid of his influence. Ayatollah Montazeri was ill in jail, and when the jail sentence of Dr. Abbas Sheibani was over, he volunteered to stay in jail to take care of him. 

But, he also freed those Islamic activists who asked for his clemency and forgiveness - were willing to kiss his back - like Habibollah Asgar Oladi and Asadollah Badamchiyan, who are now important figures in Iran's right wing and lead the Islamic Coalition Party.

Mammad

Ferdos

You failed to mention one crucial detail: After all of Bakhtiar's "accomplishments" in his services to the Shah, by murdering and jailing all those who were fighting for liberty and democracy, in addition to the fundamentalists, he was assassinated in Baghdad in 1971, after he had fled Iran, fearing for his life.

In October 1971, an Iran Air aircraft was hijacked and taken to Baghdad, on the pretence that the hijackers were members of the opposition. A few days later, Bakhtiar was asassinated, and it turned out that the "hijackers" were SAVAK agents. This was the first act of state-sponsored terrorism by Iran (at least to my knbowledge) by none other than the government of His Majesty, Shahanshah Aryamehr, Bozorg Arteshtaraan. Such terrorist acts did not start with the IRI.

Mammad

Tagseereh James Bond Bood Bacheha ;0)

You got it all wrong guys ... Check out the latest ;0) LOL

//iranian.com/main/node/37185

Teymour Bakhtiar was the first head of SAVAK

Bakhtiar rose rapidly in Iran's military after the fall of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953. A close associate of Prime Minister Fazlollah Zahedi, he was promoted to military governor of Tehran. One of his first major successes was the capture and trial of Mossadeq's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hossein Fatemi, who had actively fought the military government, succeeding Mossadegh's period in office, from underground.

Teymur Bakhtiar (seated) posing with captured ex-minister, turned dissident, Hossein Fatemi (bearded)Bakhtiar waged an extensive campaign against the Communist Tudeh party; he arrested and had 24 Tudeh leaders summarily tried and executed, including Khalil Tahmasebi, the assassin of former Prime Minister Ali Razmara. For these accomplishments, he was appointed modern Iran's youngest three-star general in 1954. Bakhtiar was made head of the newly-formed intelligence and security service SAVAK in February 1958. He ruthlessly crushed any opposition to the regime, including communists, Islamic fundamentalists, and any other anti-monarchists.

Dear Mr. Kazemzadeh

Thank you for your post. Yes, Iran had all the democratic elements you describe which means that it was a democracy. I was only referring to Jamshid's thoughts with respect to the fact that Dr. Mossadegh had to resort to undemocratic dictatorial methods to protect his government.

Jamshid specifically stated the following:

"Mosadegh did not do so because he was a dictator, but because he had no choice.
He, you, I or anyone else in his position, when confronted with foreign
meddling and more importantly, with the many domestic anti-democratic
forces, would have no choice but to resort to some dictatorial methods
in order to stop those forces."

When I talk about a state of mind, I am sad to say that the average Iranian in 53, or today, did not fully understands these principles and elements that you listed above. We have had so much dictatorship in all elements of life as a society that we only understand and respect might is right type of mentality.

For example, Iraqis may have a weak democracy today. If the American's left tomorrow, do you think they can preserve this democracy?

Look at Turkey, would it be a democracy today if it did not have the military step in so many times out of fear that some politicians would use the democratic system to destroy the democratic institutions?   

I personally think that the main element that is missing in the middle east region is a large enough middle class with economic power and education to preserve the democratic institutions. It just does not pay enough for the masses to fight for democracy.  Islamic fundamentalist and Islamic leftist school of thought does not help the situation either (an element missing in India for example).

R: Jamshid

Dear Jamshid,

To answer your questions, first we have to put them in a chronological order. When I said that ayatollah Kashani sided with the Shah, I meant in 1953= 1332. It was before the land reforms and women rights which angered the Shiite clergy a decade later which led to the 15, Khordad, 1342 riots.

Kashani was one of the rare Mullahs whose wires were not pulled by the British, his support for the Shah during the coup was because he considered the Shah a better Muslim, whereas in his views Mossadegh could bring about the danger of "atheist" from the pro Soviet Tudeh Party.

In fact, Kashani had rights, the Shah was a good Muslim: he regularly visited Shiite shrines, he believed in becoming helps from the Shiite Imams and legends like Hazrat Abbas, like any religious megalomaniac, he though he was God's hand-picked shadow on earth, and propagated his trinity of Khoda-Shah-Mihan.

From 1941 until 1951, the country was almost in an economic and technological stagnation. In this decade Shiite clergy who was ousted from the political arena during the Reza shah's reign, returned to the political arena. The clergy wanted a traditional mode of production and a rule based on Sharia, which was not very absent in the 1906 Constitution. Only doing so, Mullahs could increase their influence and their interests and be respected. Therefore, Kashani, despite his anti-British reputation, opposed to Mossadegh for his reforms. It is absolutely imaginable that the Shiite clergy would opposeto any political leader who is for modernity and gender equalities. The same clergy would oppose the Shah, Mossadegh or any reformist, modern, secular and democratic state.

That was the reason the similar clergy also opposed the Shah when he started his reforms. Mullahs were against the land reforms, and in a higher degree, against women rights.

The Shah did not ignore Mullahs. The shah postponed his reforms as long as ayatollah Borojerdi , Marja' Taghlid, was alive. He ordered the SAVAK to pay most Mullahs a remuneration, at least for their silence. Hojjatyeh sect was tolerated and a return to Shiite tradition of mourning for Ashoura...became even with some political colour in the absence of real political opposition. Only in Islamic milieus an opposition to the Shah could be relatively tolerated. Despite of some modernisation, Mullahs were respected by the Royal court and were everywhere present. Even their opposition was not so curbed as that of secular--none of a turbaned dissident like Monaetzeri, Taleghani, Khamenei, Rafsanjani… were executed by the Shah.

What concerns democracy, I think all countries need it to hasten their progress in the framework of social evolution. I think if some nations are deprived from democracy this is rather because of the interests of the ruling elite, not the bad education, traditional culture,shape of the society and so on. See countries like India, South Africa which just became democratic after the freedom. Even new countries like USA, Australia, News land… got the level without a dictatorial transformation. Although, democracy has been abused by some ideological states, but it remains today in a context of state. Without a democratic state we will never achieve democratic institutions or even a sudden national democratic culture. As you know, today IRI's supporters' trick is to buy time for IRI's survival with the argumentation that our people are not rife for a democratic and secular regime.

What is Democracy?; Iran During Mossadegh-JM was a Democracy

Dear Ms. Amini,

Thank you for the post.

MK

=====================================

A-Haha,

Democracy is not a state of mind. Democracy is a political system. At its most simple form, it requires:

1. Govt is elected by the majority;

2. Those in the minority have their civil liberties and freedoms protected; therefore, a minority in this election could become majority in the next election.

3. Those who win respect the civil liberties and freedom of those in minority; and those in minority respect the legitimacy of those who won the election;

4. Civil liberties and freedoms include freedom of the press, freedom of having one’s political party of choosing;

For one of the best brief works by one of the top experts on democracy see:

Robert Dahl, "What Political Institutions Does Large-Scale Democracy Require?" Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 120, No. 2 (Summer 2005), pp. 187-197.

 //www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2005&bmonth=summer&a=01free&format=view

==========================

According to political science definition of democracy, Iran during Dr. Mossadegh was a democracy.  Democracies fall.  Once a democratic system has consolidated, then it is called a consolidated democracy.  We had a weak democracy between 1906 and 1911; and then a partial one until 1921.  Even until 1925, large elements of democracy was in existence in Iran.  in December 1925 all elements of democracy was crushed by Reza Shah.  Democracy re-emerged in Iran after 1945.  It was weak.  Democracy in full definision existed in Iran during Dr. Mossadegh-JM period between 1951 and 1953.  We have had brutal dictatorship since then.

MK

Proving that Dr. Mossadegh was NOT in a Freemason group

factfinder,

In the very same wonderful book you used, if you look at the very NEXT page, it says that the Ensaniyat society was NOT a freemason organization.  It says that it was a group to support and defend the 1906 Constitution.  In fact, it adds that the Freemasons opposed Mossadegh's govt in 1951-53.

Please READ the following page (p. 9), and be HONEST and admit that you are WRONG.  Prove that you are an honest person, and simply made and error.  Otherwise, you should change your screen name to factfalsifier.  :-)

This LIE has been created under the Shah's regime and then by the fundamentalist regime (under Hassan Ayat, who himself collaborated with CIA coup and then was the theoretician of the Islamic Republican Party).  

Dr. Mossadegh joined the Ensaniyat society when he was 26, and was in it for only a few weeks.  At that time, Dr. Mossadegh was more militant supporter of the Constitutional revolution. 

MK

//books.google.com/books?id=a64OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA8&ots=y85BROLtsU&dq=mossadegh+%2Bfreemason&output=html&sig=ACfU3U17gNHKgfOTGzeCrP4o39pyXekN5g

Jamshid

What you said below is so true. Democracy is a state of mind that the general Iranian population does not understand or respect to this day. The whole concept of handing over power or sharing it is foreign to us. Its partly because of the lack of education and its partly (mainly) because of Islamic jurisprudence.

Even the educated amongst us does not understand Democracy. The people around Khomeini such as Bazargan, Banisadr & Ghotbzadeh were all educated but all submitted to the concept of the Velayateh Fagih and went along with it. Any person who would understand democracy could not in their right mind agree to such an idiotic concept.   

If we, as a nation, did not understand democracy in 1979 how did we have one in Mossadegh's time? 

The left, like Mammad and his supporters, like to use Mossadegh as an excuse to bash the US and its interventionist policies. It is important to accept and realize that we were not a democracy in 51-53 as much as we would like to think we were.  

Baa ejaazeh eh Hassan agha...

by Honest Hassan
04-Mar-2008
 

Great patriot? Yes!

Hero of Oil nationalization? Yes!

One of the most popular political figures in our history, at one time, and overall? Yes!

Did we all (and the whole Middle East) cheer when he lead us to victory against the British empire in Hague? You bet!

His patriotism and untouchability is unparalleled in the last 100 years in Iranian history.

There are a few things, though,that are puzzling to me. I was not alive then, so I get my information from books, as well as some eye witnesses, and things just don't add up. I am old enough to remember the extreme popularity of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. A coup against him would have resulted in a huge bloodshed, even if successful; thousands would have died for him at the time.

In regards to Dr. Mossadegh, I don't understand how his one time massive support folded so easily. Maybe you can help me understand, because I know many of you have a rational view, and not an emotional one.

Imagine this for a moment: In 2004, GW Bush, just elected President, was popular. By law, he took office and has been there since (We have another year to suffer!).

What if Bill Clinton, still very popular in the U.S., lead a military operation against GW and took over as Commander in Chief? Would this be legal (though popular)? Democracy, and the rule of law, do not work like that. Popularity is not the same as the law!

In 1952, when the Shah removed Mossadegh ( well, Mossadegh kind of quit on the Shah), and appointed Ghavam, thousands got on the streets everywhere, 30-40 got killed in clashes with the armed forces. Shah, by the power vested in him by the Constitution, removed Ghavam consequently, and reappointed Mossadegh.

By summer of 1953, some say, Mossadegh had lost much of his popularity (we know it happens, as we see it every day. G Bush Sr. was enjoying approval ratings of 85% right after the first Gulf war, but it sank to 40's a year later. It happens in politics).

In absence of the Majlis, under the previous Constitution, the Shah had the power to remove the Prime Minister, and appoint a new one; and this is exactly what he did. Mossadegh did not want to go, so the Army ( with , or without the foreign intervention) removed him. Where is the coup ??

Not even 50 people got killed in the clashes, which is unheard of (compared to thousands in, say, Chile). Where was everybody? Or was it, that the average person on the street was tired of instability, unemployment, chaos, emotional speeches, and the constant fear of the Northern neighbor, the almighty Soviet Union,that was always ready to swallow us!?

Public opinion changes constantly. Churchill and De Gaulle were national heros of their times, but were booted out of office in a matter of years. Is it just remotely possible, that the crowd who hailed Mossadegh in 1951 shrunk by 1953?

Mossadegh got 3 years in jail, and then was exiled to his house. His hardcore supporters, Jebeh-eh-melli members, just about all got pardoned, and held high jobs, many in the government, until the 1979 revolution.

14 (I believe 14; don't quote me on this, but definately under 20) communist members of the armed forces got executed for treason ( This is what it is called, weather we like it or not, anywhere in the world, if you are a member of the armed forces and you conspire to overthrow the government; even here in the good old U.S. It's treason, and you are court marshalled, and if you are convicted, you face the firing squat. Period!)

Had his government survived, chances are, we would have been the diamond of the Middle East, first real democracy in the region. But again, there are those who argue, we would have fallen in the skirt of USSR just like half of Europe, Korea, Vietnam and Cuba did. The Russian tanks would have come, just like they did in Hungary in 1956, in the Czech republic in 1968, or like they did earlier in 1945 in Iran's Azerbaijan .

And today, with the fall of the wall, we'd have a position like North Korea or Cuba or Kazakhstan, and we'd be reading articles published by "Borat Rot Wine"!

God bless Mossadegh

God bless Iran

Re: Rashidian

I disagree with your opinion that the Pahlavi regime paved the way for the IRI. In order to clarify why, I'd like to ask why do you think the mollahs opposed the Shah in the first place? I believe for the following reasons:

* The Shah was modernizing Iran and taking it away from its traditional religious roots.

* His regime ignored the mollahs, and the influence of mollahs in our society was diminishing.

* The influence of Bazaris (who were very close to mollahs) in Iran's economy was even more rapidly diminishing.

* The regime paid more attention to Iran's pre-Islamic history than its post-Islamic history.

* Women rights were enforced. Women were allowed to get educated, to work outside their home in offices, to have a choice for what they wanted to wear.

* The regime was secular and did not impose Islamic laws in its civil law nor in its financial regulations.

* The universities did not have mandatory "Islamic religious" courses and entirely ignored Islam.

* The Shah's regime was considered immorally "westernized".

Do you know of any other reasons why mollahs opposed the Shah? If so, I would like to hear them.

Not surprisingly, the mollahs did not oppose the Shah because he was a dictator, as a mollah's mind set was even more dictatorial than the Shah.

Now for the sake of argument, assume that the Dr. Mosadeghs' 1953 coup against the Shah succeeded. Furthermore, assume that Dr. Mosadegh would remain in power and implement his policies for the next 25 years.

Now I would like to ask you one question. Please go through the items in the above list one by one, and ask yourself which one Mossadegh wouldn't implement? I am sure you would agree that Mossadegh would have implemented ALL of them, with some of them even to a stronger degree than the Shah did.

And this would have turned the mollahs against Mossadegh too. Do you disagree? If so why would they oppose the Shah for implementing them, but not Mossadegh?

The Shah ignored the Mollahs but did allow them to be, and even appeased them by regularly and illegally bribing them. He censured anything that was considered anti-Islamic. Even Dashti's "23 years" book was banned.

Would Mossadegh do the same? I doubt it. I think Mossadegh would have inflamed the mollahs even more than the Shah did.

The next question we must ask is, would Mossadegh be able to implement a democracy, and if so, could this democracy help stop an Islamic revolution, despite Mossadegh's modernization efforts?

When I set my emotions and my urge for hero-worship aside, and when I look at both Mossadegh's short government and Iran's conditions in those days with impartiality, I can tell you with certainty that Mossadegh could not implement a true democracy in Iran.

He couldn't, not because he didn't want to, but because he wouldn't be able to.

In order to have a true democracy in any country, the people of that country must be well educated, and should understand the meaning of the word democracy at a social and even cultural level. They should be tolerant and respectful of an opposition party and be willing to yield to it should that opposition become more popular.

Most importantly, the many institutions of democracy must be already in place.

Now I ask you, do you agree with the above? If so, do you think the deeply religious and uneducated people of Iran in the 1950s could suddenly turn into a democratic people thereby allowing a true democracy? Could the institutions of democracy suddenly be put in place? Or would it take at least a couple of generations to achieve these?

I think Mosadegh or anyone else could not implement a true democracy in Iran for the above reasons. He would have to resort to dictatorial methods in order to protect his government. And history proves to us he just did that in his short lived government.

In order to verify this, first we must ask ourselves, why do we consider Mossadegh a "democratically elected" prime minister? Was it because he was appointed by the Shah? Or was it because the people of Iran voted for him in an election? The answer to both question is no.

Dr. Mossadegh carries the title of "democratically elected" only because he was elected by a democratically elected parliament. Do you believe there were other reasons why Mossadegh is considered democratically elected? If yes, I would like to hear them too.

However, once that same parliament began opposing a few of Mossadgh's policies, what did Mossadegh do with that very same "democratically elected" parliament that voted Mossadegh into office as prime minister?

He ordered the military to shut it down. This is the same as today, president Bush ordering the Senate and the House to be shut down because they vetoed some of his policies. You don't do this in a democracy.

However, Mosadegh did not do so because he was a dictator, but because he had no choice. He, you, I or anyone else in his position, when confronted with foreign meddling and more importantly, with the many domestic anti-democratic forces, would have no choice but to resort to some dictatorial methods in order to stop those forces.

If you disagree, I'd like to hear how do you suggest implementing a true democracy among a religious and none-democratic people, observe that democracy, and yet overcome all the opposing domestic forces that outnumber your side, without resorting to any un-democratic methods? Realistically, how?

The point I want to make is that Dr. Mosadegh would have been opposed by the mollahs just as the Shah was opposed by them, AND for the same reasons, Mossadegh would not have been able to implement a true democracy until several decades later, and that some other version of an Islamic revolution would take place against Mosadegh's "immoral and un-Islamic" government.

Unlike the incompetent Shah, whether he would be able to stop the mollahs, and how, is another subject.

Coup or no coup, the writing was on the wall

Dr M's disasterous economic policies had plunged the country in the worst recession before the take over of the IRI. No oil could be sold and no income was there to be had. It was only a matter of time for him to be given the boot by the very people who had supported him in 1951.

All the west did was giving him a little push.

For anyone who questions ...

whether or not what happened in Iran was a coup or not, watch this:

If you still feel that what happend in 1953 was not a coup, then you are beyond hope

The nitpickers are out

Back in 1953, it wouldn't be hard to recognize the whores from "shahr-e no", so stop nitpicking. Also, the germ of what would become SAVAK was formed in the immediate aftermath of the coupe. The fact that no political party came out against the coupe also has more to do with lack of organization and indecisiveness NOT that Mossadegh was not popular. The people, and by that I mean the majority of Iranians living in major urban centers such as Tehran, were supporters of Mossadegh. Regardless of technicalities of Mossadegh’s position vise-a-vie the constitution, he was a nationalist whose only sin was confronting the British over the Iranian oil. It’s not as if Reza Shah exactly respected the Constitution so muddying the water over whether or not the old man overstepped his authority doesn’t mean a hill of beans in the final analysis. Mossadegh had history on his side. The Shah, regardless of how he evolved in later years, was young, inexperienced and a puppet of the British and the Americans at the time. The coupe (or the ghiam-e Melli to the revisionists and the monarchists) anyway you slice it was organized and orchestrated by the CIA and the British Intelligence, as they did in a series of other countries, the one bearing the most resemblance to Iran’s case being Chile in ’73. The evidence is out there for all to see. Allen Dulles counted the coupe in Iran as one of his highest achievement. The Shah himself acknowledged that he owed his crown to the Americans and the British.

Re: Jamshid

Regarding the whores from Shahre-No, I must admit that I visited Shahre-No first when I was only 15 years old. We actually didn't do anything, but we went there out of curiosity.

Therefore, you really can't question the guy for being able to recognize the whores from Shahre-No - That's where the term 'Jendeh-Lagoori' comes from :)

Hope that was helpful!!

Some questions

A few questions:

1. Under Dariush Ashouri's recollection I found many statements that I believe are simply misinformation. For example, Ashouris says that "It was two o’clock ... when we saw men with bayonets with whores from the Shahr No on trucks who were shouting..."

I beg to ask how did Mr. Ashouri know those where whores? And specifically whores from "share no"? I doubt that a 15 years old boy, or even an adult, would visit shahre no so often as to be able to distinguish the faces of its whores. So how would a 15 years old know they were whores?

2. Under Entezami's recollections, he says that " No single political party stood up against the coup, not even the Tudeh party."

Why? If Mosadegh was so popular, then why nobody stood for him? I think Mr. Entezami got it wrong. They were a lot of support for Dr. Mosadegh in those days. I was not even born back then, but just ask anyone who was a witness.

He also says that "I later heard that Timsar Bakhtiar [head of SAVAK] did not like us artists."

Savak was not even formed until many years later!

This is an important

This is an important discussion and we should have a dialogue that would be constructive rather than destructive. But I am guilty as charged when it comes to Mossadegh, considering my background, living under his shadow, I do become emotional. However, the more I read, the more I realize that he was a visionary man but he was just too early for Iran.
I agree to some extent that if Mossadegh had shown some force, the coup could have been avoided or thwarted on that day. In fact, according to my father, Kianouri goes to Mossadegh and says give us arms us and we will defend you, and Mossadegh replies:
“Dast oun nakhost vaziri ghat shaved ke aslaheh ba rooyeh mellat bekeshad.” This is very important; Mossadegh was against violence like, MLK, like Gandhi, he was a proponent of non-violent movement. He thought that Iran is ready for the rule of law. He was wrong.

However, even if he had resisted the coup d’état chis in those days, sometime later, at some point, he would have been brought down. The US foreign policy had changed overall with a new Republican adm in charge. We see the trend of regime change starting in Iran in 1953 and in 1954 in Guatemala and so on. Both Mossadegh and Arbenz were nationalists and in fact Western educated. They were not “pro-Soviet.” It was imperialism vs. nationalism.

Now to reply to Mr. Kadivar who knows my thoughts pretty well, but to reiterate, let me first say a few words before we get to the real discussion. I would like to suggest to you to cut down on the business of his Majesty and her Majesty. The Majesties are gone, forever, on Feb 1979, whether we like it or not. The Pahlavi dynasty with all its glory is finished so let’s not turn the clock back. The best thing they can do is to set up some funds for people who leave Iran out of desperation, but I think they are too stingy to do that. So dear Dariush, this is my part of being humorous.

As for the argument on the Constitution and whether Mossadegh acted constitutionally or not, I am not an authority on Mossadegh and his government. I have written a few articles and I just translated these accounts. I think there are numerous scholars such as Ervand Abrahamian, Fakhreddin Azizim, Homa Katouzian, Mark Gaziolowski, whose studies are valuable. They have studied the period extensively, going to archives and reading all the materials available to them and have come up with historical facts and conclusions which are noteworthy.

However, I do think that Mossadegh who was being undermined at every instance by forces within and without, when he declared the referendum, acted shrewdly to undermine his opponents who by the way were being paid right and left by the British. He acted as a man of politics would do. The Shah was interfering in all affairs and this was against the Iranian Constitution which goes back to 1906. In a Constitutional Monarchy, The Shah must reign and not rule. The Prime Minister and the Majlis are the final decision makers.

I also refer all of you to an excellent article by Dr. Habib Ladjevardi on this very same subject in a book called Musaddiq, Iranian Nationalism and Oil edited by James Bill and Roger Louis. In the article titled Constitutional government and reform under Musaddiq, Dr. Lajevardi argues that according the article 5 of the Iranian Constitution the term of the Majlis was limited to two years….. this chapter is extremely important to those who argue against the referendum. “A review of the bills approved by Musaddiq during the first six-month period, from Aug 1952 to March 1953, gives the impression of a man running out of time and in a great hurry to carry out a carefully thought out agenda. In that relatively short period he approved 122 bills [all for the benefit of the ordinary people]. Mossadegh was a man who believed in the rule of law. He had studied law in Switzerland and France. That is why he could defend his nation in a legal way and therefore won his case. Is there an argument against this?
The Shah was making decisions without conferring with his PM. On the other hand, the PM was conferring with the Shah on matters related to the country’s welfare. But his Majesty was just too weak, did not care too much so he left and then, guess who brought him back? He himself was stunned at the news when he read it in the Italian press.
I think he would have been happy to have been left alone to live the rest of his life with Soraya and roam around the French and Italian Riviera.
When he came back, he put his own PM on trial for treason. Mossadegh’s "treason" was that he defended his nation at the UN, at The Hague and vis a vis the old empire and the new one.
The fact that after more than 55 years, when his name is mentioned, there is an incredible sense of respect and sadness is testimony to who he was and what he stood for. I have yet to see the same respect for the Pahlavis.

Let me just finish this by quoting George McGhee, President Truman's rep. in the oil dispute:
"My recollections of Musaddiq come from liking him as a man; having enjoyed hte many hours of discussions I had with him; admiring his patriotism and courage for what he believed best for his country.... and yet, underneath his lugubrious exterior, there was evidence of a deep firmness, determination, and clarity of purpose." George McGee who was a Texan and who was educated at Oxford was branded by the British as one who flirts too much with the Iranians!

Again, I rest my case.
FA

Thank You

For posting these recollections here.

anonym 7:

But was it really a coup, as American authorities trying to please the Islamic regime would want us to believe it?"

Come on!!! This is a national disgrace. Clinton officials only grudgingly admitted that it even happened using general langauge that avoided direct responsiblity only on the last weeks of his presidency.

Have you ever wondered why the CIA willingly and voluntarily would want to highlight this kind of subversive activities??? Don't be naive. The CIA has been involved in many other secret coups around the world but has never revealed it. Why such a compulsion to admitting an illegal act??

Why would the CIA deliberately discredit itself?? Has the CIA stopped manufacturing coups around the world???? What was the real motivation of CIA for "confessing" and also advertising it so vigorously in New York Times and other widely read media?

I think the coup of 1953 in Iran has been the most advertised and infamous coup in the American media...why?

The Coup

The 1953 coup in fact was previously planned  by a Nazi collaborator, Gen. Fazlollah Zahdi, but foiled. Since then there were permanent conflicts between Mossadegh and the Shah. The second coup, a few months later in 28 Mordad, could have been foiled too if only the Tudeh Party, with huge popular and military potential, and Mossadegh himself had had a little gut.

The 1953 coup was not taken seriously by Mossadegh. He was not resolute and underestimated the situation.

Behind the coup were some loyal Generals to the Shah, and was supported by some Mullahs led by ayatollah Kashani and a terrorist group, Fedayeen Islam. Also, some thugs of Sha'boon bimogh and Tayeb...were bought by the CIA-led-infamous Rashidian Brothers.

The coup was not only the beginning of the Shah's dictatorship, but more consequently a historical pavement of the totalitarian IRI. Without 1953 coup, Iran would not be very likely in today's disaster

Rational against Emotional

Mr Kadivar,

Thank you for your very calm and rational response to my question. Your analysis is very right but I do not expect to receive a similar response from Ms Amini as she is viewing the whole episode with an emotional spectacles. Her vitriolic response to my comment is a clear evidence. I would like to complete your analysis, if I may, by raising a very important point here that should be at the heart of Mossadegh's wanton breach of the Constitution:

The Shah was no doubt forced to leave the country BUT this was a move not ordered by Mossadegh but instigated by him. Where Mossadegh was in a clear breach of the Constitution was when he held an illegal referendum while there was still a Parliament in session and not legally dissolved by the Monarch. Under the Constitution, anly a monarch had the power to dissolve the Parliament not the prime minister. This was the most treacherous move by a Prime Minister whose appointment was approved by the same Parliament. NO independent political analyst has yet come forward with an argument to legitimize this move.

Dr Sadighi, Mossadegh's most respected and most honest minister, is quoted to have warned him against the dissolution of the Majlis as without the Majlis, ONLY the Monarch had the constitutional right to remove a prime minister. Mossadegh's response to this advice by such an astute legal authority as Sadighi was typically arrogant and self serving:

"He [The Shah] wouldn't dare to remove me". In other and no uncertain words, Mossadegh agreed with Sadighi's constitutional point but was considering himself above the constitution and had such an inflated opinion of himslef that would not allow him to see his clear betrayal of the constitution.

Ms Amini you have NO case!

Anjoman (jameeyat-e) Adamiyat = Freemasonary

Ms Amini's fanatic/romantic views of Mossadegh dicredits even a tiny amount of truth that might be in her writings. This society was indeed a precursor to Freemasonary Lodges in Iran and had close links with many important lodges (see Esmaeel Raiin's volumnous books on this issue). In fact Raiin did assert the membership of Mossadegh in Freemansonary. Of course there were many politicians, scholars, writers and aristocracy members among them but they were ALL Freemansons, nonetheless.