16 AZAR

Phantom

Either you are a child of eight years old and cannot analyze information rationally or you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

The point was, that we were a monuementally mismanaged, backward nation LONG BEFORE the Pahlavis took over. Do you hear? When Reza Shah took over in 1925, Iran was a joke, the laughing stock of Europe. We were already 500 years behind the West when the Pahlavis took over. So it's UTTERLY ASININE to blame all of our ills on them.

You are so polluted to talk of Agha Muhamad Khan riding a bike -- the point was that when the West had airplanes, we didn't even have a freaking bicycle in 1908! And I mentioned Agha Muhammad Khan, because 1797, the year he took over, is the start of the Qajar dynasty. And that is when the story of modern Iran begins.

I don't expect you to understand.

You may kill an avatar; but you can't kill an idea

If you are offering an answer then, you should really "give" the answer. Accusing the other side of ignorance while you refuse to shed light on the subject is, at best, biased.

What is supposed to be understood from your Pahlavi-loving prose? Are we here in this foreign land in 2009, because Agha Mohammad Khan didn't know how to ride on a bike?

Let's get real here. 

Faghan

asks, "Why are we stranded in this land?"

If you knew your Iranian history post 1797, the year Agha Mohammad Khan-e-Qajar became king, then you would know the answer to your question. It has nothing to do with the Pahlavi dynasty, my friend -- nothing! And it has nothing to do with Mossadegh either. Go do some research instead of blaming everything on the Pahlavis.

Just for the sake of example -- did you know that we were so backward under the Qajars that while the West had airplanes, trains and automobiles by 1908, we didn't get our first bicycle in Iran until 1909, and it was an import!

Go learn your history, and then if you're objective, you won't vilify the Pahlavis the way you do -- seeminly out of sheer ignorance.

Bahramerad

Don't flatter yourself, my friend, for(on?) your resolute will; you're already here. Your curiosity is a positive gesture.

It will be fun; come on, I'll let you call me names without flagging. 

One honest, simple question requires one answer with the same characteristic: "Why are we stranded in this land?"

Be a good sport; and don't be afraid of exposure. Just let it out. Even if you feel the urge for using profanity, so be it; I'll do the dirty job of separating garbage from logic, if any. 

The Pahlavis and all mullahs must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth.

Faghan

I have said what I think of you and do not wish to carry on a conversation with an idiot like you any more !

Bahramerad

You seem to be quite upset my fellow citizen; why abusive language? You could've simply said that my assertion was wrong; that way you could've, at least,  pretended to be  like an educated, intellectual and cultured person; and in the meantime you would've  satiated your lumpen personality because that word starts with an "ass". Never mind Reza Mir5 II jaan, let's talk about ourselves;he's nobody. Why do you think anyone who opposes your view deseves to be accused of being basiji among many other things; while you, I only suppose it's "you" in the avatar, can hold a piece of cardboard on a sidewalk in the streets of NewYork like Ronald McDonald and claim to be a patriot and true nationalist. Give yourself some time; calm down; and then tell me how we, me and you, ended up in this foreign land talking in this alien tongue. It's a serious question.

Remember; Calm down, first. Don't rush...

The Pahlavis and all mullahs must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth.

Political divide

Faghan : There you go again ... you always misunderstand what's in front of your big nose !

My comment is directed at people like you who after sixty years are still debating and taking uneducated sides on behalf of a lost cause !

You, and your kinds are the Jendeh e Melli - who keep trying to sell your soiled arguments to whom ever you come across and no matter how often they disgrace you - you keep coming back for more !

What do you hope to archive by all this nonsense that you peddle here and there ?

Do you think that just because you swear at the nationalist or the followers of Prince Reza Pahlavi they will change their mind?

I suppose if you were still in Iran - you'll be among the first in line to collect your wages for attacking defence less people in the streets as a shit face basiji with a truncheon in his hand !

Now you can FAGHAN ( cry ) as much as you like ... who's listening ?

Bahramerad; THANK YOU for your insight

You have classified the political divide so correctly. I truly appreciate your vision as it stands in your comment on Nov.26 @ 12:29 AM PST. There are in one side Mosadeghis as true patriotic and nationalist Iranians and, on the other side we have, as you call them, Jendeh-Melli, which mainly includes so-called monarchists who favor Reza jaan. 

The Pahlavis and all mullahs must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth.

One more thing, Alborzi

You write: "If you would like to learn more, perhaps you should try giving a little book by Stephen Kinzer "All the Shah’s Men” a read. It’s written in English, which you may find somewhat less than adequate, however, he covers our history fairly well."

Again, you could not be more wrong, my friend. Stephen Kinzer's book is a monumental redherring, a joke. Within the first 11 pages, I found 7 errors of fact (names, dates, etc.). The guy is a liberal American journalist from the New York Times. He doesn't know Iran the way an Iran scholar who has studied Iran all of his life knows Iran. Morever, Kinzer's ideas and conclusions are hugely skewed and biased because of his leftist political ideology.

If you want to read a masterpiece by an objective Iran scholar, please read Ervand Abrahimian's "Iran Between Two Revolutions." It is truly a must-read classic, and covers Iranian history from the early 20th century all the way up to the 1979 revolution.

That's the only way to understand anything about 20th century Iranian history. One must start with the Constitutional Revolution, which very nicely prefaces the animus that led to the 1953 coup, which eventually leads to the 1979 revolution.

In other words, you can't study the 1953 coup without understanding what happened in 1907. And you can't really understand what happend in 1979 without understading the political climate in 1953.

And Kinzer barely and artificially scratches the surface, and in a biased, skewed manner. Compared to Abrahimian, Kinzer is an abject amateur!  Seriously, if you want to know the real Iran, go to a life-long Iran expert, not a liberal New York Times journalist, who takes off 6 months to write a book about one single incindiary event in 20th century Iran.

It's amazing to me how often Iranians (who should know far better) bring up Kinzer's amateurish book and never mention Abrahimian's classic. It's mind-boggling. While you're at it, you can also read Cyrus Ghani's "Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah." It, too, is a remarkable achievement.

Alborzi

Writes: "I believe, as do many academics and political analysts, that had the U.S. and Great Britain not interfered, and had the Shah been a strong leader and worked with him, the whole Middle East would be in a better situation than it is today."

You're in a dream world, seriously. Please read my earlier post. The Shah was in shackles, a forced spectator to the great game that was being played out in Iran since the early 19th century. He had no real power, for he was a victim of his circumstances and could not have any real power, specially in 1953.

After all, his father, the towering Reza Shah, was yanked out of power in 13 hours in 1941. Imagine if you're the Shah, twenty-one years old at the time, and you see the Russians, the US, and the UK destroy your father over night, and Reza Shah had a far stronger personality than the Shah -- and yet, the great powers still destroyed him. What would you think, if you were the Shah? 

I would think along these lines: They removed my father, who was a giant, what do you think they'll do to me if I seek my father's independent-minded path?

Of course we all know the answer, because it lies in the tragedy of 1979. When the Shah finally felt confident to pursue an independent foreign policy, the UK, and the US destabalized his regime (starting in 1976) and destroyed him and handed Iran to the reactionary mullahs.

My point is, it's abjectly ridiculous to say "had the Shah been a stronger leader." It's like saying had the tottler been able to walk, he could've escaped the fire in the building. 

From Abas Mirza, who was perhaps the most able Qajar since the founder of the dynasty, Agha Muhammad Khan, to Amir Kabir, to Reza Shah, to Mossadegh, to the Shah himself -- whenever Iran has had a modernizing leader come to power, our homegrown reactionary forces, along with foreigners, have conspired to destroy them, all for their own particular and parasitic gains. 

Welcome to the 'Great Game.'

Mossadegh

Mossadegh; Jendeh- Melli

Truth is Truth

Dear Ms. Rusta,

It's funny, but the language you use reminds me of the kind of approach dictatorships take to people who believe anything other than their fundamentalist approach. I am not, as you suppose, a member of the National Front, and I have no connection with them. In fact, I don't agree with some of their actions—particularly those from 1979.

Still, I am proud to support the legacy of Mohammad Mossedeqh and what he did for my country. I believe, as do many academics and political analysts, that had the U.S. and Great Britain not interfered, and had the Shah been a strong leader and worked with him, the whole Middle East would be in a better situation than it is today. 

Mr. Mir Fetros may be a fine fiction writer, but I wouldn't trust anything he writes as fact. I understand that you believe a requirement for writing about Iran is the mastery of the Farsi language, however I beg to differ. The truth is the truth in whatever language it is spoken or written. 

I am a student who works for freedom and secular democracy in Iran. If you would like to learn more, perhaps you should try giving a little book by Stephen Kinzer "All the Shah’s Men” a read. It’s written in English, which you may find somewhat less than adequate, however, he covers our history fairly well.

منظورتان از "ما" کیه؟

 "Ma migim behtarin amalkard ra dasht  "

اگر شما از بقایای جبهه ملی‌ هستید که تکلیف روشنه چون اونا هنوز پس از سی‌ سال دارن نون همکاری با آخوندو میخورن ولی اگر ذرّه‌ای غیرت براتون باقیمونده برین کتاب "آسیب شناسی‌ یک شکست" رو بخونین تا ببینید که منابع آقای میر فطرس چه بوده و یا منابع آقای جلال متینی کدام بوده. اینقدر نرین از این نویسندگان بی‌ سواد غربی که حتا یک کلمه فارسی‌ هم بلد نیستند کپی کنید و استناد بجویید.

FR

Alborz Irani

لطفا یا به خط فارسی‌ بنویس، یا به زبان انگلیسی. این فینگلیش یا پنگلیش را رها کنیم.

//www.behnevis.com/

Azomodeh ra azmodan khatast.

Aghaye Mir fetros ostadeh beham baftane aseman va risman hast.

Man hamasho ghabol nadaram.

Kolli kotobe motabare daneshgahi va sanad mojod hast ke bar khalafe roman nevisiyeh aghaye Mirfetros hast.

Adabiyate negareshi Ishan shabihe on mullahi hast ke har chi migoft va mardom bavar nemikardand, dar esbat migoft elm sabet kardeh, hala kodam elm, faghat khodesh midanest.

Tamame madarek va asnadeh Moredeh eshareyeh aghaye Mir fetros mesle Dastane hamon mullast, faghat khodesh shenideh.

Ma nemigim Dr. Mosaddegh kamel bod , Ma migim behtarin amalkard ra dasht 

کدام قسمتش حقیقت ندارد

 البرز ایرانی!

اولا این مطالب را دکتر علی‌ میر فطرس نوشته اند نه من و ثانیا کجاش راا قبول نداری.

FR

Dorogh

Matalebi ke khanome Rusta be Farsi neveshtand, Zamineyeh haghighi tarikhi nadarad.

Agar alaghemand bashid mitavanid ketabe mosaddegh va nebarde  ghodrat ra bekhani ke ham be Farsi ham be English mojod hast.

Ketabhaye digar ham mojod hast va asnadeh motabar.

Ramin

It is a tragedy that the coup so delegitimized the Shah. It made him paranoid and much less democratic. Plus heavily in debt to the British and USA. So I am in agreement with you.

I remember the single record by Farhad "Shabaneh" with the cover showing a slot machine with a coin. Next to the coin was a USA flag and the picture of the Shah on the coin was made to be "bowing" to the USA. As a kid I thought it was a clever thing. Pretty much everyone hated the Shah because of the coup.

If Mossadegh and the Shah had worked together we may have avoided the whole bitterness. But unfortunately the man of "principal" did not know compromise :-( Now we all pay for it.

Mossadegh according to Mir-Fetros

 بعدها ترکيب کابينه دکتر مصدق نيز آئينه تمام نمائی از اين التقاط و تناقضات بود : بقول سعدی : «گروهی به ظاهر جمع و در باطن پريشان» . لذا لازم بود که مصدق ضمن دورانديشی نسبت به ماهيّت ناپايدار و متزلزل اين دوستان مختلف العقيده ، در شعارها و عملکردهای سياسی اش از اعتدال و عقلانيّت سياسی بيشتری برخوردار می بود ( دوستانی که بزودی عملکردهای دکتر محمد مصدق را با چنگيز و هيتلر مقايسه کردند ! ) بعنوان مثال در حاليکه مذهبی متعّصبی بنام باقرکاظمی ، وزير امورخارجه مصدق شد ، و مهندس مهدی بازرگانِ اسلام پناه ، معاون وزير فرهنگ بود ، دکتر مهدی آذر (پزشک عمومی ) وزير فرهنگ دولت دکتر مصدق گرديد که اولين اقدامش بستن مدارس مختلط ( دخترانه ـ پسرانه ) بود ! و يا در حاليکه خودِ دکتر مصدق با امضاء کردن قرآن و ارسال آن برای شخص شاه ، وفاداری خود را نسبت به شاه و نظام سلطنت مشروطه اعلام می داشت مشاور نزديک و سخنگوی دولت او ( شادروان دکــتر حسيـن فاطمی ) در نشريه « باختر امروز » شديدترين حملات را به خاندان سلطنتی ابراز می کرد و سوداهای ديگری در سر داشت . در راستای اين التقاط سُنّت و تجدّد بود که مصدق در سخنرانی ها و پيام های خويش ـ غالباً ـ ايران و اسلام را با هم و در کنار هم بکار می بُرد .
از طرف ديگر : برخلاف جامعه مدنی ( Société Civile ) در جوامعی که هنوز توسعه اجتماعی و انکشاف طبقاتی در آن ها صورت نگرفته و جامعه  هنوز  در  دوران پيشامدرن و  به  شکل  «  جامعهء توده وار »    (Société de Masse ) بسر می برَد ، رهبران سياسی غالباً در  هيأت  پيشوای  فَرهَمند  ( charismatique ) و«پدر ملّت» تجلّی می کنند . در اينجا ديگر « پيشوا » تنها رئيس دولت يا شخص مقتدر حکومت نيست بلکه کسی است که در برابرش نهاد مستقلی وجود ندارد و بهمين جهت پارلمان و دادگستری و ديگـر نهـادهـای قـانـونی ، بنـام « مصلحت ملّی » می توانند تعطيل شوند . از نظر «پيشوا» جوهر جنبش او در نصّ قوانين موضوعه ( خصوصاً قانون اساسی ) نيست بلکه در درک و دريافتی است که «پيشوا» می تواند از قوانين داشته باشد ، بهمين جهت ، او در موارد اساسی به «روح قانون» و « مصلحت اجتماعی » ( که در واقع روح و مصلحت خودِ اوست ) استناد می کند وحضور هيجانیِ مردم و « توده های هميشه در صحنه » را ملاک درستی عمل خود و « قوه تمييز و تشـخيـص مردم » می داند .
بررسی وقايع اين دوران و خصوصاً نگاهی به انديشه ها و عملکردهای سياسی دکتر محمدمصدق ، مصداق عينی يا بازتاب واقعی چنين جامعه ای می تواند باشد .
دکتر محمدمصدق ـ بعنوان يکی از برحسته ترين و پاک ترين نمايندگان جنبش مشروطه خواهی ـ ميراث خوار تضادها و تناقضات بازمانده از اين جنبش نيز بود . بررسی زندگی سياسی او نشان می دهد که در التقاط بين سُنّت و تجدّد ، او گاهی به آن سو و گاهی به اين سوکشيده شده است مثلاً : زمانی که روشنفکران و سياستمداران برحسته ای چون محمد علی فروغی ، کاظم زاده ايرانشهر ، احمد کسروی و دکتر محمود افشار احداث راه آهن سراسری توسط رضاشاه و ايجاد ارتباط ميان نواحی مختلف ايران را امری حياتی و ضروری می دانستند ، دکتر مصدق اين کار را « بيهوده » و حتی آنرا « در خدمت منافع دولت های بيگانه » می دانست ! . او نيز فرزند زمانه خود بود ( با همه ضعف ها و محدوديت هايش ) مثلاً در فرهنگ سياسی او ، روستائيان ايران جايگاهی نداشتند بلکه تأکيد و تکيه گاه اصلی او ، توده های سُنّتی شهری بودند که با انگيزه های سياسی ـ مذهبی متفاوت و گاه متضاد ، در « جبهه ملّی » ـ برگردِ رهبری دکتر مصدق ـ جمع شده بودند . او که تحصيلات عاليه حقوق را درکشورهای سوئيس و فرانسه تمام کرده بود نسبت به سرنوشت زنان ايران بی توجه بود و از دادن حق رأی به زنان ( حتی زنان شهری ) خودداری کرد و در زمان نخست وزيری خود با طلب کردن « معافيّت ويژه » برای حفظ توأمان پُست نخست وزيری و پارلمانی خود ، عملاً به اصل « تفکيک قوا » بی توجهی کرد و در فضائی عصبی و نامتعادل ، و در ترس و بيم و تهديد نمايندگان مخالف ، با اخذ « اختيارات فوق الـعاده » ی ٦ماهـه و سپس يکساله ، کوشيد تا به تحکيم قدرت سياسی خويش بپردازد .
دکتر مصدق بعنوان يک حقوقدان برجسته ، بی شک به اهميّت استقلال قوّه قضائيه از قوه مجرّيه واقف بود با اينهمه وی ، اعضاء « فدائيان اسلام » و ازجمله قاتل نخست وزير سابق ( رزم آرا ) را از زندان آزاد کرد . او باگماردن شخصيت نا موجهی بنام لطفی ( معروف به شيخ عبدالعلی لطفی ) بعنوان وزيردادگستری کوشيد تا « ديوان عالی کشور » ( يعنی عالی ترين و مهمترين مرجع قضائی کشور ) را منحل سازد و ديوان عالی جديدی به ميل و اراده خود تشکيل دهد . دکتر محمد حسين موسوی ( يکی از قضات برحسته و خوشنام آن دوره که از نزديک عبدالعلی لطفی را می شناخت و در مباحثات و جلسات کميسيون های وزيردادگستری وقت شرکت می کرد ) در خاطراتش بنام « دريادمانده ها ، از بربادرفته ها » ضمن نشان دادن شخصيت و عملکرد های غيرقانونی عبدالعلی لطفی در «پاکسازی» قضات شريف و مستقل ، می نويسد : « . . . بدين ترتيب در شرايطی که کشور نياز به آرامش داشت ، با تصفيه های خودسرانه ، بزرگترين قُضات کشور عليه مصدق و حکومت او ، برانگيخته شدند » . در درگيری ها و مناقشات مصدق با مجلس و شاه ، اونه به نصّ قـانون اسـاسی بـلکه به « روح » آن استـناد می کرد ، مثلاً او با همين « روح قانون اساسی » در ٢٥ مرداد ماه سال ٣٢ فرمان شاه ( مبنی بر عزل او از نخست وزيری ) را رد کرد و ضمن پنهان کردن متن اين فرمان از همکاران و وزراى کابينه اش و بازداشت حاملان فرمان شاه در اقدامى شتابزده، از طريق راديو اين امر را «شکست کودتاى ٢٥ مرداد»!!! ناميد، در حاليکه يکسال قبل او با همين فرمان شاه به نخست وزيری منصوب شده بود . مصدق ، مجلس شورای ملّی را « باشگاهی از خائنين به مصالح ملّت » می ناميد . او مصالح ملّت را آنچنان که خود می خواست تفسير می کرد و در اين راه تا آنجا پيش رفت که انتخابات مجلس دوره هفدهم را که تحت نظارت دولتِ خود او برگزار شده بود ، به محض آگاهی از باختِ کانديداهای جبهه ملی در شهرستانها ، باطل ساخت و سپس در يک شرايط نامتعارف ، هيجانی ، شتابزده و غيردمکراتيک با حمايت حزب توده و کشاندن « تودهء هميشه در صحنه » وانجام يک همه پرسی يا رفراندوم (در مرداد ماه ٣٢) کوشيد تا قدرت و مشروعيت اجتماعی ـ سياسی خود را در برابر شاه و نمايندگان مجلس، عيان سازد، اقدامی که حتی با مخالفت ياران نزديکش مانند دکتر غلامحسين صديقی ( وزير کشور ) و دکتر سنجابی همراه بود . 

 //www.mirfetros.com/mordad.html

FR

Ramin Parsa

How dare you, Ramin Parsa, participate in this matter of national history without a sense of personal attacks, mockery, labeling, and most important of all without one single " LOL" or a bunch of :)'s ?

Are you trying to overhaul the attack strategy and tactics of so-called monarchists who reside in this site?

I am sure you will give enough time to yourself for self-correction or, else.

It is an unfortunate historic fact that Shah became one big corrupt dictator who caused his own downfall.

The Pahlavis and all mullahs must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth.

Veiled Prophet

Yes, we had the Shah for 25 years, but the events of August 1953 forced the hands of the big oil companies and their governments, which led to a foreign-backed coup, which ultimately had serious long-term consequences for Iran, Iranians and their king. Indeed, the 1953 coup seriously plagued the Shah, and therefore, the Pahlavi Dynasty, with the stain of illigitimacy, and in fact, those events in many ways lit the fuse to its disintegration in 1979.

Over the years after the 28 Mordad, it almost became "chic" to be a Mossadegh supporter (and anti-Shah). It was almost a litmus test to being considered a true nationalist. The ignorant masses blindly adored Mossadegh (for his basic foolishness in standing up to two super-powers) while they denigerated the Shah for taking the rational route vis-a-vis our foreign tormentors.

In reality, Mossadegh needed the Shah and the Shah needed Mossadegh. I just think Mossadegh was way over his head. How could he think that America would come to his rescue in his fight against the British? The word amateur comes to mind. There are state department files that show how oil company executives had expressed their great disdain at nationalization of Iranian oil. They rightly feared that if Iran nationalized its oil, Saudi Arabia would be next, then Venezuela. The oil domino theory. Indeed, they had expressed such fears to the White House -- that they rather see Iran go communist than nationalize its oil.

And yet, this 73-year-old rookie prime minister thought that he could somehow curry favor with the democratic administration (even though he should've seriously considered the fact that 1951-1952 was an election year and Truman was a lame-duck president).

And if Mossadegh had been politically saavy, he would've known that Eisenhower, who was a right wing Republican and a shoe-in to be elected at the height of the cold war, would not support Mossadegh -- no way, no how.  In fact, we now know that the coup plans were started at the end of Truman's administration (in October 1952) when Truman realized, much to his chagrin, that he could not make a deal with Mossadegh.

All of this, and much more, proves to me (if no one else) that Mossadegh was hugely incompetent, albeit a patriotic man, and he should've backed off his demands and accepted the 50/50 deal when the greedy British finally relented.

It was the only way to save the nation from the foreign-backed shenanigans that were about to devour (and polarize) the nation and ultimately pave its course toward dissention, strife and upheavel.

Like I said, sometimes when you're weak you should accept your short-comings and fight another day, when you're stronger and more capable. For Mossadegh to challenge the two biggest superpowers in the world, specially England, which desperately needed cheap oil to rebuild its country after the devastation of Nazi bombings during WWII, at a time when Iran was no more than a fiscally, socially and politically backward third-world nation, was nothing short of lunacy, self-dillusion and reckless endangerment.

In reality, we didn't even have the expertise and technological know-how to man our own oil fields at that time, so what kind of "nationalization" was it really? 

And in this tragically unfair fight, the Shah had no decent cards to play -- he was damned if he participated in the coup and damned it he didn't. The US and UK were dead-set on the idea of Mossadegh's removal -- with or without the Shah. In fact, when they sensed hesitancy in the Shah, the CIA pursued the possibility of restoring the Qajar dynasty, but were persuaded by the British to stick with the Pahlavi king, specially after they discovered that the last Qajar Prince in line to succeed the Peacock Throne could not even speak Persian!

16 Azar

16 Azar ! We have to be united all around the world for 16 Azar.

We have to support Iranian students movement. 

Mr Kazemzadeh!

Your flatly denying my allegations is further proof of their authenticty. Your links to one of your previous blogs in which you failingly tried to deny my multitude of factual and substantiated historic eveidence is even worse than denial. Not one commentator agreed with, or believed in, your water-logged body of evidence.

Here I don't want to waste my time and repeat what I have already submitted and you have failed to reply to  but I am sure we meet again and I will give you further opportunities to read, research and reply to the basis of my allegations which is: Mossadegh colluded with the Islamic clergy and their followers in a bid to overthrow the Shah. Fortunately, for the country, he failed

FR

Jebhe-Melli; Marxists and Islamists

Mr Kazamizadeh: I go by factual history not alleged and unproven theories. I have heard those accusations about the murder of Razmara. I have never seen any proof so at this time I am going to treat them as accusations. However I have seen first hand the actions of Jebhe-Melli and their support of Khomeini. Therefore I have enough solid evidence to condemn them.

As for Khomeini cooperating with CIA that does not surprise me. The man was a full fledged traitor. Would he switch sides: of course he would. Khomeini had no allegiance to Iran; just to Islam.

I do agree that Dr Mossadegh was a nationalist and really loved Iran. I just question his judgment; wisdom and leadership. Nevertheless Mossadegh was vastly superior to Khomeini no question about it.

Ramin Parsa: You are absolutely right. Picking a fight with the US and UK at that time was plain stupid. Of course Mossadegh lost but at least we got the Shah who tried to advance Iran. We had 25 good years. Instead of cooperating with the Shah, Mossadegh's supporters remained seething in anger and stamped their feet. A bunch of them joined with the Marxists; others remained with Jebhe Melli. At the end both sold Iran out to the Islamists.

By the way the stupidity of picking the wrong fight was repeated after the revolution by the so called "students" taking the American hostages. That led to further isolation and weakening of Iran. The result was Saddam's attack on Iran. Who paid for it: the average Iranian people.

These guys (the sixties pseudo intellectuals and their unapologetic leftist followers) talk big but screw up at every chance they get. They are Utopians who think they are going to create Heaven on Earth and mostly create Hell. Our nation is so much better off without: Jebhe Melli; Marxists and the Islamists. How about some sanity; competence and pragmatism for a change.

Veiled prophet and Mr. Kazemzadeh

Veiled Prophet -- I grew up in a household that worshipped -- and I mean, WORSHIPPED -- Mossadegh. Most in my family were 1st or 2nd generation villagers, with hardly any secular education, none in fact. In short, they were politically illiterate.  As I grew up and educated myself about Iran and its tortured history, specially 20th century history, I realized what a massive fraud the Jebh-e-Meli turned into and what a massive  "shoologh-kon" Mossadegh was, and how he completely mismanaged the nation at a very critical time in its history. Imagine, this was a man who did not become Prime Minister until he was 73 years old!

Imagine, the leader of a nation that was the economic equivalent of Zimbabwe, a nation of dahatis and illiterates and superstitious tools, that was only 6 years removed from crippling occupation during WWII (the equivalent to today's chaotic Iraq), dictating oil terms -- OIL TERMS!!! -- to the 2 biggest freaking superpowers in the world (UK and US)!

If that was not monumentally foolish, it was pure reckless! His cousins, Vosough-e-Dowleh and Ahmad Ghavam were far more politically clever! Sometimes when you're weak, you should accept your weakness and fight another day, when you're stronger and more capable.

And as far as that pathetically treasonous Jebhe-Meli is concerned, they alligned themselves with mullah Khomeini's ilk TWICE -- once in 1963, when Khomeini protested women's rights and land reform, and a second time in 1978, when that monumental traitor, Sanjabi, went to Paris and kissed the back of Khomeini's hand, thinking he would become the 1st post-monarchy Prime Minister in Iran.

Jebh-e-Meli, post Mossadegh, became a group of lash-khors and vatan-forroosh! For the life of the nation, they could not let go of their hero's political demise and had to blame everyone else but the man himself! In the end, they screwed Iran and everybody in it (by alligning with Khomeini) so as to screw the Shah and the Pahlavi dynasty! They played with fire in 1963 -- and finally betrayed the nation in 1979! For their faustian bargain with the Devil (in their own self-interest), they should be banned!

Mr. Kazemzadeh, as a die-hard Mossadegh supporter which you are, I find it utterly disgraceful and shameless to blame the cold-blooded murder of Razmara on a Shah-led conspiracy. That is the height of political sabotage and character assasination. You should be ashamed of yourself, Sir! If you were truly an honest man, you would not have submittd, supported, nor even proposed such a patently ridiculous and craven scenario.

16 Azar

we have to work so hard to have great  16 Azar protests in all around

the world.. 

Truth vs. Disinformation

VP of KH,

in the 1953 coup, the conservative Islamic forces worked with the Shah and the CIA against Dr. Mossadegh-JM.

see:

khomeini on Dr. Mossadegh: 

 //iranian.com/main/news/2009/03/15/khomeini-supports-sheikh-fazlollah-nouri-and-attacks-mossadegh-and-jebhe-melli

the cooperation of right-wing Islamists with the Shah and the CIA: 

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

Truth vs. Disinformation

FR: read how Mossadegh turned a blind eye on the Islamists terrorizing the Bahais as a sweetener to Boroujerdi.

MK: What FR has written on Dr. Mossadegh and Bahais is simply FALSE.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/history-lesson-dr-mossadegh-rights-bahais-vs-mohammad-reza-pahlavi-rights-bah

 =================================

FR: read how Mossadegh himself declared Razm Ara as "mahdooroddam"in a Majles speech.

MK: This is AGAIN, simply FALSE. For some weird reason FR repeats this nonsense. FR has placed 3 links and NOT a SINGLE one of them shows that Dr. Mossadegh said Gen. Razmara is "mahdooroddam." FR is simply repeating the FALSE allegation without being able to provide a single document.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/mossadegh-and-amnesty-razmara-s-assassin

repeating 10 times that "the earth is flat" does not make "the earth flat."

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

For the nth time:

WHO ordered the assassination of Gen. Razmara? There is a looooooooooot of evidence (used by scholaras) that Mohammad Reza Shah along with Alam, and Seyyed Zia ordered and organized the assassination of Razmara.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/mossadegh-and-amnesty-razmara-s-assassin

Re: On Mossadegh and closet muslims

Thanks for giving us the details. The more I learn about Mossadegh the more I dislike him. How dare "jebhe-melli" try to free a murderer? What kind of persons would vote to release a cold blooded murderer.

They did that to cozy up with Islamists. A person is defined by the company they keep and how they act. Jebhe-melli allied itself with the Islamists. Therefore they need to live with that legacy.

You can't handle the truth...truthseeker33

Thanks for letting me know that my tiresome messages are being received, I can't ask for more. I am totally impressed by your knowledge on contributors' trends and appearances which exceeds your username's length of existence.

Writing styles are like finger prints, like intellectual( or in my case,as per you, unintellectual) DNA; they are highly revealing...I have read more, much more of you. You keep failing to impress me.

Now, let's be honest here, my reference to Israel fired you up. Right?

I want to tell you again; right in your face:

The state of Israel has no reason whatsoever to throw all her support behind the Pahlavis who are nothing but a bunch of corrupt thugs. Israel has a natural right to peaceful co-existence among other nations in the world; a secular and democratically elected government in Iran is in Israel's best interest.

Reza Mir5 II cannot and will not return to Iran as a leader.

The Pahlavis and all mullahs must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth.