Winners and Losers

The major losers include Ahmadinejad and Khamenei

Share/Save/Bookmark

Winners and Losers
by Masoud Kazemzadeh
09-Jun-2010
 

This fourth round of sanctions plus one UNSC presidential statement makes five UNSC actions against the fundamentalist regime regarding its suspected nuclear weapons program. UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW. All these UNSC resolutions are demanding the fundamentalist regime to stop its uranium enrichment.

1. The biggest winner is the Obama administration. The Obama administration’s diplomacy was able to convince Russia and China, two states that have been close to the fundamentalist regime, to vote in favor of this resolution.

2. The major losers include Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. Their policies resulted in this major defeat for the fundamentalist regime. This could have easily been avoided if the regime accepted the Geneva deal back in October.

From the get go, President Obama had publicly and privately extended his hand to the fundamentalist terrorist regime in order to resolve the nuclear issue. Obama was in the White House from January 20, 2009. Khamenei could have simply accepted Obama’s offer of direct and unconditional negotiations. This would have meant doing one of several things. For example, Khamenei could have personally sat down wit President Obama (lets say in Switzerland) and directly discussed and resolved the main issues of contention. Or they could have authorized a high-level team to sit down and discuss all the main issues. President Obama sent (at least) two private letters to Khamenei, expressing his own willingness to directly negotiate with Khamenei based on mutual interest and mutual respect. President Obama put forth ONLY one primary issue: uranium enrichment. President Obama left out human rights, freedom, and democracy as issues of concern in dealing with the fundamentalist regime.

The question is WHY Khamenei refused to accept authorizing a high level team to sit down and negotiate all the main issues of concern. I think the most plausible answer is that Khamenei did not want to resolve the issues. The U.S. GOAL was, and is, to have the fundamentalist regime stop suspicious nuclear activities such as the fundamentalist regime’s uranium enrichment program. It appears to me that the most plausible explanation is that the fundamentalist terrorist regime really wants nuclear weapons and thus actual negotiations would be counter-productive to the regime’s primary goal of nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon capability. Therefore, Khamenei used stonewalling tactics.

3. THIS particular UNSC resolution is not very strong. The only sanction that could cause the collapse of the fundamentalist terrorist regime is a comprehensive sanction against purchase of crude oil and natural gas from the terrorist regime. Due to the opposition of Russia and China, real effective sanction has not been passed. This resolution, would not cause any major impact in Iran.

4. However, there is great psychological impact. The fundamentalist regime tried very hard to defeat this resolution and said so publically. The fundamentalist regime really did not want this particular UNSC sanction.

5. Many foreign firms will have more incentives to leave the market in Iran. Many more will interpret the world situation as becoming more hostile to the fundamentalist regime, thus would simply avoid entering the market in Iran. These will make the economic situation marginally worse in Iran, thus, undermining the ability of the fundamentalist regime to have more financial resources to buy off various individuals and sectors.

6. Although this resolution did not approve real strong economic sanctions on the terrorist regime, there is a possibility that it would encourage real tough sanctions being approved by the EU, Japan, and others. For example, if the U.S. Congress passed legislation prohibiting any company dealing with the Islamic Republic from being able to also have trade with American companies overseas or buy and sell in the U.S. then THAT would have real impact. Or if the EU passed real tough sanctions prohibiting purchase of crude oil and natural gas from the fundamentalist regime, that would have REAL IMPACT on the terrorist regime.

Purchase of crude oil and natural gas provides 40 to 90 BILLION dollars (depending on the price of oil and gas) DIRECTLY to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei every single year. They use this money to pay for their coercive apparatuses and buy support from individuals and groups. A real comprehensive economic sanction could cause the collapse of the fundamentalist regime.

7. This resolution also authorizes inspection of ships entering or leaving Iran. In my opinion, this is the most significant segment of the resolution. This would make the U.S. Navy interceding any and all ships going in and out of Iranian ports legal according to international law. This would make a de facto American "naval blockade" legal because it would be enforcing this UNSC resolution. If the terrorist regime’s IRGC confronted U.S. Navy, then according to international law, the terrorist regime is acting against international law.

8. Minor losers: Turkey and Brazil.

8a. The ruling party in Turkey, the AKP, is an Islamist party. Many were hoping to see AKP become more moderate and provide an example of an Islamist party combine Islam and democracy. The AKP’s embrace of the terrorist Hamas has gravely damaged AKP’s reputation, although in Turkey it would, at least in the short term, boost it. Hamas is an extremist violent anti-democratic group. Instead of working with the moderate PLO-Fatah, the Hamas seized Gaza and has refused new elections (because many believe it would lose to Fatah). Many regard Hamas killing of Fatah officials and members and seizer of Gaza as a coup.

By allying with the fundamentalist terrorist regime, AKP further adds to the perception that, it too, is an extremist group. AKP’s embrace of Islamic terrorists such as Hamas and the fundamentalist regime ruling Iran, cements EU’s fears of Turkey.

Had AKP instead embraced Fatah and condemned the fundamentalist regime ruling Iran, it would have enhanced the perception around the world that it is a moderate and democratic party. One could not embrace Ahmadinejad and Hamas and claim to be moderate and democratic. Hamas and Ahmadinejad have the blood of moderates on their hands.

8b. The fundamentalist regime wanted to use President Lula as "useful idiot." Ahmadinejad was using Lula and AKP to buy time and undermine the UNSC sanctions.

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Masoud Kazemzadeh
 
Fatollah

.

by Fatollah on

.


Fatollah

you made my day

by Fatollah on

Thank you and God bless Dr. Mossadeq


Farah Rusta

And I thought R2-D2 was the only robot on this blog!

by Farah Rusta on

 Contrary to his name R2-D2 is showing much more human feelings and sense than our blog author Mr Kazemzadeh, who, in his by now too familiar style, when he gets cornered into a tight situation, switches to robotic mode and shouts (in a voice like the Robot B9 in Lost in Space): Can not compute, Can not compute - Danger Danger!

 

  LOL

FR


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Difference between VPK and Ahmadinejad?

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

VPK: The common thread in both violence is "Islamist". Not the Shah and you ain't gonna pin that on Savak or the Shah. If anything the Shah and Savak were not hard enough on the Islamists and their foolish allies. If he was we may not have the IRR to deal with.

 

 

 

 

MK: Actually, who did the massacre at Jaleh Square? Between June 1977 and Feb 1979, the Shah KILLED around 2,900 unarmed people. This is a FACT.

And who executed our Foreign Minister Dr. Fatemi? And who savagely tortured and burned alive courageous journalist Karimpour Shirazi?

Who imprisoned about 5,000 of JM members in 1962? Who tortured young high school kids for the sole reason of reading a pamphlet? Who tortured university students merely because they formed a philosophy group?

I testify that SAVAK beat up my 15 year old classmate in 1975 when the Shah announced his Rastakhiz Party and forced all of us at school to sign up and become members of it.  The sole reason was that he did agree to become a member of Rastakhiz Party.  The SAVAK beat him up until he signed and became a member of the Rastakhiz Party. 

High school kids were tortured by SAVAK merely for writing ensha (composition) that were not supportive of the Shah.

 

SAVAK torturers raped many female political prisoners (e.g., Ashraf Dehghani), and sodomized male political prisoners with batons and Pepsi and Coca Cola bottles.

 

ANYBODY who lived in Iran in the 1970s KNOWS about the brutalities and torture of SAVAK.

 

ANYBODY who lived in Iran in 1977-1979 KNOWS that the Shah KILLED thousands of unarmed protesters.

 

You are right, the fundamentalist burned Cinema Rex and killed about 400 people. We have to be condemn Khomeini for that crimes. But we should not be silent about the crimes of the Shah.

 

Actually, the reason that millions and millions of people fought against Shah’s dictatorship was because he had done so much oppression. You want the Shah to have KILLED more, TORTURED more, and RAPED more women, and SODOMIZED more men??????????

What is the difference between you and Ahmadinejad when it comes to human rights, freedom, and democracy????????? According to YOUR words, none.

 

MK


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Oh please

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

MK, you are trying to rewrite history to cover for the screw ups of the Jebhe Melli. I know that much of the "violence" like Cinema Rex was in fact done by the Islamists. The violence here is 100% by the Islamists.

The common thread in both violence is "Islamist". Not the Shah and you ain't gonna pin that on Savak or the Shah. If anything the Shah and Savak were not hard enough on the Islamists and their foolish allies. If he was we may not have the IRR to deal with.

JM is not guiltless and we all know that. Better to accept responsibility; beg for forgiveness and get over it. Running away and trying to rewrite history is not becoming. It won't work and just makes JM look bad.

Good luck. VPK


R2-D2

Politics ...

by R2-D2 on

Is Indeed The Art Of The Possible - Not What Idealistically Can Be Achieved, But What In Practical Terms Can Be Attained ...

Dr. Mossadeq, With All The Geat Attributes That He Had, Had Significant Shortcomings In That Area ...

It's Really That Simple :) - !

R D

 

 


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Similarity Between Today's Struggle and 1977-1979

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Benross,

 

What our brave people are doing on the streets in the past 12 months is very much like what we were doing 1977-1979. A majority unarmed people confronting a brutal armed minority in power.

Monarchists have always been a small minority of the population and the Shah ruled because of using violence. Specially using SAVAK to torture and kill our people. We did not have a single free election since 1953.

Today, the fundamentalist constitute a minority of the population and use violence to rule.

Neither the monarchists then, nor the fundamentalists since 1981, hold one single free and democratic elections.

Monarchist dictators and fundamentalist dictators are responsible for dictatorship in Iran.

 

MK


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

For what it

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

is worth I *never* supported the revolution. I was not big on the Shah. But I knew that either Khomeini or the  Marxists were bad news. Therefore I did not support any of them. The one thing I did not do was to actively support the Shah. I should have in hindsight; my bad. But I did not fall for the revolution thank God.


Masoud Kazemzadeh

For Mr. Parsa

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Mr. Parsa,

I disagree with entire premise of your question on several levels.

 

1. I neither recommended nor opposed the regime accepting the Geneva deal in Oct 2009. The Geneva deal is an insignificant issue. The main issue is whether or not the regime has a clandestine nuclear weapons program. All the Great Powers (U.S., Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc) believe that it does. IAEA does. UNSC has passed 4 resolutions and 1 Presidential Statement.

My own assumption is that the regime has a clandestine nuclear weapons program. There are so many indicators.

The main point of contention is NOT a regime in the Third World wants to have peaceful nuclear program and the bad imperialists oppose it. Rather a truly genocidal regime with an ideology of Imam Hussein model martyrdom (mass martyrdom is good) and even worse a fanatical lunatic group that wants to hasten the arrival of Imam Mahdi by creating chaos (e.g., Dr. Hassan Abbassi gang and Ahmadinejad). If this fanatical, genocidal, 12 Imami hastening extremists get nuclear weapons, the lives of tens of millions of human beings, including 70 million Iranians, could perish.

Therefore, there is no comparison between a fanatical regime wanting to get nukes with JM-Mossadegh govt in 1951-53.

One of the main points I was arguing is that President Obama genuinely wanted to solve the problem with the fundamentalist regime. It was Khamenei who stonewalled any negotiations. The Geneva deal in October was a baby step that the regime could show by shipping LEU out of Iran. In June the deal with Turkey and Brazil was a trick by Khamenie to fool the UNSC.

 

 

 

2. Dr. Mossadegh wanted to solve the issue with the British. He held large numbers of negotiations. Dr. Mossadegh was willing to pay for the nationalization along the same lines the British govt had used for nationalizing some of the industries in Britain. Dr. Mossadegh was willing to keep ALL the British employees of the NIOC. Basically, Dr. Mossadegh wanted Iranian ownership of Iranian oil. The World Court agreed with Iran’s position. Dr. Mossadegh personally went to New York and personally participated in the UN SC meeting and the British withdrew their resolution (i.e., Iran won).

President Truman also put pressure on the British to solve the problem with Iran. The British government plan was to overthrow Dr. Mossadegh’s cabinet. This was their policy from the get go. Their top expert Dr. Lambton told them this. The top NIOC Official told the cabinet this.

 

The British govt and the NIOC had made the decision NOT to reach a deal with Dr. Mossadegh. Their concern was if Iran could "get away" with nationalization of Iranian oil, then Egyptians could use the same principle and nationalize the Suez Canal, and the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis and the Bahrainis could use this same principle and nationalize their oil.

The British were also controlling politics in our country. We did not have independence for all practical purposes. Therefore, for Mossadegh-JM, the oil nationalization was part of gaining our political independence from foreign political control.

With the British elections which brought Churchill and the American elections which brought Eisenhower, the U.K.-U.S. alliance was very powerful. If people in Iran united, then we would have succeeded in winning our de facto political independence and our de jour and de facto economic independence. In addition, we would have had democracy, freedom and human rights.

Unfortunately, Mohammad Reza Shah preferred to be dictator than do what was in Iran’s national interests. The Iranian people never forgave him for that.

Actually, we came very very close to winning. We won and the CIA-MI 6 coup was defeated on August 16, 1953. Unfortunately, Kermit Roosevelet was exceptionally bright, and creative and brave. He stayed in Tehran and tried one more time on the 19th. Due to a variety of factors, including our mistakes, we lost. Our people are still paying for that horrible day. Ever since our tortured nation has not seen freedom and democracy.

I hope this is helpful.

MK

 

P.S. There are some who argue that Dr. Mossadegh should have sacrificed the dream of independence and accept something less in the negotiations with the British.  Dr. Katouzian has made this argument.  The British had come close to something like 50-50 with Razmara.  Dr. Mossadegh, they argue, should have accepted the British deal with Razmara.  Had Mossadegh done that, then  he would have been another Razmara or Qavam or Amini. 

People love Mossadegh because he wanted us to be independent.  Not servants of others.  Not second class in our own home.  Mossadegh was our Washington, our Gandhi.  Well, except we failed.

 

 

 


benross

Don't give me crap Masoud

by benross on

I know what Masadeghists did during Islamic revolution and that's all it counts.

P/S For your information, I was also an active opposant to the Shah. Like many others. But I ended my longtime friendship with a supporter of Toodé, as soon as he started supporting Khomeini.

There are things more important than politics. Like human brain, self respect and human dignity. 


default

Mr Kazemzadeh,

by Kaveh Parsa on

I am curios to know how you square your recommendation for the regime to have accepted the Geneva deal in Oct 09, with Dr Mossadegh's rejection of the only deal (50-50) on the table after the nationalization

 

KP


R2-D2

Friends

by R2-D2 on

When I was growing up back in the 1970's, I was a great admirer of Dr. Mossadeq. To me, and a great many of my contemporaries, he epitomized the whole concept of Patriotism and Self-Sacrifice!

I have to say, that as a student in London, I decried and despised the Political Repression that the Shah was imposing on our Beloved Iran - To me, and many others like me, Khomeini represented an alternative - In Hindsight, A Totally And Completely Foolish Notion!

If the events of the last thirty (30) years is any lesson for all of us, then that would be, we Iranians essentially came out of a Chaleh (Shah's regime - A Frying Pan), and fell directly into a Chah (This brutal IRI - A Burning Fire And Inferno)!

First, let me say, that as time goes by, History is going to look more kindly at the reign of the Shah in view of the atrocities that the present regime is committing - I believe that a great many Iranians who favorably looked upon the coming about of the present Regime back in the early 1980's, are deeply regretful of what they have done! They never truly studied, understood, and examined what was coming After the Shah when he left!

To all of those who were highly supportive of Mossadeq, myself included, we have to admit and accept a truth about an error of judment on our parts also - Although I love, admire, and in many ways, model myself after him, nevertheless, his stubborness brought about the events of the 1953 coup!

As many are aware, U.S., during the Presidency of Harry Trumanm, with his Secretary of State Dean Acheson, was vehemently opposed to the continuation of the colonial aspirations of Britain - The British Prime Minister, Clement Athlee, almost begged the U.S. Government to do something about Mossadeq - When Dr. Mossadeq came to U.S., he was very warmly received by President Truman and Secretary of State Acheson - President Truman warned Mossadeq to try and strike a deal with the British!

As all the historical documents indicate, the British were willing to improve on the concession that they had negotiated with Reza Shah! However, it wasn't exactly at the level that Mossadeq wanted - It should also be said that the Americans were negotiating at the time with the Saudi Arabians, and that ultimately led to a more equitable deal for the Saudis than Iran had with the British!

What I am trying to say is that in view of all the activities that was going in the Middle East, between the Americans and the Saudis, and what was happening between Iran and Britain, that Dr. Mossadeq would ultimately have been able to negotiate a very equitable deal for our Bloved Iran, given time and patience! Maybe not everything right away, but in due course!

However, all of that is water under the bridge - We are where we are right now - With This Brutal Islamic Regime!

There is no question in my mind that a Secular Democracy, such as a Parliamentary System, is the best alternative for this farce that we call the Islamic Republic - A System Where Politics And Religion Are Totally And Completely Separate From One Another!

Now, in a Parliamentary System, the Head Of Government is the Prime Minister - As Head of State, we can have a Constitutional Monarch, such as in Britain, or an Elected President, such as in Germany - They are both ceremonial roles - In my opinion, this "Head Of State" thing is a Secondary Issue - Whichever our Beloved Brothers And Sisters In Iran Want!

Having said all of that, I would like to encourage everyone to focus their energies and thoughts in removing these criminals and bastards who are running Iran today! In all due respect, all the bickering that's going on here, is nothing but an exercise in futilty!

I hope that you give some thought to what I'm saying here - Let's Look Forward To The Great Future That Iran Can Have - Not So Much On The Mistakes Of The Past!

Sincerely,

R D - A Patriotic Iranian

 

 


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Dictatorship Bad; Democracy Good; Tortue Bad; Human Rights Good

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Benross,

 

1. The genesis of the 1979 revolution is the August 1953 coup. The right-wing Islamic forces (Fadaian Islam, Kashani, Brujerdi, et al.) supported the coup and the Shah. This is indisputable FACT. The CIA Secret History states this. ALL the major scholars write this.

2. For a variety of reasons, the reactionary Islamist forces broke with the Shah. Khomeini and Falsafi and Ayat broke with the Shah in 1963 because of the female franchise, land reform. The Shah dictatorship had three pillars: big feudalistic landowners, conservative Shia ulama, and the security forces (SAVAK and military). The Americans forced reforms compelled the Shah to abandon two main pillars of his regime. The Shah was reluctant, so the Kennedy administration forced Dr. Ali Amini on the Shah. Then, the Shah agreed to implement the reforms himself.

 

3. You can support the Shah’s brutal tyranny. We, democrats, by definition have to oppose dictatorship, and torture and brutalities of the Shah. We oppose torture by SAVAMA as we opposed torture by SAVAK. We oppose dictatorship and murder by fundamentalists as we opposed dictatorship and murder by the Shah. We believe that the Iranian people should not be condemned to either the Shah’s brutal dictatorship or fundamentalist brutal dictatorship. We, Iranian democrats, believe that the Iranian people deserve democracy, freedom, human rights. Therefore, we have to fight against the enemies of democracy and freedom and human rights. If you support the Shah’s dictatorship, then you are not a democrat.

 

4. If we had defeated the coup in 1953, our fragile infant democracy would have consolidated and become stronger and stronger. The democratic secular republic that we would have established in Iran in 1953 would have been legitimate for the vast majority of the Iranian people. Had the 1953 coup failed, then Iran today would have been democratic, progressive, advanced. Therefore, those who made the 1953 coup created the conditions for the hellish nightmare that is Iran today.

 

 

5. I condemn calling Iranian democrats "bastards." As a democrat, I condemn the torturers and rapists and murders of SAVAK and the terrorist regime’s Ministry of Intelligence.

 

I hope this is helpful.

MK

 

 


R2-D2

Friends

by R2-D2 on

When I was growing up back in the 1970's, I was a great admirer of Dr. Mossadeq. To me, and a great many of my contemporaries, he epitomized the whole concept of Patriotism and Self-Sacrifice!

I have to say, that as a student in London, I decried and despised the Political Repression that the Shah was imposing on our Beloved Iran - To me, and many others like me, Khomeini represented an alternative - In Hindsight, A Totally And Completely Foolish Notion!

If the events of the last thirty (30) years is any lesson for all of us, then that would be, we Iranians essentially came out of a Chaleh (Shah's regime - A Frying Pan), and fell directly into a Chah (This brutal IRI - A Burning Fire And Inferno)!

First, let me say, that as time goes by, History is going to look more kindly at the reign of the Shah in view of the atrocities that the present regime is committing - I believe that a great many Iranians who favorably looked upon the coming about of the present Regime back in the early 1980's, are deeply regretful of what they have done! They never truly studied, understood, and examined what was coming After the Shah when he left!

To all of those who were highly supportive of Mossadeq, myself included, we have to admit and accept a truth about an error of judment on our parts also - Although I love, admire, and in many ways, model myself after him, nevertheless, his stubborness brought about the events of the 1953 coup!

As many are aware, U.S., during the Presidency of Harry Trumanm, with his Secretary of State Dean Acheson, was vehemently opposed to the continuation of the colonial aspirations of Britain - The British Prime Minister, Clement Athlee, almost begged the U.S. Government to do something about Mossadeq - When Dr. Mossadeq came to U.S., he was very warmly received by President Truman and Secretary of State Acheson - President Truman warned Mossadeq to try and strike a deal with the British!

As all the historical documents indicate, the British were willing to improve on the concession that they had negotiated with Reza Shah! However, it wasn't exactly at the level that Mossadeq wanted - It should also be said that the Americans were negotiating at the time with the Saudi Arabians, and that ultimately led to a more equitable deal for the Saudis than Iran had with the British!

What I am trying to say is that in view of all the activities that was going in the Middle East, between the Americans and the Saudis, and what was happening between Iran and Britain, that Dr. Mossadeq would ultimately have been able to negotiate a very equitable deal for our Bloved Iran, given time and patience! Maybe not everything right away, but in due course!

However, all of that is water under the bridge - We are where we are right now - With This Brutal Islamic Regime!

There is no question in my mind that a Secular Democracy, such as a Parliamentary System, is the best alternative for this farce that we call the Islamic Republic - A System Where Politics And Religion Are Totally And Completely Separate From One Another!

Now, in a Parliamentary System, the Head Of Government is the Prime Minister - As Head of State, we can have a Constitutional Monarch, such as in Britain, or an Elected President, such as in Germany - They are both ceremonial roles - In my opinion, this "Head Of State" thing is a Secondary Issue - Whichever our Beloved Brothers And Sisters In Iran Want!

Having said all of that, I would like to encourage everyone to focus their energies and thoughts in removing these criminals and bastards who are running Iran today! In all due respect, all the bickering that's going on here, is nothing but an exercise in futilty!

I hope that you give some thought to what I'm saying here - Let's Look Forward To The Great Future That Iran Can Have - Not So Much On The Mistakes Of The Past!

Sincerely,

R D - A Patriotic Iranian

 

 

 


Farah Rusta

اقای کاظم زاده

Farah Rusta


قدر مسلم من مثل شما مصدق اللهی نیستم 


benross

Dear Masoud

by benross on

He was a bastard who produced all those little bastards who went in service of Khomeini. This is the legacy of his 'good name'. He got what he wanted and wealth and comfort is meaningless for someone who is born in wealth and comfort- when it comes to power and glory. Look at Khomeini life style. He wasn't so poor either. You can love him as much as you like. I made-up my mind.

There are words, then there are deeds. I know his type.


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Democrats and Scholars vs. Hezbollahis and Shahollahis

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Benross,

Actually, Dr. Mossadegh sacrificed himself for the national interests of Iran. He was born to wealth, but he spent that money and his own health, liberty, and life for the national interest of Iran. THAT is the reason that he has good name in the hearts of the vast majority of the Iranian people. Other than Hezbollahis, absolutist monarchists and a few communists, the rest of our people have high regard for Dr. Mossadegh.

He fought for our control of our oil. He fought for freedom and democracy. He went to prison and put his life in danger. We should be fair and have ensaf.

There are some fanatics who say lies and lies and lies and lie. No amount of evidence, scholarship can change their minds. These people are the Flat Earth Society people or like those in cults. All scholars can do is to present evidence. As long as those like Shaaban bi-mokh and ms. Rusta and Ahmadinejad constitute a minority in our population, there is hope for a decent democracy in Iran. But if shahollhis and hezbollahis are a majority, then we are condemned to their LIES and brutal dictatorship.

Best,

MK


Masoud Kazemzadeh

خانم روستا

Masoud Kazemzadeh


خانم روستا،

شما حزب الهی هستید یا شاه الهی؟

 

 


benross

مصدق ایران را فدای خوش‌نامی خود کرد

benross


همه چیز از این زاویه کاملاً قابل درک است!


Farah Rusta

از روباه پرسیدند شاهدت کیه ...

Farah Rusta


The desparate attempts by Kazemzadeh to deny the authenticity of this letter reminds me of the famous Persian saying above which continues:

گفت دم خروس 

by bringing witnesses from their own side!!!

There is no suprise that Khomeini was critical of Mossadegh as Khomeini was in later years (before Kashani's death) critical of Kashani too. Khomeini never approved of the alliance between Kahsani and Mossadegh. One of the reasons that Khomeini tolerated Bazargan and his cabinet, Mossadegh's former supporters, (for a short while) was that they had put Islam above Iran and Mossadegh. Sadly for them, Khomeini read through their treacherous selves too soon and Bazargan's term didn't last more than a year. In Khomeini's eyes: once a traitor, always traitor.

 

 

//www.tebyan.net/index.aspx?pid=24202

 

FR


Masoud Kazemzadeh

on Kashani's Forged Letter

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

 

Khomeini attacking Dr. Mossadegh

//www.irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=83

 

 

Kashani alleged letter is a forgery:

//www.irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=1857

 

 

 

 

1. The alleged Kashani letter was produced after the revolution by Hassan Ayat, who is a charlatan. Mahmoud Kashani, ayatollah’s son, was close to Ayat. Mahmoud Kashani promotes the lunatic view that the CIA coup was a coup by Mossadegh and the British against his father!!!

2. Initially the fundamentalists promoted this fake letter. But because it is well established that it is a fake, not that many fundamentalist use this fake story any longer.

3. Those JM members who were present at Dr. Mossadegh’s home on the day of the coup and were alive after Feb 1979, publicly stated that no such letter by Kashani come to Dr. Mossadegh.

4. There are a lot of memoirs, most notably by Dr. Mossadegh that absolutely categorically do not say a single word about a Kashani letter on this.

 

5. Scholarly consensus is the following:

a. no such letter was sent to Dr. Mossadegh

b. most likely the alleged letter was forged by Ayat and Mahmoud Kashani, or

c. that Ayatollah Kashani himself wrote it after the first coup failed on August 16, BUT DIDI NOT SEND, in order to use it in order for his defense regarding that he and his son were directly involved in the second coup on August 19;

d. Ayatollah Kashani wrote the letter long time AFTER the coup, after seeing how badly things turned out and the totally illegitimacy of the Shah’s dictatorship in order to hide his dirty role in that tragedy and treason.

 


Farah Rusta

As always: Kazemzadeh dodging the questions

by Farah Rusta on

Kazemzadeh's forthcoming books may help him with departmental promotion and a few more bucks in his pocket but add nothing new to truth behind Mossadegh's complicity with the reactionary forces of fundamental Islam, under Aytollah Kashani, that later fired back at his face when the Islamists realized that Mossadegh had his own power maniacal agenda. This is the text of a letter written by Kashani to Mossadegh on the eve of 19th August 1953 in which Kashani tries to alert his old ally of the possibility of a coup against him and offers his one last chance to save him from total defeat:

Kashani's letter to his old ally Mossadegh, 18th August 1953:

متن نامه بدین شرح است:«حضرت نخست وزیر معظم جناب آقای دكتر مصدق دام اقباله»

«گرچه
امكانی برای عرایضم باقی نمانده است ولی صلاح دین و ملت برای این خادم
اسلام بالاتر از احساسات شخصی است... خودتان بهتر از هر كسی می‌دانید كه
تمام هم و غمم در نگهداری دولت جنابعالی است كه خودتان به بقای آن مایل
نیستید از تجربیات روی كار آمدن قوام و لجبازی‌های اخیر بر من مسلم است كه
می‌خواهید مانند سی‌ام تیر كذائی یكبار دیگر ملت را تنها گذاشته و
قهرمانانه بروید. حرف اینجانب را در خصوص اصرارم در عدم اجرای رفراندم
نشنیدید مرا لكه حیض كردید خانه‌ام را سنگ باران و یاران و فرزندانم را
زندانی فرمودید و مجلس را كه ترس داشتید شما را ببرد بستید حالا نه مجلسی
هست و نه تكیه گاهی برای این ملت گذاشته‌اید. زاهدی را كه من با زحمت در
مجلس تحت نظر و قابل كنترل نگه داشته بودم با لطایف الحیل خارج كردید و
حالا همانطور كه واضح بود درصدد به اصطلاح كودتا است.

اگر نقشه شما نیست كه مانند سی‌ام تیرماه عقب‌نشینی كنید و به ظاهر
قهرمان بمانید... همان‌طور كه گفتم آمریكا ما را در گرفتن نفت از
انگلیسی‌ها كمك كرد حالا به صورت ملی و دنیا‌پسندی می‌خواهد به دست
جنابعالی این ثروت ما را به چنگ آورد و اگر واقعاً با دیپلماسی نمی‌خواهید
كنار بروید این نامه من سندی است در تاریخ ملت ایران كه من شما را با وجود
همه بدی‌های خصوصی‌تان نسبت به خودم از وقوع حتمی یك كودتا توسط زاهدی كه
مطابق با نقشه‌های خود شماست آگاه كردم كه فردا جای هیچ‌گونه عذری نباشد
اگر براستی در این فكر اشتباه می‌كند با اظهار تمایل شما.... سید مصطفی و
ناصر خان قشقایی را برای مذاكره، خدمت می‌فرستم. سید ابوالقاسم كاشانی»

Islamic Republic's tribute to Mossadegh:

And Mossadegh's reply to Kashani, dismissing his coup alert:

كتر مصدق در پاسخ نامه آیت الله كاشانی نوشت:«27مرداد ماه مرقومة حضرت آقا توسط آقای حسن سالمی زیارت شد اینجانب مستظهر به پشتیبانی ملت ایران هستم. و السلام. دكتر محمد مصدق.»

These letters are not liked by the supporters of Mossadegh as they point at the background of cooperation between the superficially secular Mossadegh and extremist fundamentalist Kashani.

In the meantime Mossadegh on/off bedfellowship with the Islamists remains indisputable.

 

FR


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Kashani, Fadaian Islam, Khomeini, Brujerdi, and the 1953 coup

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

the following excerpts are from my forthcoming book (actually one after the next one).  if anyone would like a particular endnote, please let me know, I will be happy to provide it.

 MK 

 

===========

 

 

The "terrorist group" that Kermit Roosevelt and Donald Wilber mobilized was the "Fadaian Islam." The sole Islamic terrorist group in Iran in 1953 was the Fadaian Islam. The CIA mobilized the Fadaian Islam, the main Islamic fundamentalist group in Iran at the time, infamous for numerous assassinations, including an assassination attempt on Dr. Hossein Fatemi, who was Mossadegh’s foreign minister, as well as a foiled plan to assassinate then prime minister Mossadegh himself. The day after the coup, Fadaian Islam’s newspaper described the coup as "an Islamic revolution,"1 and stated:

"Yesterday Tehran was shaking under the manly feet of the soldiers of the Muslim and anti-foreign army. Musaddiq, the old blood-sucking ghoul, resigned... under the annihilating blows of the Muslims... All governmental centers were captured by the Muslims and the Islamic army."2

  

Nabard-i Mellat, August 20, 1953, translated by and cited in Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power in Iran (London: I.B. Tauris, 1990), p. 174.

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

 

 

Ayatollah AbolQassem Kashani who had earlier supported Mossadegh gradually moved away from Mossadegh and collaborated with the Shah. In late February 1953, when the Shah said that due to his differences with Mossadegh, he would leave the country, Mossadegh went to his palace to say good bye. Kashani and Falsafi strongly supported the Shah. Ayatollah Kashani issued an statement stating:

"People, be warned! Treacherous decisions have resulted in the decision of our beloved and democratic (dimukrat) shah to leave the country... You should realize that if the shah goes, whatever we have will go with him. Rise up and stop him, and make him change his mind. Because, today, our existence and independence depend on the very person of His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and no one else."1

According to one of the foremost experts on the coup, Mark Gasiorowski, who has interviewed the main CIA operatives who conducted the coup: "Two CIA officers involved in the coup told me they delivered ten thousand dollars to Aramesh on the morning of August 19. Neither could confirm that Kashani received this money and used it to organize demonstrations, but both believed he did. One of these officers told me about Jafari’s role. Another CIA officer told me one of Kashani’s sons visited him after the coup to remind him of the role his father had played. Roosevelt confirmed this in my interview with him."1 Ahmad Aramesh was the main contact between Ayatollah Kashani and the CIA.

One of Ayatollah Kashani’s sons was long in contact with the CIA’s operation TPAJAX (the code name of the August coup). In the words of CIA secret history:

"Radio Tehran was a most important target, for its capture not only sealed the success at the capital, but was effective in bringing the provincial cities quickly into line with the new government.... Sheer weight of numbers seemed to have overwhelmed the defenders of the radio station, and after a brief struggle in which three deaths were reported, at 1412 hours the station was in royalist hands. At 1420 hours it broadcast the first word of the success of the royalist effort, including a reading of the firma. A stream of eager speakers came to the microphone. Some represented elements upon whom reliance had been placed in TPAJAX planning, while others were quite unknown to the station. Among the former elements were opposition papers [Bakhtiar and Zelzeleh,] one of [Ayatollah Kashani’s sons,] and [likeh Etozadi.] among spontaneous supporters of the Shah to come to the microphone were Colonel Ali Pahlevan and Major Husand Mirzadian; their presence was the proof – no longer required – of the truth of the TPAJAX assumption that the army would rally to the Shah under just such circumstances."2

 

In the words of Gasiorowski, "Several days after the coup the British received a report from the Iraqi ambassador in Tehran that the Shah and Zahedi together had visited Kashani, kissed his hands, and thanked him for his help in restoring the monarchy."3 Two weeks after the coup in an interview Kashani said that Musaddiq was guilty of high treason and had to be punished by death.4

 

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

 

Mozaffar Baqai closely collaborated with the CIA, Gen. Zahedi, and Ayatollah Kashani both in preparation for the 1953 coup and afterwards. One of the major actions leading to the coup was the kidnaping, torture and murder of Gen. Afshartoo, Mossadegh’s Chief of National Police. This operation was carried out by Baqai, Gen. Zahedi, and Kashani’s son. In the words of Gasiorowski, "Zahedi, Baqai, and several of their associates (including Kashani’s son) were implicated in the killing, and warrants were issued for their arrest. Kashani, as president of the majles, helped Zahedi avoid arrest by giving him bast, or sanctuary, in the Majles; Baqai was protected by parliamentary immunity."1 According to Akhavi: "Accompanied by some of Musaddiq’s bitterest enemies – Muhammad Zu al-Faqari, Mir Ashrafi, Bahaduri, Ha’irizadeh and Qanatabadi – Kashani told Zahedi: ‘I have given orders that as long as your freedom has not been secured, you will be received here with welcome.’ Then, turning to the commander of the Majles guards, he said: ‘My wish is that as long as General Zahedi abides here, you will take care of our dear guest.’"2

Hassan Ayat was a devotee of Mozaffar Baqai and a member of his inner circle. Ayat, became the foremost theoretician of the Islamic Republican Party (IRP), which was the clerical party that helped consolidate Khomeini’s rule in 1979. Ayat was the secretary of the assembly which wrote the fundamentalist constitution and is believed to be responsible for the principle of velayat faghih, the notion of granting huge powers to a high ranking clergy as the Supreme Leader. After the revolution, Ayat made crude and strange accusations against Mossadegh and his followers, regarding them to be part of Western colonialism’s interests in Iran!3 According to Ayat:

What we see so clearly in Musaddiq’s path is the manifestation of colonialism. Without any doubt, Musaddiq has been one strong element (of foreign powers) in Iran in the past hundred years... In a careful analysis, the conspiracy of August 1953 wad the defeat of the uprising of our oppressed nation and not the fall of Musaddiq. In this conspiracy, he played his role well and was greatly rewarded for it; imperialism made him a national figure by its widespread propaganda.4

The IRP provided a preface to Ayat’s book attacking Mossadegh in the following words:

Many political parties and groups whose roots are linked with the obvious and not so obvious agents of Britain and America (e.g., the National Front)... and ten other groups had one thing in common which was their praise for Musaddiq... The martyred Ayat never walked the misguided path of the nationalists. Since his early youth, because of his correct identification of this satanic path and his familiarity with the real character of Musaddiq, Ayat launched a staunch struggle against Musaddiq and his followers.5

Ayat, like other fundamentalist theoreticians, tried to distort the actual history by falsifying the role of the Islamic forces who supported for the coup and instead spread the rumor that Mossadegh himself was part of the CIA conspiracy to overthrow himself. In the words of Rajaee, who has written the most sophisticated review of the works of Ayat and other fundamentalists on this subject: "the work [by Ayat] attempts to reverse the perception of Musaddiq from being the victim of the coup to an agent who contributed to it, and that of Kashani from being a supporter of the coup to its victim."6

Although we do not have any documentary evidence on what then-Hojatolislam Ruhollah Khomeini actually did, we do know that according to his own words published by the regime after the revolution that in 1952-53 period Khomeini opposed Mossadegh. In the official compilation of Khomeini’s words, Khomeini recounts his words in 1953 during the confrontation between Mossadegh and Kashani in the following incendiary words:

"He [Mossadegh] was not a Muslim. On that day, I was in the home of one of the clerics in Tehran when I heard the news that they had put on glasses on a dog and called it ‘Ayatollah’ and walked the dog around Tehran. I told the said cleric that this is not only an opposition to one person. He [Mossadegh] will be slapped in the face. Shortly afterward, that he [Mossadegh] was slapped. And if he [Mossadegh] remained, he would have slapped Islam."7

 

 

Katouzian’s excellent study concludes: "The religious establishment, Kashani and the Fada’iyan-i Islam were thus all united in the support for the coup and Zahedi’s government, although that unity was not to last long."1 In another superb analysis of the period, Shahrough Akhavi concludes: "The clerics finally opposed Musaddiq because they feared republicanism, communism, anticlerical policies, neglect of the clergy and religion in public life... In consequence, the ulama – with some exceptions – supported monarchy, conservative economic values, and respect for Islamic norms, law and institutions in social relations."2

 

 

 


Farah Rusta

Fabricated history by Kazemzadeh

by Farah Rusta on

Kazemzadeh writes:

"In 1953, fundamentalists sided with the Shah and the CIA coup. This includes Ayatollah Kashani, Brujerdi, Fadaian Islam, etc."

Questions:

  1. Under whose term as prime minister the assasin of Mossadegh's predecessor Gen. Razm Ara was released and pardonned without going through the due process of the law? A: Mossadegh
  2. Under whose premiership was the leader of the terrorist group, Fadaiaan Islam pardonned and released? A: Mossadegh
  3. Who was Mossadegh's and Jebej Melli's  number 1 member of Parliament from Tehran and head of Majlis? A: Kashani
  4. What happened to Kashani after the fall of Mossadegh? A: jailed and restricted
  5. What happned to the leader of the terrorist group, Fadaiian Islam after removal of Mossadegh? A: sentenced to death
  6. What happened to the assasin of General Razm Ara w(ho had been freed under Mossadegh) after the fall of Mossadegh? A: sentenced to death

 Now were Fadaiian Islam and Kashani sidefriends of the Shah or Mossadegh?

 

FR


R2-D2

Video: "Democracy Council: Iran - One Year After Elections"

by R2-D2 on

In case if you missed today's Live session of:

Democracy Council - Capitol Hill Briefing - "Iran: One Year After Elections",

you can watch the video of the sessions on-line by clicking here :)

 

 


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Thank You President Obama

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Reader 1,

 

1. Officials and supporters of the Apartheid regime in South Africa said that UNSC sanctions against the racist apartheid regime was unjust and immoral. Their assertion was wrong as is your assertion wrong.

 

UNSC resolutions against the racist apartheid regime and terrorist fundamentalist regime are legal, just, and moral. To sit back and allow the terrorist regime get nuclear weapons could result in endangering the lives of millions and millions of human beings, including the lives of 70 million Iranians. To PREVENT the terrorist regime from endangering the lives of tens of millions of human being is moral, just, and necessary. To sit back and allow the terrorist regime gain the ability to kill us all, is immoral and unjust.

 

 

 

 

2. In actual FACT the fundamentalist regime did NOT succeed. They tried very very hard to prevent this resolution. They failed. The BIGGEST LOSERS are Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. Do you see Ahmadinejad happy or upset? This resolution harms the interests of the terrorist regime.

 

 

3. This resolution undermines the fundamentalist regime. The following steps undermine the fundamentalist regime. If some actions take away resources of the oppressors of the Iranian people this logically follows that these actions undermine those who oppress. The Iranian people are in a struggle against the fundamentalist regime. Making the fundamentalist regime weaker is help for the Iranian people. Therefore, the Iranian people are one of the BIGGEST WINNERS of the UNSC resolution.

 

4. I thank President Obama for his policies against the brutal dictatorship in Iran. I thank President Obama for expressing his solidarity with the Iranian people in our struggles for freedom, democracy, and human rights.

MK

 


reader1

All parties got something out of this unjust ...

by reader1 on

... and immoral deal except ordinary Iranian people.

  • Russia gets USA sanction lifted against three of its state owned organizations involved in arm trade.
  • China gets guaranteed supply of oil from Saudi Arabia  to replace Iranian oil supply with USA blessing should things go wrong.
  • Brazil and Turkey gain international credibility as emerging super powers and succeed in protecting their ever increasing lucrative trade with Iran.
  • Palstinians, Syrians, Lebanese  and other Arab nations  get closer to a deal with Israel in exchange for USA effort to get the sanction passed.
  • IRI succeed in maintaining the status quo, i.e. in constant conflict with the rest of the world and hence distracting attention from domestic problems.
  • USA+EU, once again, assert their supremacy by showing the world who is the real boss  

 

… and poor ordinary Iranians pay for it all.


R2-D2

Watch This: "Iran: One Year After Elections"

by R2-D2 on

This morning, Friday, June 11th at 8:00 am est:

Watch Live On C-SPAN2:

Democracy Council - Capitol Hill Briefing - "Iran: One Year After Elections"

 

 


Masoud Kazemzadeh

kas nakharad posht man, joz nakhon angosht man

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Babak,

 

Yes, the U.S. government has kept all options on the table. All options includes not only conventional military option, but also nuclear response. The U.S. simply could not accept this extremist genocidal regime to have nuclear weapons. Put YOURSELF in THEIR shoes. The Americans see that they have two primary option: confront the fundamentalist regime after it gets nuclear weapons; or confront the fundamentalist before it gets nuclear weapons. If that was YOUR options, what would YOU do?

In my analysis, col. Wilkerson is wrong. In my analysis the regime is very weak.

The fundamentalist regime is able to survive because (1) it can sell oil and get billions of dollars and (2) it has large and dedicated coercive apparatuses willing and able to kill thousands or millions of Iranian people.

So, if there is a real comprehensive sanctions that would prohibit the purchase of oil and gas from the fundamentalist regime, there is a very high likelihood that the economy would collapse, which could result in mass uprising leading to the collapse of the fundamentalist regime. This would be in the interest of the Iranian people. We could establish a free, democratic republic with full human rights for all Iranians. This will be in the national interest of Iran and the best interest of the Iranian people.

 

Col. Wilkerson’s view is based on Israeli bombing of South Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008-09). Hezbollah was legitimate among Lebanese Shia, so no amounts of bombing would change that. Same with Hamas.

But the realities in Iran are totally different. The fundamentalist regime suffers from serious crisis of legitimacy. The ONLY reason they rule is because they can kill people. Period. Something like 10% of the population supports the terrorist regime. Most Iranians oppose the fundamentalist regime.

Therefore, Wilkinson is wrong. If the U.S. bombed the coercive apparatuses of the terrorist regime (IRGC, Basij, Ministry of Intelligence), then the Iranian people themselves could easily overthrow the terrorist regime.

 

You are right in one thing. The fundamentalist regime is the worst thing that has happened to Iran since the Mongol invasion 750 years ago, or perhaps since the Arab invasion and conquest of Iran 1400 years ago.

 

In conclusion, war is horrible. The BEST option is for the Iranian people, ourselves, to overthrow the fundamentalist regime. The least bad option is real comprehensive sanctions that would undermine the fundamentalist regime thus empowering and enabling the Iranian people to ourselves to overthrow the terrorist regime. If we, the Iranian people, fail to overthrow the terrorist regime, then the Americans will do what is in THEIR national interest which would require them to use the military option.

We have to be wise and protect our national interests by getting rid of the fundamentalist regime OURSELVES.  as our provern goes, kas nakharad posht man, joz nakhon angosht man.  It is OUR job to get rid of the terrorist regime so that we can protect our national interests.

 

MK

 


BabakSabzevari

Preparing the ground for demolishing Iran

by BabakSabzevari on

The real losers here are the people of Iran.

Following the US
rejection of the LEU agreement last month ( //bit.ly/9oUwIw ),
it is clear that the War Party and the shadow government of Hilary
"obliterate them" Clinton are now fully in charge of the Obama
administration (US posture has changed dramatically since October,
although, even then, while the administration was talking to Iran about
LEU removal and a new opening, general Petraeus was busy issuing a
secret directive to US special ops forces to operate inside Iran to
"prepare the environment" for a future attack).  And with Dennis Blair
pushed out of his DNI job, the War Party and Israel-firsters will now
get their man in as the new DNI, which will help them reach their goal
of manipulating the Iran language of the next NIE to serve their war
plans.

For the War Party, the sanctions serve one purpose only: preparing
the ground for demolishing Iran.  They did the same with Iraq: used the
sanctions as a means of making their final aggression look more
legitimate, and although the UNSC refused to authorize the final attack
on Iraq, the narrative (which is mostly aimed at domestic consumption)
had already been constructed through previous rounds of sanctions, so
the neocons just went ahead with the invasion without UN authorization.

Colin Powell's former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson has said
that the plan is round the clock aerial bombing of targets for 70 days (
//bit.ly/dCIKUp
).  This dog and pony show is not about any nuclear program, but about
setting Iran back to the stone age.  This is going to be Iraq 1991 (but
much more severe), not Iraq 2003, although depending on their assessment of the situation after 70 days of bombing, they may well decide to land
troops, specially if Petraeus' special ops are successful in their goal
of empowering separatist groups to take advantage of the situation. 
This is going to be the worst disaster for Iran since Gulistan and
Turkmenchay.  The 1979 catastrophe will pale in comparison.  Khamenei
and co. will join Fath Ali Shah as the most incompetent rulers in the
recent history of Iran.

Today, the neocons are one step closer to the realization of their
wildest wet dream.