Pictory

Baron

Yes, back in 1953, the CIA toppled the Mossadegh government. That, with the help of a few like Zahedi, Sha'ban bimokh, etc. Keep in mind that the coup actually failed when attempted by Kermit Roosevelt, but succeeded a few days later with Zahedi and the army + the thugs.

But the situation in 1979 was far too different from what it was in 1953. In 53, Iran was a weak/simple nation compared to 1979, where things were a lot more complicated to turn around. Most of the materials that have surfaced since the revolution lead me to believe all the western powers you consider so smart were all really wondering what to do in the face of the ongoing riots that were taking over Iran then. I don't think (though there is a statistical possibility, as always -- although slight, i.m.o.) there was any direct hand involved in manipulating the events of the revolution to that degree.

And yes, Khomeyni managed to do a lot of what you say, but not single-handedly, with the help of the people themselves!

Parham

No disrespect but your views are totally contradictory.  On the one hand you suggest that advanced, well-trained intelligence agencies who specialize in techniques to subvert societies and change governments are too stupid to do such activities.  Even though they had admittedly done so in Iran already, such as in 1953.

That, too you, is totally impossible to believe. 

Then, amazingly, on the other hand, you say that Khomeini singlehandedly managed to fool, in succession, all of Iran, all of Europe, all of America, all of the combined intelligence agencies of Iran, UK, France, US, all the world's media, destroy 2,500 years of Persian monarachy, diefy himself as a Prophet/Imam type figure, and take over absolutely power of all of Iran - all in a matter of six months, all without any professional help whatsoever.

Who is the one being irrational and emotional here? Who is the one unjustifiablygiving people more credit than due?  

Oh yes hostages

Pretty slick how they kept the hostages right until Reagan took office. They did not even try to hide the obvious deal. He gives his inauguration speech. Hostages go free. Jimmy Carter tries a rescue; it fails miserably. Why? Do you know who was a major player in the "rescue": Oliver North! Who saw to it that the mission failed. The whole thing was orchestrated.

Carter was and is an idiot. He got played by the British and by Reagan. I do not think Reagan was involved in the original overthrow of the Shah. But he did jump on the chance to milk the hostage crisis to his own advantage.

A fool to the end Carter was responsible for ruining Iran. Then ruining his own presidency. Then ruining America by allowing the right wing *** Reagan to take power. I tell you what Reagan was nothing short of treason. But Carter failed to act and at every step got outmaneuvered by others. 

Dear Parham

Believe me BBC and England had a lot to do with it. My family was very close to some British big wigs. My father was warned a full year before the revolution that Shah was a goner. How do you think they knew that? 

Of course being idiots we did not cash out and run so ended up losing a lot. But I am not lying and making up things. They at the minimum knew well before things got out of hand. I really think they had their hands deep in it.

Baron

I believe the stupidity (and mostly emotionality) of the people of Iran helped him quite a bit and the laisser-faire attitude of the west certainly made things easier for him to accomplish what he wanted as well. I also don't believe any foreign secret service has such powers, they're a lot more stupid than you give them credit.

Parham

So you believe Khomeini accomplished nothing less than the total eradication of 2,500 years of Persian monarchy, overcame SAVAK, and placed himself as the lifetime supreme leader of Iran without any professional intelligence agency help, propaganda help or foreign backing?   

Come on.  Don't be naive. 

Were the BBC and other Western media were just "tricked" by this clever old man into promoting him as a Gandhi like "savior" of Iran against the Shah?  Were the clandestine deals between rightwing elements of the CIA and Khomeini for keeping the hostages until after the 1980 Presidential elections, thereby dooming Carter's re-election bid, just a coincidence? What about the inside information of the Noheh Coup "leaked" to the IRI most likely by Western intelligence agencies, whom the Noheh Coup organizers naively informed of the details of their plan.  What about the covert arms sales to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair?

This man, Khomeini, and his entourage, were buried neck-deep in intelligence double deals and intrigues.   The evidence is overwhelming.  And the interesting thing is that the first people eliminated upon Khomeini's ascent to power were his former allies who had intricate knowledge of his past - people like Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who was with Khomeini as his right hand man during the time up to the revolution and had knowledge of his pre-revolution dealings, and Hassan Pakravan, the former chief of SAVAK who had befriended Khomeini and saved Khomeini's life.

May he rests in Peace

VPOK, I agree with your arguement.

Dangerous game

"PM Bakhtiar murdered, and his party demolished, forgotten, and irrelevant!"

Men like Amir Kabeer, Ghaa'em maghaam and Bakhtiar knew the risk involved when one enters the game of politices in a country like Iran: Chances are, you get killed.

Just because you get killed, it does not mean you are defeated.

160 years after his murder, we still talk highly of Amir Kabeer.

I predict the same for Shahpour Bakhtiar.

nasrin noor

Like I said, present one evidence for what you claim -- that he either wanted to, or actually sat with the Islamists to negotiate.

Well, the outcome is here today! Islamists in charge,...

PM Bakhtiar murdered, and his party demolished, forgotten, and irrelevant!

Obviously, someone outfoxed someone! Someone disarmed someone!

PM Bakhtiar, his cabinet, and the Army believed that sitting down and dialoguing with the Islamists and their facade (e.g., JM) can bring unity to the nation.

I guess the hindsight proves that they all fell victim to that false assumption!

Parham said

Never did Bakhtiar want to sit down across a table and reason the fate of Iran with the Islamists.

I agree. Just because Bakhtiyar wanted to listen to Khomeini does not mean he would obey. In Farsi we say "goosh kon". That has two meanings: listen or obey. I think it was the former. He would have listened but not obeyed.

Regarding Machiavellian coup

I have heard this many times and do not really know. Is this real or our imagination. So let us see what reasons would various nations have.

• USA: Shah was a real friend of the USA so it did not make sense for them to overthrow him. However the President at the time was Jimmy Carter. He in my opinion is an idiot. His dislike of the Shah is well known. He also admired Khomeini and thought of him as a man of God. His UN representative Andrew Young called Khomeini a "Gandhi". Others in his administration like George Ball were also anti-Shah. Jimmy Carter decided to withdraw support for the Shah and put it behind Khomeini. This is not in question rather a historical fact. The miscalculation cost JC his presidency and his legacy. To this day he refuses to admit his mistake. The USA obviously did not benefit from this.
• Britain: The 25 year oil deal with Iran was up in 1978. Shah wanted a better deal and this made Britain furious at him. They told him "you will regret it". Then did everything they could to undermine him. Again BBC would openly broadcast when there was going to be a demonstration. They refused to give Shah a chance to rebuttal their propaganda. This is also a historical fact and not my statement. I am not sure if Britain really benefited from IRI but I don't know. The hatred of Britain towards Iran is well documented and historical. They just do not like us and maybe that was sufficient reason.
• Israel: There is no clear evidence of involvement. However it is well known that they wanted more Jewish immigration. They worried that the Palestinian population was going to outnumber the Jewish one. Now I am guessing they may have figured if Shah falls there will be a mass immigration of Iranian Jews to Israel. Given the numbers this does not make a lot of sense. In practice the immigration happened but to USA. So Israel did not really get much out of this. One thing they got was to be the "only real friend" of USA in the region. On the other hand they got a huge pain in the *** of IRI. With support for Hizbollah and Hamas. On the face of it I would say they did not benefit from this.

The other reason given is that "they want to keep us backwards". I say: why? To keep competition out? That does not make sense. Because India with its vastly greater population is already giving them hell. Not to mention China; South Korea and many others. In proportion Iran would have been a drop in the bucket. For each job Iran would take from West India and China are taking 100 times as many. So I just do not know how well they thought this out.

One thing I do know is that if Nixon {or Ford} was in power this would not have happened. When the British pushed he would have told them to shove it. He genuinely liked Iran and Shah and would not have allowed this to happen.

Therefore I think it was more a convergence of events. Bad timing and miscalculations specially by JC. Not to mention bad leadership of the Shah and stupidity of our people. All of these led to the disaster known as IRI

nasrin noor

Never did Bakhtiar want to sit down across a table and reason the fate of Iran with the Islamists. I don't know where you got that notion from. He only said he was willing to hear the suggestions of the ayatollah at his arrival in Teheran, but that he wasn't willing to let him in the politics. If you have seen anything like that anywhere, please provide support for your statement.

Baron

I don't believe Khomeyni was a simple cleric, I believe he was in fact a very sly, tricky cleric (to say the least). But I certainly don't believe the revolution was the craft of the big bad foreign powers to undermine our supposed great strive towards the great civilization.

PM Bakhtiyar

There is not question that PM Bakhtiyar was a great man. A democrat; patriot and one of the best Iran had. May he rest in peace. May his name be remembered with honor. His place is with other Greats like Amir Kabir who also met a tragic fate. He tried and if people had given him support Iran would be a democracy now. We the people *** up and failed him.

An honorable statesman, PM Bakhtiar was!

Like President Carter and the rest of the US liberals of then and today, PM Bakhtiar was of the belief that one could sit across the table and reason and deal with the Islamists.

This policy failed in 1979 in Iran and is failing today in Afganestan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egipt, and similar places.

When it comes to dealing with the Islamists around the world one must be firm, determined, and willing to take decisive actions.

Parham

Do you believe Khomeini was a simple clergymen acting alone who miraculously rose to power and that no foreign elements had any part in the ouster of the Shah?   

Baron Avak

"It was a carefully designed Machiavellian coup orchestrated by Western democracies who were ostensibly "friends" with Iran. It was intended to undermine the burgeoning Iranian civil society, destablize the country, oust able Iranian leaders (of any group or party) from power, and set back Iran for generations."
"...the hidden hands of foreign intelligence agencies actually managing the crowds and orchestrating the crises had no intention of bringing democracy to Iran."
"...it was an issue of Iranian national interests versus foreign powers trying to undermine Iranian progress via any idealogy which is convenient at the time."
"there are foreign powers harnessing the people's discontent and managing and organizing the instability and "movements." ...."

Do you REALLY believe all that?

Bakhtiar's idealism and lack of Machiavellian instinct

Bakhtiar was no doubt a brave man and an incorruptable nationalist.   The problem is, he did not recognize the true nature of the revolution. It was a carefully designed Machiavellian coup orchestrated by Western democracies who were ostensibly "friends" with Iran. It was intended to undermine the burgeoning Iranian civil society, destablize the country, oust able Iranian leaders (of any group or party) from power, and set back Iran for generations.  The slogans of "human rights" and "freedom" were just covers.   The true intent was to provoke the anger of the crowds and use the ensuing chaos to destablize Iran and undercut Iranian national progress.  With their media assets and embedded agents throughout Iranian society (from members of the Shah's regime, to the clergy, including Khomeini, etc.), they controlled the crowd and the tenor of the revolution.

Bakhtiar did not have a good grasp of this angle.  That's why he was so surprised that his rhetoric about bringing democracy to Iran fell on deaf ears in the frenzied, riot-zone of Iran, c. 78-79.  The people may have wanted democracy, but the hidden hands of foreign intelligence agencies actually managing the crowds and orchestrating the crises had no intention of bringing democracy to Iran. Bakhtiar never understood that this was not as much an issue of democracy versus political Islam as it was an issue of Iranian national interests versus foreign powers trying to undermine Iranian progress via any idealogy which is convenient at the time.  And that was his fatal miscalculation.

The IRI successfully suppresses coup d'etat attempts in part because its leaders understand that behind the facade of demands for "human rights" and "democracy", there are foreign powers harnessing the people's discontent and managing and organizing the instability and "movements."    They understand this double game so well because the elder statement of the IRI themselves colluded with the same Western intelligence interests to oust the Shah.

Ultimately, Bakhtiar's failure to understand the double game being played by Western democracies against Iranian democracy even lead to his death, as it is difficult to doubt French intelligence complicity in his murder in France and the murders of other important Iranian political dissidents in Europe in the 1980s.  

A true statesman and patriot!

روحت شاد،‌ای مرغ توفان

God bless Bakhtiar

He was not above anyone, he was not weak nor did he miscalculate anything.

Bakhtiar really cared for Iran and her history and "farhang" but what he was faced with was a nation acting like a cult and "transfixed" on one person! No matter what he said people followed and Bakhtiran actually saw khomeini for whom he really was, where as most of his friends refused to see or believe it.

Shame on those that didn`t follow or believe their own life long friend and followed an illetterate mollah that didnot have any knowledge of him. people like Bazargan, Sanjabi and so on.

  While he was one of

While he was one of the most credible Iranian politicians of the 20th century, and far above many of his contemporaries under Pahlavi rule, his premier-ship was just another case of 'too little, too late'. He was in dire need of support from his own party during his short tenure, which he never received. Even then, we could hardly think of him as the last hope. It was fait accompli, before his appointment!

What enraged me, was his murder at the hands of the Islamist animals, when he was 77 years old..... WHY??!!!

Bakhtiar, Bakhtiar

Bakhtiar, Bakhtiar sangere-to negahdar!!

Iran

چه دعائي كنمت بهتر از اين ... كه خدا پنجره باز اتاقت باشد

Tiger jaan

By "we", I meant "we, Iranians".

I was 14 at the time, and did not play any role in the Revolution; for or against it.

Yours,

Ali P.

ali p

"We took his committment to democracy as a sign of weakness; one of many things we misjudged him on."

We took? 

YOU did !

*

*

May the soul of this great man rest in peace

.

Ali P is right

Shah actually absolutely wanted to leave. He was not the staying type, you know? Remember 28 Mordad...
As to stopping Khomeyni, I don't know if you were around at the time of the revolution, but when Bakhtiar took "power", it was already too late. I would even say it was already too late when Sharif-Emami took the premier seat.

To: BaronAvak

Interesting observation. Who knows what would have happened, and where we would have been today...

Here are my 2 cents, based on what I know of Bakhtiar:

1) Although Bakhtiar wanted the Shah to leave, the Shah had already made up his mind to leave. The Shah had already rejected Dr. Sedighi's suggestion to go to Khark or Keesh, while Sedighi- as prime minister- bring the country under control.

2) As a prime minister to uphold the law, Bakhtiar was not about to stop any Iranian citizen- technically, at least, Khomeini was one-to enter Iran.

We took his committment to democracy as a sign of weakness; one of many things we misjudged him on.

Yours,

Ali P.