Pictory

I despair!

Mossadegh fell from power in 1953 and Shah in 1979. They are long gone and finished.

Yes, by all means let's learn from history and be informed about it, but how many times are you guys, from both sides, going to recycle the same old arguments and same old "jaro bahs"?

For the past 32 years we have had in power the most violent and intolerant regime in Iran's modern history. A regime which has nothing but utter contempt for Shah, Mossadegh and everything else about Iran's history and heritage. That is where our combined and united focus and energy is desperately needed, NOT in rehashing the old Shah v Mossadegh saga over and over.

Arj & Tehran e Azad

Arj I think "Tehran-e-Azad" just responded to you. I don't give a damn about Shah as a person. But he did make Iran one of the best nations to live in. The only thing I disagree with "Tehran-e-Azad" is the 80% part. I think 80% used to be idiots but hopefully learned something in the past 33 years.

Shah did have the right people in jail for most part. My father worried but never got put in jail because he was not a communist or an Islamist. The political prisoner Shah had in jail belonged there. See what happened when they let them loose. I hope they get put right back in jail. Regarding MEK even the IRI has the sense to put them in jail or shoot them. I will take Shah's Iran over today's America any time. But too bad I do not have that choice thanks to JM; MEK and Islamists.

Regarding Dr. Mossadegh I have said it many times. I see nothing wise he did. He was a rabble rouser who took his chances and lost. The oil nationalization was the dumbest action possible at the time. I already said what I would have done. Yes it is possible to cheat the British. Not the way he tried by waving his sword! A man without any political wisdom. Shah fell into the same trap but took him 25 years. It took Mossadegh no time at all. Thank God I had 25 years of the Shah.

Yeah Well You had a Go Twice and you Failed Miserably ...

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ? 



‪Footage of the 1979 referendum of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Time to Allow Genuine Constitutionalists To Clean Up your Mess is Long Due ...

Crown Prince Reza on importance of "Checks and Balances" of future regime

ROYAL FORUM: Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican 

Related Blogs:

pictory:Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

RESTORATION:Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy

2 Cents not that cheap, if it's a creation of the Civil Society,

And not Clergy, Monarchy,  single party-system,...

Tis would refer to a creation, resultant from: a direct choice and control of the people, by the people, for the people.

Two Cents is Cheap Isn't it ? ... ;0))

But then I guess that is what Bankrupt Jomurykhah arguments are worth these days ...

ROYAL FORUM :Fareed Zakaria asks « Does America Need Prime Minister ?»  

LOL

The part Two Cents forgets: Iranian Civil Society circa 1953,

was also crushed to pieces. This civil society,  which by any and all standards was the most advanced in Middle East of that period was utterly destroyed by '53 Coup.

After such destruction, creation of SAVAK, and consequently Hezb Rastakhiz, we see that there really wasn't a big gap between Monarchy and IR.

How far is it to get from Hezb Rastakhiz to Hezb Ollah?

Re:Here is my two cents about

-Two cents about right.  I swear if I hear "Dr."Mirfetroos one more time ......

Mirfetroos is as much a Dr. as Dr.Radan, Dr Ahmadi-Nejad and Dr Mohsen Rezai,.   I know higher education has never been Pahlavi families forte, most Doctor's and Mohandes were what the Savak agents used to address each other as, during torture sessions, but why beat around the bush.   

Here's the man's credentials:

From his home page (before someone removes it)

//mirfetros.com/fa/?page_id=2

علی میرفطروس در شهرستان
لنگرود زاده شد. از دوران دبیرستان به نویسندگی و شاعری پرداخت و در سال
١٣۴٩ با سردبیری و انتشار نشریه ء  سهند (دانشگاه تبریز)
در جنبش دانشجوئی ایران معروف گردید بطوریکه بقول بعضی از صاحب نظران،”
سهند در محافل روشنفکری و  دانشجوئی ایران  چون  بُمبی منتشر  شد”. دو 
مجموعه  شعر  آوازهای تبعیدی و سرود آنکه گفت:
نه! حاصل آن سال های دور است.

در سال ١٣۵۶ کتاب مختصر جنبش
حروفیّه و نهضت پسیخانیان و در آغاز انقلاب اسلامی (فروردین ١٣۵٧)
کتاب‌های اسلام شناسىوحلاّج و سپس
سرودهء آخرین
شعر(مرداد ١٣۵٧) از وی منتشر شد. میرفطروس در سال١٣۶٢مجبور
به جلای وطن گردید.

او در دانشگاه‌های ایران، تاریخ و حقوق
قضائی خواند و تحصیلات عالیه را در “مدرسه‌ء مطالعات عالی” (دانشگاه سوربن
پاریس) ادامه داده و نیز دانشکاه آمریکائى American Global University درجهءدکتراى افتخار به وى اهدا
کرده است.

پس ایشان از این دانشگاه معتبر دارای مدرک "دکترای افتخار" هستند؟

Wow!!.   He studied History and Law in Iranian Universities!!! And his studies were capped with "excllent readings!" (that must be an accomplishment, for this crowd I suppose) which resulted in Honor Doctorate!  (From number one ranked American Global University).

Here is my two cents about

Here is my two cents about this issue.Dr. Mossadegh surely took the flag of the oil nationalization on his shoulder and did a good job in implementing it and bringing it on paper and throwing the Brits out of Iran for a short period of time.The idea of oil nationalization indeed came from another parliamentarian called Rahimian, the deputy from Ghoochan in Khorassan.  Dr. Mossadegh made it his own baby.Because of the lack of expertise and because of technological backwardness, Iran has paid a real hefty price going through this.  At the time the country was simply not ready.  The real nationalization did not really happen until 1973, through OPEC and the untiring efforts of the Shah and his governmentMossadegh was “against everything but he never had a solution for anything” according to his own one time loyal friends.  He rejected 3 major and excellent offers ( for the time) by the US for solving the oil problems. He just rejected them all categorically.Ebrahim Safai, an eminent historian writes “ Dr. Mossadegh started his nationalization process based on American recommendations.  Americans had just started their efforts for world dominance, and Iran was one of the places that they too wanted a share of its oil.”Following the nationalization, Iran faced a major problem, they just did not know how to run the industry, they simply did not have experts to manage such a big task. They could not run the refinery to its full capacity, they did not have the means to sell the oil, they did not own any ships/tankers/gas stations around the world.  The country was on the verge of bankruptcy, people were tired because of Mossadegh's lack of decision. His knowledge of the world economy and oil was almost none, he did not know much about the importance of oil to the world, the country was not prepared for such a big jump.  The British had sent 4 warships to the Persian Gulf, their army in Basra (Iraq) was ready to attack,  Khazal's family were preparing a riot so did the Tribes in the south.  He categorically did not want to take any actions and just rhetoric, it dragged on and on with no solution in sight. According to his loyal friends, Mossadegh did not listen to anybody, even his close friends and loyal supporters .  The myth of him being a democrat is just a myth too.  As soon as he became prime minister, he asked for a year of self rule ( meaning he could make any decision he saw fit without the Parliament) it is like Obama ask for one year of complete rule without the senate or congress.   He retired hundreds of pro shah military men/judges/civil servant, he closed down what we had equivalent to Supreme Court in the US.Except for one day during his premiership, they had martial law in the country.  He isolated the shah in a way that he could not even do what he should and could do according to the constitution, he reduced the budget allocated to the court, he reduced the number of tanks around the shah's palace and moved them to his own house to guard himself, he exiled the shah's mother and sister, nobody could meet the shah without Mossadegh's prior knowledge, he even changed the court minister which should have been chosen by the shah himself and sent one of his own loyal.  As time went by, he made an array of enemies for himself.  He lost the loyalty and support of the shah and his supporters (believe it or not, shah was very popular at the time) because of his own unreasonable actions.  He lost the support of Kashani who whistled and  people poured into the street in support of Mossadegh, and finally he lost the support of the Tudeh party when they found out that at the last minutes on august 27th Mossadegh was still in good terms with the Americans ( on that same night Henderson, the American Ambassador came to Iran and went to see mossadegh straight from the airport.  Mossadegh's son went to fetch him to Mossadegh's house).I recommend that you at least read his own memoir, the shah's memoir, the book by Dr. Ali Mirfetros about Mossadegh’s demise, the book of Dr. Matini about Mossadegh’s life, the book written by Dr. Houshang Nahavandi, and also "shah" written by Dr. Abbas Millani.Let's not make Mossadegh era a golden age, believe me it was not.  The little democracy/anarchy was there after 1320 and after Reza Sha’s exile.  Mossadegh was not the reason for that little democracy.   We did not have a democrat ruler ever, maybe Dr. shapour Bakhtiar was the first and last in the current memory of our history.  Please do read books about this issue, you will know more.Let’s not go after the flow, let’s understand and then decide.Best wishes

iran

During the shah era the economy, culture, army, the social life , schools, hospitals,and iran's international reputation were one of the best  in the world, some could only say that the only problem were some political prisoners.......BUT WHO WHERE THESE POLITICAL PRISINORS:

1) communists ( we all know what happened to communism)

2) Islamic fenatics ( ie Khamenei, rafsanjani, ...etc which are nothing but sponsers of domestic and international terrorism)

3) Mojahedin ( which are also currently in the list of world terrorist groups)

so some might say the late shah was waaaaaaaay ahead of his time. 

unfortunately 80% + of Iranians are nothing but a whole bunch of wild animals that belong in the dark ages. They deserve nothing better than IRI or even worst!!!!

"...the years Shah was in

"...the years Shah was in charge were some of the best times of Iran. We moved from a backwards nation into 20th century. I am sorry if your dislike of Shah does not let you see the truth. But he did a lot for Iran. All he got was ***holes..."

Dear VPK, having read the above statement from you makes it difficulat to believe that you "don't give a damn about the Shah." Moreover, denouncing Shah's despotic rule does not have to eminate from personal grudges. For instance, Shah never personally threatened or harrassed my father, but I consider him a dictator for what he did to Iran and Iranians!

Arj

Dr Mossadegh was in no way my adversary. He was just like me an Iranian doing his best. I am just telling you my position. I don't give a damn about the Shah I just want an Iran which is free. Mossadegh did not get there.

Will you or will I get there? "My Shah" ? The man who was keeping my father awake all night in fear? I don't think so. I just want an Iran which is fairly reasonable and somewhat just.

Re responces

Dear VPK, your question is self-annulling due to false premise or fundamental ambiguity at best! Based on the context of 28 Mordad 1953, you and I can not consider an enitity a common enemy. For enemy from my point of view is Dr. Mosadegh's adversaries. Yet the same adversaries, including the British, were supporters of your Shah and his camp! Hence, due to antagonizing views, my answer would not apply to your set of values!

Dear Mehrdad

I accept your compliments. But there is a side to me you have not seen. When it comes to Iran I change: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde! I love Iran more than anything except for my children.

I would cheat; lie; and take the fall for her. Do not underestimate the power of love of nation. I would do anything for Iran. If it means playing it as a moron: so be it! Nothing will stand between me and what is good for Iran.

LOL Arj

Arj:
"You've confused me with Aynak!"  :) :) :) (laughter mine)

Dear Arj, at some point when I read statements like:

"... I have been in America for years....",  and "...Maybe he would have had them shot ...."  I give up.  You should too.  ;)

Dear VPK: please accept this comment as a compliment

Knowing you these past few years on IC, I know you can NOT play it "stupid", you can NOT even be tricking a two-year old and you can certainly NOT fool the British to get comfy and then pulling the rug underneath them.

Besides, it has been argued by loyal monarchist (and to some extend true) that the Shah tried the very same strategy and lost. This is when the West thought the Shah's head was getting to big for his hat and helped with its demise or better say replacement.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Arj

Sorry about that!

Would you please tell me if you think my plans would work. The British made a monkey out of us. I want to make a monkey out of them!

VPK

You've confused me with Aynak!

Arj

I though you said I lack imagination. Now you say I have wild imagination! Well make up your mind my friend.

Arj

I don't know what Shah would have done. I really don't. Maybe he would have had them shot. I just know what I would have done.

Regarding the British: they consider us stupid. Believe me I am a master of playing it stupid. I have been in America for years. I know how to play it dumb. Make your enemy underestimate you. Make them think you are a *** moron. Then hit them when they are not aware. This is all I have to say about what I would have done.

Please answer me: do you think we should try to fool our enemies? Or should we go head to head with an enemy we have no chance against.

Re: Responces

"I don't lack imagination; I lack naivete." Dear VPK, IMHO, you abound in both! Indeed, it takes naivete as well wild imagination to believe one can trick the British (the masters of trickery) to eat off one's hand!

Moreover, that does not answer my question about what you think Shah should've done differently! Perhaps you should review my last comment more carefully! The focus was on 1979, remember?!

Responses

• Mehrdad: I don't think the all pro Mossadegh people are or were pro IRI. Yes some like Bazargan were of course but not all.
• Arj: If I were Mossadegh I would have made a deal with the British. Meanwhile I would have consolidated my base and made sure I am secure. I would not have been too harh on dissent except for the really dangerous ones. Most of the dissent was just bark and no bite without Western support. I would have let them have their say; insult me and even have radio or TV debates on a regular basis. While this was going on I would have lured the British into a false sense of security. Made them think I am a bumbling idiot. Even took some bribes just to make them feel in charge (I would put all the bribes on record and into Iranian treasury). Then got a bill passed with enough exceptions that parliament could override it anytime it wanted. I would have acted dumb and corrupt so the British would have left me alone. Meanwhile waited until the right time. Then asked (in private) the parliament to ditch the treaty. If necessary I would have taken the fall as "bribed and corrupt" so that I would lose and Iran would win. Does this get my position clear to you.

Re Shahollahis

Thank you dear Bavafa and Aynak. And thanks again for your POVs which are inspiring to anyone whose heart beats for a democratic, prosperous Iran of tomorrow.

Dear Bavafa/Mehrdad, indeed, once we start justifying the use of violence, torture and murder in order to save a regime or prevent a regime change, we perpetutate  and justify crimes against humanity by all parties involved!

............

Dear VPK, I believe you have confused a few issues here. For starter, my comments below is not an attempt or intention to speak for anyone, but rather an observation. Secondly, I did not have anyone in partucalr in mind but a political current to which you may or may not have an affinity. Not to mention my response wich was addressed to Aynak, referred to a general mentality.

However, since you brought up the issue, how do you think Shah should've dealt with MEK, leftists and JM to avoid the 1979 revolution?! After all. it was not like he was toppled immediately after 1953, so you can blame Mosadegh for his fall! He had 1/4 of a century and a vast wealth of petro-dollar revenue (thanks to the "black goo" selling at $74 and a population of 36M) at his desposal to to make amends for whatever you wish to call the 28 Mordad 1953, but he still failed -- based on your own Darwinian cencept of win/loss! What do you think he should have done differently? Or if nothing could come to your mind, how should he have handled the political dissent issue?!  

VPK jaan: I believe Aynak comment is more elegant

but just to add my own 2 cents here

I know you disagree, I would have been surprised if you hadn't. however "But I would have preferred the Shah over IRI"

I am puzzled why you think those who disagreed with Shah, therefore agree and are for IRI? Does any single person on this thread here advocates IRI over Shah? Or is the choice only between Shah or IRI?

Furthermore…be careful what you wish for:

"The reason people wanted him to kill his opponents was to prevent the IRI"

Such notions, can certainly be applied to any regime/tyrant and IRI proponent can take your own statement to justify the murders that are taking place at the hand of IRI. Not if, but when they do, you have no room to object to it as it is been condoned and prescribed by you.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Aynak

I don't lack imagination; I lack naivete. You remind me of my cousin. He used to think we had all these choices to pick from. As if the world is just sitting there for us to pick. It turned out we did have two choices!

As much as I preferred to be wrong I was right. If we had just settled for Shah in time there would have been reform. But now we need another revolution. Meanwhile you guys are talking 1953 am Mossadegh. How long will you dwell here.

Re: The Shahollahi's Beef

 
Right on the money Arj.  

VPK: 

 You display a lack of  imagination, when you limit your choices to two bankrupt choices:   Shah or Shah in the close of a cleric.

 If you are looking into past: I rather dream of days of Mossadegh than days of Shah.   If you are looking into future, I would look at Mossadegh style of governance which Iran was not yet ready for, but could have led to a democracy than the Shah's which we know did not.

Mehrdad

I must disagree with you completely. Why should I want some arrogant guy like the Shah to live in a palace? Why should I want to streets closed whenever he wants to take a ride?

My father spent many a sleepless night fearing the wrath of Shah. Because we were just close enough to be on the radar screen. But I would have preferred the Shah over IRI. Maybe a few people want to have a king; not me!

The reason people wanted him to kill his opponents was to prevent the IRI. Many think that if people like Khomeini were killed maybe there would be no IRI. I think that if Mossadegh supporters were not so vindictive we would have avoided IRI.

شیران و دلیران

I particularly like the comment by Arj

Well put.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Arj

I suppose I am a "Shahollahi" by your definition. Even though I reviled him (I was wrong) at the time. You know I and others will speak for ourselves. We don't need "boland goo". 

You speak for yourself and let us take care of our positions. I do have a beef with IRI and the ***holes who helped bring it to power. Those like JM; MEK and Islamists. All of them I have a problem with.

I also have a problem with the worship of Mossadegh. A man whose lack of wisdom cause much of this. A man who did not have the sense to realize oil is not real wealth. Our wealth is the people not black goo pumping out of dirt.

The Shahollahi beef

Dear Aynak, Shahollahis' beef is not with IRI's breach of human rights and its despotic rule. But rather their preference for HIM Aryamehr instead of HIM supreme leader. As they've repeatedly claimed, Shah did not kill enough of his political opponents and he bestowed too much freedom upon them! In their second guessings of the past events, time and again, they keep blaming people for being "stupid" and "impudent," and him for not eradicating the non-Shahollahis altogether!

In other words, instead of soul searching and pondering on what Shah could've done to avoid alieanating the vast majority of Iranians, they decry our people who should've been more obedient and subservient to their master, HIM! This is rooted in their notion of Shah (Phlavis to be precise) as owner(s) of this land and its people rather than servants! It's Iran and her people who owe Pahlavis for being so "heavenly" and "god-sent," not the other way around!