PAHLAVI

Good point Maziar jan

...

siavash khan

please add the fears of huzeh and their ayatula kashani to your list as well.

For example with republic of turkey next door and no mollah around...

 to them jomhuri was out of question and that's why also

ayatula kashani turned away from Mr.mosaddegh as well.

Maziar

Lovely Pictures.

Lovely Pictures.

Mossadeghists paranoic fear of history re-examined

Thank you (sandali) Arj. If there was to be an example of the level of Mossadeghollahis paranoia reaching self-delusional, your comment below is second to none. Wonderful!

Why we learn!

The most common characteristic of despotic rules and dictatorships is their pathological fear of truth, for they perceive it as the biggest threat to the image they create of themselves as heaven on earth and a messianic embodiment with a mission to salvage their subjects and resorrect the mythical glories that the otherwise suppressed masses have been longing for! Not to mention to imply that without the rule of the ruling despot (the great leader who is a combo of a father figure and super hero), the nation would cease to exist! In that light, desperate attempts of various despots and petty dictators to burrow credence from mythical glories of the past (e.g. Shah's celebration of 2500 year monarchy or Sadam's recreation of the hanging gardens of Babylon) and/or link their rules to metaphysical powers (i.e. Khamenei's building of Jamkaran or Shah's claims of support from the Shia Emams) fall into place!

Two crucial institutions that are essential in maintining such delusions that help control the psychology of the masses under such despotic rules, are censorship and propaganda which make up a huge portion of the bureacratic apparatus -- media, press, publishing houses, arts, social, cultural and educational institutions...! The  censorship elemnt works to prevent the truth and reality of social and political events from prevailing, and propaganda comes to fill in the void created by the absence of truth!

That is why uder despotic rules, reality is turned on its head to convey the official position of the state (e.g. Shah as hero and Mossadegh as vilain, or Khamenei vs Musavi/Karubi. all of whom have/had to endure house arrest and jail term for standing up to tyranny) hence the disillusioned masses turn away from the state media outlets in search of alternative sources of news. This is what happened under the Shah when a vast majority of people turned away from the Pahlavi propaganda towards BBC News and Khaomeini's taped messages, and that is why a significant majority of Iranians now distrust and ignore the IRI Media in favour of alternative news!

However, under the impression that due to passage of time and counting on historical amnesia of the new generation of Iranians, hence invokin/pleading the statute of limitations on the crimes committed by the Pahlavi regimes, monarchists and Pahlavi propagandists are once gains busy spinning on historical events! Such spins include comical glroification of Pahlavis (from the ridiculous claims of Reza Shah's "indusrialization" of Iran,to the "golden era of Iranian history" under the Shah) as well as vilification of all political dissidents and suggesting that Pahlavi regimes where heaven on earth and rosy, and Iranian people were stupid and not mature enough to know what was good for them, so fell for these villains who sought destruction of the nation and...

Isn't that what Kahmenei and the institution of VF is trying to suggest to our nation (that they're not mature enough to know what's good for them!)? Isn't it time for you propagandists to realize that people are mature enough to know the truth on their own?!!

با تشکر از اظهار لطف دوستان عرض کوچکی داشتم

بنده به عقل ناقص خودم پیشنهادی دارم.  اینجانب به واسطه اینکه سابقه طولانی در نوکری انگلیسی‌‌ها داشته ام،  روابط "حسنه ای" با تنی چند از پادو‌های شماره ۱۰ داونینگ استریت بر قرار کردم. تصدیق می‌‌فرمأیید که از یک نوکر درجه پنج که بنده باشم نمی‌‌توان انتظار داشت که با شخص نخست وزیر و یا زبانم لال با خود علیا حاضرت ملکه الیزابت روابط "حسنه" داشته باشم. اگر دوستان اجازه می‌‌فرمایند بنده عریضه‌ای از طریق این پادو‌ها به جناب دیوید کامرون ارسال داشته از ایشان بخواهم که یک مجسمه  سر تا پا طلا از جناب مصدق درست کرده جلوی سفارت تعطیل شده جمهوری اسلامی نصب کنند زیرش هم بنویسند "ناجی ملت ایران". این کار دوتا فایده داره. اول اینکه کفر این اسلامیا رو بالا میاره که دیگه فکر نکنن خمینی ناجی ایران بوده در ضمن هم نمیتونن بگن انگلیسا مجسمه نوکر خودشونو گذاشتن جلو در سفارت چون همه ما میدونیم که جناب مصدق دشمن شماره یک اینگلیسا بوده (البته این‌طور ا هم نبوده ولی‌ حالا فرض می‌کنیم اینطور بوده). ولی‌ مهمترین فایده این مجسمه این خواهد بود که انشا‌الله این دوستان مصدق الهی دست از سر کچل ما سلطنتی‌ها بر میدارن و یه صلح و صفایی میرسیم. بنده شخصاً قول میدم که برای مراسم پرده برداری از شخص  پروفسور کاظم زاده و سرکار فریبا خانم دعوت به عمل بیارن که هردو باهم از این مجسمه پرده برداری کنند. رئیس بی‌ پی‌ رو هم میگیم راش ندن به مراسم. از بی‌ بی‌ سی‌ هم مسعود بهنود رو دعوت می‌کنیم که فامیل خود مصدق هست. تمام مخارج هم به عهده مالیات دهنده انگلیسی‌. خوب شد؟  بابا دیگه به خدا نمیدونم چه غلطی باید کرد که این مصدق الهی‌ها ما رو ول کنن. خلاصه اگه موافقید من همین امروز دست بکار بشم.

 فرصت کمه تا سفارت تعطیله باید کارو تموم کرد و گرنه وقتی‌ روابط درست بشه دیگه دیرشده. مسعود خان، فریبا خانم یالا!

Everybody is a 'fascist'

Houman Sarshar, in his book "Jews of Iran" calls the era of Mohammed Reza Shah the "Golden age of Iranian Jews." So he must be, according to Mr. Kazemzadeh, a fascist.

 But Bazargan and Sanjabi who praised Khomeini, even though he told them in Paris that there will not be religious freedom in Iran, are not fascist. Mr. K conveniently doesn't tell us that Sanjabi posed a poem in Khomeini's honor.

Thank you, Mr. Nezami & Ms. Amini

Mr. Nezami,

You proviced very valuable analysis.

Ms. Amini, you are fair and that's always appreciated.

MK, you fail to realize this is 2012 and fail to be logical.

By the way, the Shah began the liberalization process before the protests began. If you are an academic, where do you come with "zillion times" measurements? Shouldn't you qualify and quantify them objectively, and scietifically.

AGAIN, MK, it was this illogical thinking "a zillion times" worse that led the savegery of 197-79. Now I am beginning you participated in the butchering of people in 1979, your language certainly makes it seem like you did.

Happy Nourouz to all.

Big historical lie

 "Mossadegh did NOT to overthrow the Shah. In FACT, all Mossadegh demanded was that the Shah respect the Constitution, and reign but not rule. The Shah PROVED that by his very nature, he (the Shah) wanted to rule tyrannically. Mossadegh did NOT threaten the survival of the Shah on his life or as a constitutional monarch. Mossadegh was against the Shah ruling dictatorially. It appears that your support for the Shah has clouded YOUR judgment." Masood Kazemzedeh 

Now, let's look at the official document from Tudeh party to see what direction Iran would have been headed if shah wouldn't returned to crown in 1953.

It is clear that the Tudeh passed its intelligence on the pending coup to the prime-minister on August 15, 1953. The period August 16-19, 1953 was a short and crucial one and needed a quick, focused, and determined reaction by the Tudeh leadership if the situation was to be turned around. Instead, chaos and lack of determination prevailed. While on his own initiative, one Tudeh officer, Lt. Ali Ashraf Shoja'iyan, helped Mosaddeq's guards arrest Col. Ne'matollah Nasiri the courier of the royal decree dismissing Mosaddeq, the rest of the Military Organization did not take any action. On the seventeenth, the party began to call for abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a democratic republic. Tudeh members were instructed to join demonstrations for the new cause

No one can see anything in the above statement of shah must be reign, not rule. Shah was out of country for 3 days. Look what was going on inside Iran. The same story was in 1979, when Dr. Sanjabi was kissing Khomainie's rear end, there was no sign of shah must reign,not rule. In fact, these people tried their best to ousted the shah. Any rational person could see that. It is NOT very complicated. Thanks God shah returned to crown,otherwise, the same experiece we had in 1979 would have been happened in 1953, but under different name. This one was Islamic republic of Iran. That one would have been democratic republic of Iran.

            GOAL : RESTORING MONARCHY 

Nezami

Dear Nezami,

You wrote:

N: Mossadegh knew very well that his intended route will end the monarchy in Iran. This has been stated on a number of occasions by JM members of the time and I will dig out the ref.s for you if interested. And in any case he was not a raw politician, simply acting on idealism and not knowing what the result would be. He knew exactly what he was doing. And so did Shah."

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

MK:

1. Please do provide the reference.

2. One of my criticisms of Dr. Mossadegh is that after July 1952 (30 Tir 1331), he should have demanded a referendum on "republic vs. monarchy" and hold a free and democratic vote under international observers.  In my opinion, our people would have gotten rid of the monarchy.  Then, we could have held a constituent assembly and write a democratic constitution.  We would have been able to consolidate democracy in Iran.  That would have avoided the subsequent 55+ years of tyranny under the Shah and fundamentalists.

3. Even after the coup, this is what Dr. Mossadegh did:

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/question-establishing-republic-during-25-28-mordad-1332

Masoud

Mr. Kazemzadeh

Actually Allende chose Pinochet because he thought he would be less inclined to stage a coup and respect the Schneider doctorine of your friend Gen Schneider :) Pinochet was number one general of the 4 in the junta. And still the head of the airforce was not his big supporter. But these discussions are for another place.

Mossadegh knew very well that his intended route will end the monarchy in Iran. This has been stated on a number of occasions by JM members of the time and I will dig out the ref.s for you if interested. And in any case he was not a raw politician, simply acting on idealism and not knowing what the result would be. He knew exactly what he was doing. And so did Shah.

Nobody denies that Shah was dictatorial !! Or he made mistakes (and he made quite a few ) !! And nobody claims he was a democrat !! But as wrong as it is, acting dictatorially and over stepping authority does not mean that person does not love his country !! Did Mossadegh not love Iran by dissolving Majles ?? Did Pinochet not love Chile by overthrowing Allende ? 

On the contrary, they loved their countries, but were misguided in their ways to achieve their aims. 

And in all cases, including Mossadegh's, their actions could be considered treason. But the fact remains that they loved their countries and this shows itself in the rest of what they did.

I suggest you read Alam's memoirs (which are far from complementary to Shah) to see Shah's failings and his love of Iran. It also shows in his discussions with the Americans and the British that he was using them to counter the powerful USSR. Not to be their nokar !!

It will take too long to list his achievements, but simply look at the Iran of 1320 and the one in 1357 and nobody can deny the progress Iran had made in a volatile part of the world and in a difficult time in history as well. That progress was for the benefit of the Iranians, not for people in NY or Manchester. Look at the difference in the way your Grandparents lived, and the way your parents lived. And give Pahlavis the credit they deserve.

I have stated that I am not a Shah supporter but I do take pride in giving credit where it is due, and also condeming mistakes.  Therefore my judgment is far from being cloudied here ;)

But you ask yourself honestly.

Are you being totally impartial ??

You are not :)

what democrat?

urge you all to read GRACE (feyz) Iranian -christian magazine published in Texas last page written by Hassan gh.....

Iran is doomed to its final destiny ,A total destruction ....

And the aggressors? Israel and America

the savior.

y'all getting what you're praying for.

Maziar

Correction... It is Persian Gulf, NOT gulf

"H. Michael Jalili is a writer based in the Gulf." hmj2101

 The above statement should be corrected as follow:

H. Michael Jalili is a writer based in the PERSIAN Gulf.

Democrat vs. Monarchist

Dear Nezami,

We disagree with analysis (and perhaps facts). For example you wrote:

N: As you point out, Mossadegh was a liberal and a democrat. But that should make no difference to his opponent (namely Shah) as they were both in a fight for survival. So the point whether or not Allende was more socialist or not,................... is irrelvant here. Especially that Allende was not detrimental to Pinochet's survival (whom he himself had appointed as top soldier ) whereas Mossadegh was going to get rid of Shah. So Pinochet's coup was more dastardly and malicious than that of Shah's.

MK: Mossadegh did NOT to overthrow the Shah. In FACT, all Mossadegh demanded was that the Shah respect the Constitution, and reign but not rule. The Shah PROVED that by his very nature, he (the Shah) wanted to rule tyrannically. Mossadegh did NOT threaten the survival of the Shah on his life or as a constitutional monarch. Mossadegh was against the Shah ruling dictatorially. It appears that your support for the Shah has clouded YOUR judgment.

I also think that you are wrong on Pinochet. I believe that he was number 2 (or one of the top generals) when a CIA plan (or assistance) assassinated the number 1 military officer in Chile, Gen. Schneider. See

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Schneider

Please read the following to understand the utter nakor and dictatorial nature of the Shah. I have posted this before.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/shah-destroyed-our-constitution-and-established-brutal-tyranny

I disagree with you that the Shah was a nationalist. A nationalist is one who defends the national interests of his or her nation. The evidence clearly show that the Shah from the get go wanted to be nokar to UK and US interests so that they would support him being the absolutist ruler.

I disagree with you that the Shah loved Iran. I believe that he LOVED money (and power). If the Shah gave a damn about Iran, he would have respected the constitution and the right of the Iranian people to freely choose whom they want to be their government. The Shah did horrible things to the Iranian people in order for him to have absolute power.

Best,

Masoud

Mr. Kazemzadeh, I beg to disagree

As you point out, Mossadegh was a liberal and a democrat. But that should make no difference to his opponent (namely Shah) as they were both in a fight for survival. So the point whether or not Allende was more socialist or not,................... is irrelvant here. Especially that Allende was not detrimental to Pinochet's survival (whom he himself had appointed as top soldier ) whereas Mossadegh was going to get rid of Shah. So Pinochet's coup was more dastardly and malicious than that of Shah's.

You need stronger arguments to condem shah as a worse fascist than Pinochet and Franco.

Mossadegh was also a nationalist,  just like Shah was, but as a PM he had no right to dipose the monarchy/Shah or dissolve Majles. Mossadegh made his share of mistakes, including underestimating his foes. Him and Shah both overstepped their authorities, got involved in a power struggle,........................................... and Mossadegh lost. Personally I think they were both not bright enough to work out their differences and work together as two Iran lovers. All of us lost out because of their incapability to rise above their differences.

On Franco.

Spain did not enter the WW2 just becasue of its devastating civil war had ended. But also because the country was still divided in its thinking after the civil war. Although Spain provided lots of help to the axis powers, its government was divided between the sypmathisers of both sides, which represented the country. Furthermore they could not be sure the Allies would lose !!

But still Spain provided safe haven for lots of top Nazis even after the war (such as Skorzeny) and it also acted as a transit point to S Amercia for many of them. In comaprison Shah's invlovelment with Nazism was minimal.

You know very well that the use of Iranian corridor to supply Stalin was the reason for the allied invasion of Iran in WW2. And no matter where Reza Shah had his symapthies, had he not allowed its use, Iran (being neutral ) would have been invaded. That was too crucial a factor for the allied suvival fight in Europe.  So to claim that Iran was invaded just because of its German symapthies is wrong and simplistic.

It is true that when Shah was deposed the most powerful forces in Iran were the clergy. But then again they always have been a powerful force in Iran for centuries,............................. and it was  not because of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but beause of the brain washing effects of religious teachings in Iran. The traditional leaders of Iranians were always the clergy and that made the country quite different to Chile and Spain which although were religious socities, their religion was not such an overriding a force as that in Iran. Even Mossadegh could not properly stand up to the clergy when they had no charismatic leader like Khomeini.

This will be too long a discussion to write why Khoemini was powerful in 79, but as well as shah's mistakes, a large share of the blame lies with those liberals, leftists and democrats who accepted khomeini's ideas and leadership, even though deep down their ideals were different. But the majority of the blame lies in the deep rooted religion in the Iranian society. This will take generations to sort out and no matter what Shah, or Reza Shah may have done, religion would have played an important role in Iranian society. With disastrous consequnces that we have seen so far !! A fatwa by a second rate Ayatollah would have always carried more weight than a decree by the PM, (or Mosaddegh), throughout the whole of Iran, and especially so amongst the uneducated classes and the religious class. Bearing in mind that Iran was very backward and by and large uneducated, such fatwas would have moved a lot of people to die happily in its service whereas Mossadegh's or Shah's orders would not have.

On the whole, the reason why after dictatorships Chile and Spain turned democratic and Iran did not, was not because Shah was more (or less) a fascist than Franco and Pinochet. But the real reason is the difference in the make up of their socieites, value systems, beliefs, wants, and its people.There is where you will find your answer why these countries took different routes.

So don't blame Shah for everythiong.

Hilarious!

That's a real funny one, Anglophile. And I like your humility, as well!

Anglophile Jaan, Very very funny indeed!

You single-handedly run circles around these guys!

به‌‌ به‌‌ چه بحث‌های عمیقی اینجا در گرفته!!

مصدق الهی‌های شریف همه جمعند. در صدر همه جناب پروفسور مسعود مصدق زاده، سرکار خانم فریبا تخت جمشیدیان، جناب صندلی ارج، عینک میرزا تلسکوپ الدوله و البته نوکر قدیمی دولت فخیمه که خودم باشم. بقول ایرج میرزا:

با این علما هنوز امّت

از رونق ملک ناامیدند؟

Nezami

Dear Nezami,

I do not have a problem with someone making the argument that Pinochet or Franco were more fascistic than the Shah.

Dr. Allende was a socialist. Dr. Mossadegh was a mild liberal democrat or social democrat. To make a coup against a moderate seems to me to constitute a more fascistic mentality. Mossadegh was making Iran independent of British colonial control, but he was not making a social revolution. Allende’s economic program seems to me to have been far more radical.

Pinochet did agree to hold a referendum and leave peacefully. On the CONTRARY, the Shah did NOT allow a referendum. On the CONTRARY, the Shah did NOT leave peacefully. On the CONTRARY, even after being overthrown, the Shah still did not abdicate.

On Franco:

Franco emerged through the civil war. Although Hilter helped him during the civil war, he did not ally with Germany during WW2. Reza Shah became close to Hitler, and that is why the UK and USSR invaded Iran. At least Franco prepared the situation for a transition to democracy after he left power (he died of natural causes). When the Shah came to power, the most powerful and popular forces were liberal democrats and Mossadegh. By the time he was done with Iran, the most powerful and popular forces were Khomeini and his supporters.

In 1975, the Amnesty International report ranked the Iran worse than Chile (Pinochet came to power Sep 1973) and Spain (Franco died November 1975).

I have not read that Pinochet and Franco use rape and sodomization of political prisoners as a form of torture. I might be wrong on this.

Masoud

Mr. Kazemzadeh,..........Wowww....!!!

You certainly have done some reading over time and as you are an academic like me, I have to urge you to be impartial when making judgments and claims. Or at least you must fully state that you are biased and impartial, and therefore those reading your comments can make their own mind up rather rely on your judgment.

Your claim of 5-10% does not have a strong scientific basis as no proper polls ( as we practice it in democratic societies) have been carried out.  Therefore this 5-10% number ( with its 100% variation in size) cannot be relied upon.

I have pointed out that I am no Monarchist but I am absolutely amazed that you consider Shah worse than Pinochet and Franco !!!! Wow...!!! I won't even get into discussions on Mousolini. This is a classic case of total bias !!

Pinochet's reign lasted for 17 years and Shah's for 37. With Chile having about 1/3 the population of Iran, during those 17 years 3000 died in his hands. Plus another 1000 still missing and about 80,000 opponets imprisoned. And you call this guy less fascistic than  Shah!!!???

Imagine this scenario. Replace Shah with Pinochet, and Pinochet with Shah. Do you seriously think Shah would have even mounted a coup against Allende !!?? Of course not. And do you seriously think that Pinochet would have left Iran on a plane with his family ?? Or would he have acted decisively earlier with an iron fist, even though that might have resulted in a civil war in Iran?? He would have used full force whereas Shah (to his credit) didn't. If shah was as bad and as blood thirsty as you make him to be, his opponenst would have mostly been dead. Mossadegh, Khomeini, Ayatollahs, JM members, Rajavi and Co and many many more were not murdered by Shah.

And my god,............. you consider Franco less of a fascist !!?? Wowww....!!! Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity. Now in his quest, Franco plunged his country into a 3 year civil war against its own democratic government, and against part of its own army, with an estiamed 500,000 dead, at a time when Spain had a population of under 25 million. Now could you please enlighten me as to what exactly Shah did that was worse than this ????? Shah had his flaws, and he a made a lot of mistakes, but to claim he was worse than these guys is totally unfair and unjust. Plus have a look at the country he took over, and the one he left.

Could it be that your dislike of Shah is clouding your judgment !!?? It looks that way !!!

Can someone here please tell me why is it that most Iranians (regardless of their leanings ) have difficulty in being unbiased !!??

On a positive note, it is good to see Miss Amini's second paragraph on Shah was much more balanced :) 

Democrats vs. Monarchists

Dear ISFAS,

1. You failed to produce a quote by ME that is a lie. You should apologize to me for making the false assertion that I lied.

2. You assert that OTHERS made lies and exaggerations against the Shah. I am responsible for my writings. I am not responsible for what rumors the people made 34 years ago.

3.

ISFAS: I call it a lie because you only point out facts that support your arguments. Yes Havaniruz switched sides, the military leaders declared neutrality and may others were easily arrested and executed while Sanjabi and Bazargan and Forouhar sat on the floor with "Imam Khomeini." But this collapse came more than a year after the first protests began, nearly a month after Shah left the country - all military leaders and Dr. Sadighi told the Shah the military would collapse if he left - and more than a week after Khomeini arrived. If the Shah was as bad as they said, he would have crushed the rebellion like other dictators do.

MK: If I present a large number of FACTS, it is NOT a lie. You could provide another set of facts and argue that my argument is flawed or not complete because I did not consider these other facts that you point to. Then there will be an argument over what you present as fact. This is HOW any debate or scholarly endeavor proceeds. If a person present 5 or 10 statements of FACT, you cannot jump and say it is all lies because in your opinion, there exists other facts. You need to present your facts and convince the other persons and the readers that your fact overwhelm the substance of the factual statements of the other person.

I have presented a laaaaaaaaaaaarge number of FACTS. ALL you say is that the Shah could have crushed the rebellion earlier. I do not dispute that the Shah had the capability to crush the revolution earlier. But Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and he was inaugurated in January 1977. Carter’s main foreign policy was to promote HUMAN RIGHTS. The Shah was a NOKAR of the U.S. Therefore, the Shah felt that he needed to get permission from Carter to kill millions of Iranians. Carter did not tell the Shah go ahead kill a few million and I will publicly support you.

ISFAS: In 2012, after all that has happened, you and the likes of you are not telling the truth of what the Shah really was, a dictator that needed to be reformed or forced into a peaceful and timely retirement. If in 1978, the opposition and the people of Iran had believed the revolution was to correct Shah's dictatorial ways, to ask for free elections, just as JM had done in 1977, today you and I would be in Iran, my father would have never gone to Khomeini's jail and over half a million Iranians wouldn't have died needlessly.

MK: I feel sorry that your father had to go to prison. Obviously, you are very emotional. This perhaps explains why your writings are not logical. You are throwing the false insult of lying merely because my analysis is not consistent with your extremist and false views.

How in the world could the opposition force the Shah into a peaceful and timely retirement. The Shah was an unrepentant thug who had murdered, tortured soooooooooo many people. In 1975, he created his Rastakhiz Party. Any criticism of the Shah would land the person in SAVAK torture chambers. Heloooooooooo.

In actual fact, the JM tried to reform the system. Even under Carter, the Shah BOMBED the homes and offices of JM leaders. History PROVED that it was NOT possible to reform the Shah’s savage tyrannical regime.

South Africa’s F. De Klerk took Nelson Mandela (who was the leader of the group using ARMED struggle) out of prison and engaged in serious negotiations with him and agreed to free and democratic elections. The Shah was a zillion times worse than De Klerk. The Shah did not even seriously negotiate with Dr. Sanjabi (say before 1975 or even as late as 1977 or Oct 1978), leave POWER and accept free elections. EVEN AFTER being OVERTHROWN the Shah did not abdicate!!!!!!!!!! This shows that the apartheid regime had the capacity to change non-violently, but the Shah’s regime did not. JM was a zillion times more reasonable than the ANC. The difference was not the opposition, but the nature of the Shah.

Many many people call the regimes of the Shah, Gen. Pinochet, Gen. Franco as fascistic. It depends on what one defines as fascistic.

MK

Re analogy

hmj, during his tenure, Mobarak had hundreds of people murdered and many more imprisoned and tortured. If in your book that does not constitute brutal dictatorship, then I guess you have a different concept of brutal dictatorship than me, and not to mention an overwhelming majority of 80.000.000 Egyptians!!!

Moreover, it appears to me that we are engaged in two different conversations here! I drew an analogy between Mobarak and IRI/Bashar Asad to demonstrate my point. Whereas, you've taken off on a tangent, comparing Mobarak with Shah?! That is not even close to my intention, totally irrelevant and serving no purpose. I respectfully rest my case!

P.S. I believe the rest of your comments is anything but the truth, for you seem to be making accusations about "crimes" committed by the demonstrators and protestors with no historical backing, evidence or fact which seems to be a desperate attempt to divert attention from Shah's crimes and wrongdoings -- similar to the unfounded claims made by supporters of IRI that protestors and  demonstrators aka "fetnegaran" killed Neda and Basijis and destroyed public property...

Dear Fariba

Dear Fariba,

I disagree with you.

MK: And the Shah never abdicated.

This is 100% factual statement. It is not an analysis or opinion. It is a FACT. He merely went on a vacation. He stated that not only that he is STILL the KING of Iran. Even after his death, his son, RP took an oath to be the next king.

MK: The Shah continued to kill the people.

This is 100% factual statement. Between June 1977 and the day the Shah left, he killed the people. There were some lulls in the killing but they resumed and continued until the day the Shah left.

MK: But the Shah was a terribly savage and unrepentant thug.

This statement is analysis and opinion. It depends on what an author considers "terrible," "savage" and "unrepentant thug." The fact that the Shah did not kill a particular person does not make him not "terribly savage." One of the TOP leaders of the Italian Communist Party (and their top ideologue), Antonio Gramsci was a member of the parliament under Mussolini!!!!!!!! And later put in prison by Mussolini for some years. Did the Shah allow JM and Communists to participate in elections for Majles after he consolidated power (e.g., Sept 1953-1960 and then 1963-1978)?  Compare the treatment of Gramsci (a Marxist in prison) with the treatment of the our people in prison by the Shah? Gramsci was allowed books and papers. He wrote his great work The Prison Notebook in Mussolini’s prison. Compare that with how the Shah treated Dr. Fatemi? Compare that with how the Shah treated Karimpour Shirazi? How did the Shah treat Jazani and his friends (shot them dead claiming they were escaping from Evin)?

In MY opinion, torturing, pouring gasoline, and immolating a journalist to be a "TERRIBLY SAVAGE". In MY opinion, sodomizing political prisoners with soft drink bottles to be "TERRIBLY SAVAGE." In MY opinion, sending Shaban Bi-mokh to knife a foreign minister and then while he is sick to execute him to be "TERRIBLY SAVAGE." In MY opinion, to rape female political prisoners (e.g., Ashraf Dehghani) to be "TERRIBLY SAVAGE."

I respect your opinion to not regard the Shah’s behavior as terribly savage. Based on MY standards the Shah’s conduct is "TERRIBLY SAVAGE."

In his interviews in exile (with Frost) and in his memoir, the Shah continued to defend his behavior. The Shah did NOT apologize to the Iranian people. His speech "I heard the voice of the revolution," was meant to fool the people. He went back to supporting his behavior afterwards in the interview and his memoir. That makes this terribly savage thug an unrepentant one.

Best regards,

Masoud

Mubarak was not brutal

Yes, Mubarak was not a brutal dictator.You don't need to be a historian to know that. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator.

Still, there is a huge distinction between him and the Shah. Mubarak's military abandoned him, and later even arrested him to put him on trial. So Mubarak couldn't kill people even if he wanted to. The Imperial Military of Iran remained loyal to the Shah and never as an institution switched side.

And there is a distinction between Iranian revolutionaries of 1978 and Egyptians of 2011. Iranians began the killing and butchering Shah's people even before they tasted victory. In the first few months of the revolution, Iranians killed more people than the entire 50 plus years of the Pahlavi rule. Iranian revolutionaries attacked Perspolis, destroyed Baha'i sacred places, even destoryed their own historical heritage, (Thank you to Mr. Amini for stopping them). The rest of Iranians just watched in silence.

In Egypt, there has not been any executions. WHen Islamists attacked churches, Muslim Egyptians formed human chains around them to protect their houses of worship. When the military government shot Christian protestors, Egyptians were outraged. Egyptian pre-Islamic history has not been attacked by people.

The same goes for Tunisians. I think Arab Spring taught Iranians that they got to be ASHAMED of their 1978 revolution. If you were on the streets against the Shah and then didn't go into the streets to protect former officials of the regime or Iran's Baha'is and other minorities, SHAME ON YOU. 

H. Michael Jalili is a writer based in the Gulf.

Revised analogy!

hmj, the problem with the Pahlvai supporters is that you seem to confuse Pahlavi dynasty with the concept of Pahlavi family! I personally have nothing against the Pahlavi family (except Shah and Ashraf who were directly involved in 28 Mordad coup), even Farah Pahlavi, for she did not hold any official governmental position.

However, the issue of RP is a different story, for it depends on what capacity one refers to him in; whether a private citizen who happened to be the former king's son, or a claimant of the throne and kingdome? In the first capacity, as a private citizen, I support his rights to be able to run for even the highest office of the nation, which is the office of President (provided it's limited to two 4-year terms and he steps down at the end of his term) in a post-IRI, free Iran of future. Nonetheless, it's highly likely that I would not vote for him, for I believe there are many more qualified figures that would have my vote!

But if he claims to be a king or an emperor (or whatever it's called by his supporters), he'll automatically be a part of the Pahlavi dynasty, hence inheriting responsibility for the crimes of that dynasty! For after all, he can not just claim the benefits that come with the title, but he'll be responsible for its perills too!

P.S. Let me customize my analogy for you to a more mdern terms; imagine Mobarak of Egypt who is responsible for deaths and torture of hundreds of his people (note that it's hundreds as opposed to thousands killed by Shah) in comparison to IRI who is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. It's obvious that Mobarak is not as terrible a dictator as those of IRI or even Bashar Asad, but does that mean he was not a brutal dictator? Let alone being a liberal democrat!  

Haha ...... NOPE

Summer, Autumn, winter or spring... Soosan khanoom is going to stay in her hiding corner .. lol

Happy Norooz to you too ...

: ) 

wow....Soosan Khanoom perfect body style

Although, this princess, admits  that winter hibernation as usual has contributed to a little more curves on her otherwise perfect body but usually by the summer her majesty ( me) becomes fit and happy" soosan khanoom

So soosan khanoom we have to wait till summer to see you in perfect shape.

      Wish you happy Norooz and prosperous year.

Arj and Mk

Mr. Kazemzadeh,

I've been reading your materials for a number of years. Your hatred for Pahlavis is so much, even after 33 years, that you can't even comment on their family pictures. 

Arj, are you out of your mind? Mohammed Khan Qajar was the worst, the most terrible thing that ever came to any country. Ghangiz Khan at least didn't kill so many of his countrymen as Mohammed Khan. The whole Qajar dynasty was a curse on a land. The roots of today's Akhoond republic was fertelized by the Fathi Ali Shah who brought them to prominence after Afshars and Zands had diminished their prestige.

I agree with you Ms. Amini, Shah had many faults, he was not a terrible dictator.

It's totally true that opposition by exaggerating the misdeeds of the Shah's regime directly lead to Khomeini and the terrible bloodshed that followed suit on the first day of the regime. If the opposition hadn't lied so much or allow the false stories gain currency, the revolution would have been more civil.

Arj and MK, if you guys have so much hatred for a family who have been out of power for more than a quarter of century, with their own saga and suffering, what would you if you had power?

it's true, it's 2012. Give it a rest at least during Norouz holidays.

Re Soltanpour

Ironically, the very first time Saeed Soltanpour was arrested (in similar fashion to when he was arrested by IRI on the scene of his wedding!), he was at the set of his first play which was stormed by Savak! He was subsequently arrested on numerous occasions, brutally tortured and labeled "undesired artist" by Shah's secret service! Does that not constitute brutal dictatorship?!

The very last time he was released from Shah's prison, it was one year before the revolution when Shah was under pressure from both popular uprisings and foreign pressure for violation of HR! The fact that Soltanpour was not killed by SAVAK, does not mean that Shah was not a brutal dictator! Yes, Shah was not as brutal as Khomeini and Khamenei. He killed a few thousands of his political opponents as opposed to tens of thousands by IRI. But does that mean he was a liberal democrat?! In that case, Agha Mohammad Khan Ghajar should be considered a liberal democrat too, since he did not kill as many people as Genghis Khan did, not to mention that he made numerous contributions too! 

reply to Ario

Dear Ario,

 It would be dillusional and unrealistic to expect a government (Dr. M) that was only in power for 2 years to be taking care of all the ills of the society all the while forces from within and without were conspiring to get rid of him and throwing obstacles in his path. While paid and unpaid agents were busy creating havoc right and left.

 Mossadegh was not given a chance to do all that he wanted to.

As for a secular govt vs. Monarchy.  I do think we have passed that phase for a Monarchy regime ( Neither the Shah nor his father practiced or implemented the Constitution of Iran ratified in 1906) which says specifically that the Shah (of King) should reign and not rule much like in Britian. 

 But I do have enough faith in Iranians to believe that we can never have a Qaddafi like President!   Despite 33 years of a clerical dictatorship, the Iranian society is far more advanced than any other in the Middle East especially when it comes to civil society institutions.  (never mind the last few years)

**************

Dear Masoud,
I agree with you on many things and Viva democracy but I disagree with you on this which is an exaggeration: 

13. But the Shah was a terribly savage and unrepentant thug. The Shah
continued to kill the people. And the Shah never abdicated.

During the Shah's regime there were 4000 or less political prisoners in Iran not 100,000.  Nevertheless, Savak did torture people, but let us not forget that Saeid Soltanpour was freed and then taken to the gallows on the night of his wedding by this same Islamic Republic of (lies) 

The Shah had many his flaws and was indecisive, looked to the Americans for advice, and he let his family to be corrupt but he was not a ruthless dictator.  Both the Shah and his father before him made contributions to Iran.  Once and for all we Iranians must not see things black and white. 

I even believe that Khatami did open up the society despite his lack of leadership.

We have to be fair....

**************

One last comment:  My father and Bakhtiar had the highest respect for one another and even though my father was a religious man, in prison, he hung out with the secular JM's.  After calling him, when the Shah had left the country, Bakhtiar told my father this is not the right time to callf or a Republic but I will in due time. So go read your history Mr. Ang. 

As for having integrity or courage,  I let others judge me not YOU!