British Embassy Siege - How Ironic? How Absurd?


by ayatoilet1

It was the BBC after all who promoted the takeover of Iran by Khomeini's clan. and this was the very tip of a systematic campaign funded over decades by British intelligence to financially support Khomeni and his gang - ready for a takeover in Tehran some day.

And sure enough that day came, and his cloeses entourage (people like Rafsanjani) were propped up for kingdom - while British oil rivals (Exxon etc.) were kicked out of Iran. Britain then muzzled Iranian oil, while it brought its North Sea oil on shore ... replacing Iran's 4 million barrels a day with Britains Oil in what was once a stagnant (even declining world market). Then the Brits conspired with Americans and splintered the Soviet Union, and then grabbed the spoils in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan for themselves.

And when North Sea oil wound down, the Brits told their dogs in Iran to look the other way, while the set up shop in Azerbaijan and started stealing Iranian oil from the Caspian sea ...  And sure enough the Mullahs did just that. Now Britain is sucking 3 Million barrels a day from oil fields called "Darvish" Iranian territory.

And it was the Brits who masterminded an international sanctions against Iran policy - while the set up shop in rheir Persian Gulf colony of Dubai - and cleaned up on all transhipment business to Iran. And they literally stopped Bush in his tracks from invading Iran, while they monopolized all of Iran's sanction busting business. Look at Dubai today - man. Its all British banks, and british companies.

The thought that the Mullahs in Iran are somehow anti-British is absurd. Who are they fooling? I am sure the Brits are putting all this up to fool the world....Khamenei doesn't go to the bathroom without British approval. Why is it that CIA spies are caught in Iran - but British spies are never found? Never killed? Never Imprisoned?

This is bullshit ...pure and simple. The greatest profiteers of Iran's demise has been Britain and their puppet states like UAE etc. And they have engineered every event inside Iran....for their own benefit.


Recently by ayatoilet1CommentsDate
Keep Boycotting BP
Dec 01, 2012
The War on Oil – Part 2
Nov 30, 2012
The War on Oil – Part 1
Nov 30, 2012
more from ayatoilet1

Bache Shirazi on

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

I hear people often saying Iran is being robbed and the government isn't doing anything about it.

During Shahs time he made sure Iran owned it's share of the caspian sea and future regions based on treaty of turkmanchai 1828, lands lost by Qajars.  Iran owned 50% of caspian basin written and signed by both russia and soviet agreement (also to be returned all the territories that were taken for a period of time by treaty as was written in the treaty I think its 180 years, so 2008 but we had mullahs in power so no trasfer was possible since the people of iran are trying to run away from mullahs, lands included Georgia, Azarbaijan, Armenia, Dagestan)


This was a great article all the way except the end failed.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

The point is the british who brought their dogs to power, got a slap in the face by them as they move even closer to russia and away from the uk.  There's no intrigue regarding this action by IRI conservatives, the brits brought them and one day finally they peed on them and the humiliations and headaches have only just begun.  Noushe Jan, now that tensions have passed the interests of the UK won't be safe and will be harmed for quite some time until the political scene changes. 

I agree with ANGLOPHILES comments, that this is for real, not the daijan napoleon part.  That is why I was disappointed in your conclusion, it shows great understanding to a point and then a grave error politically speaking.  Surprisingly this situation is related to actions of US/UK/French secret services working to remove assad in syria, Iran and russia's key geopolitical ally.  The surprising thing is, that the brits, the french and the USA are all in the process of having their asses handed to them on a platter. 

The battering ram they created to undermine USSR is now in Russia's hands and they are using IRI far more effectively, the scoundrels which betrayed the Shah are not going to feel one bit of pain, but who cares when the ram takes your leg off.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Anglo

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


The game is never over I quote from one of the British bands. "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends". The game is not even part way through we have many centuries to go.

Britain has piled a huge debt and in time collector will be showing up. Not today and not all from Iran. But from all the places Shushtari and others mentioned. All the colonies will have bills tallied up. 

It is not what I want. It would have been preferable if Britain had not harmed so many nations. But it has and it is not up to me to deal with it. I am just telling it as is. None of it by the way justifies the criminal actions of the Islamic regime. 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Shushtari Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

.in fact I have, personally, had my own proof presented to me that the brits and carter and french were directly involved in bringing the mullahs in .....

I know all of it is sadly true. The only poetic justice is Jimmy Cater got paid back.  The Ayatollah paid his benefactor with treachery. It cost JC his reelection and legacy. The real victims were Iranians; American people; Iraqi people; Afghan people ... 

They call Jimmy Carter a "humanization" it is beyond any sense. Sounds like to be a humanitarians all you got to do is cause havoc. The more you do the greater you are regarded. Please send my condolences to family of general Badrei if possible.


don't forget

by shushtari on


the brits are the biggest leach on the ass of the world......that pitiful island does not have any resources, so they've been raping and colonizing other nations for 500 years...

i grew up in ahvaz, and my entire family worked for the oil fact my grandfather was one of the first people in all of khuzestan who learned english and was hired by the brits in the oil company

to this day, he chokes up when he talks about how the brits have ruined iran...on how they forced reza shah out of iran, to their favorite pet, khomeini....

in fact, i've seen the documents where the shah refused to extend the oil contracts for the brits, and it was right after this that the guadalupe conference was set up to get rid of him so the 'cheap oil' could keep flowing

god knows how many trillions have been lost or stolen in the past 33 years.....and this does not even include the worst brain drain in iran's history....imagine if all of the successful iranians here in the us where still back HOME!!!


To anglo-phile: Accusing us of being Daijan Napoleons of IC

by ayatoilet1 on

I say a TV show does not establish facts and the truth. It only tries to caricature those that are sayding the truth....

If calling anyone Daijan Napoleon conveniently undermines the truth - then F*ck U and F*ck anyone that uses the TV show to undermine the truth.

The facts are the facts. The brits hae cheated Iran and Iranians. And they not only did that to Iranians, but as one of the other bloggers says: just ask the Irish about them. I would even go as far as to say, ask the Americans what the Brits did during the revolutionary war here. Ask Indians what they did in India.

To use a TV show to undermine a nation, to use a TV show to somehow denigrade reality ...of what is actually going on in Iran today with 1.2 Million drug addicts supplied by allied troops in Afghanistan, murder of thousands upon thousands of Iranin youths by the IRI put in power by the west; the million or so Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq war that was extended by the West for arms sales to both sides; the vast international business that the regime has selling black market organs of prisoners who they kill without trial to a worldwide market of hospitals -especially in the West;our women turned into prostitutes in huge numbers - sold like meat arround the world ....

Anglophile - you are either blind, stupid, ruthless or naive. How dare you undermine by character assasination or undermine the truth by accusing anyone of being a Daijan Napolean. Shame on you.

The game will be over for you dude...not us. We will die fighting for Iranian freedom and democracy....and liberation from these chains. The IRI will be defeated; and a new Iran will be created that can and will negotiate with a win-win approach and if the Brits won't look out for both sides then - they will lose. And that is for real. Eat that.


For Bache Shirazi - Caspian Sea Primer

by ayatoilet1 on

The essence of this issue is that in early 19th Century, after a series of wars with Russia and prior peace treaties; Iran entered into a peace treaty called the Treaty of Tukmenchay (1828). Iran seceeded Georgia, Armenia, (Northern) Azerbaijan etc. and agreed to a new border with Russia along the Aras river (Iran's current north western border ...the "persian cat's ears"); and essentially agreed to jointly share with Russia all navigation rights to the Caspian but also split the "below sea" land or border equally between the two nations. This treaty was in force, and even slightly modified by mutual agreement for over 200 years. In effect the median line of the Caspian served as a naval border and Iranian Navy managed all activity below the median. Beyond the treaty - this was actual practice for over 100 years. According to international law...mutually determined actions (such as Navy protection and security action) by themselves also define territorial rights. Both Iran and Russia practiced i.e. put in action what the treaty defined. There was no ambiguity.

When the Soviet Union splintered, 5 former Soviet States i.e. new nations bordered the caspian along with Iran. The new nations (with urging of western oil companies) self defined a new maritime and sub-sea land border based on international maritime laws (for open seas).

The problem is the Caspian Sea is NOT a sea - its a lake. Like Salt Lake in Utah, its a salty water lake. And as you probably know many lakes are called "seas" by tradition. So these international laws do not apply. 

In addition, when Russia splintered it only owned half the Caspian and could only convey its 50% to the new states - it did not own Iran's portion to convey to any of these states.

Strangely, BP operates in Azerbaijan; and Unocal operates in Turkmenistan, and Chevorn Operates in Kazakhstan and russia's luk oil operates in all areas of the Caspian Sea. BP built and controls the ONLY pipeline that transports Caspian Oil to the every operator uses that pipeline for exporting (and BP gets a cut of it all). Also, UNOCAL is looking to build a pipeline through Afghanistan for export (and also by pass Iran).

For sure Oil and Gas extracted and exported from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan is from Iran's portion of the Caspian Sea.

No new treaty has been signed by Iran or all parties. The new "understanding" between former Soviet States delianates Iran's ownership down to 11%. Iran is being asked to give up its rights and get nothing in return...having NOT done a thing. It was Russia that splintered NOT Iran. And Russia can only convey what it owned before....not Iranian territory.

Its blatant theft - supported by western oil companies especially BP.

My view is that a fair resolution of all this, is for all these countries to form a central asian union with a single currency - like Europe. Iran can benefit by these countries opening their markets and selling products and services to these countries. Let them extract their oil and gas and honor their current agreements - but allow Iran too to benefit. Northern and Southern Azeris can reunite, northern and southern turkmens can unite. The Caspian Sea would then be managed by a single organization (call it the Caspian Sea Authority) and a canal could be built along the Manych linking the Caspian to the Mediteranean (creating an export route for Iran and all litoral caspian states). Many core issues such as fishing regulation and environmental regulation could be coordinated and given BP's especially lousy record as an oil company operator ...someone needs to look over their shoulders. 

Right now these companies are bypassing Iran and stealing Iranian minerals. Its totally unacceptable and the Mullahs have not done a thing about it. Its clear evidence that the Mullahs have been bought and are in fact traitors to Iran and Iranians.

In addition to stealing Iranian oil and gas from Iranian territory, BP especially owes billions in back payments of royalties and penalties NOT paid while they extracted oil from Iran under several agreements from 1922 onwards. They never properly accounted for the oil they stole from Iran; and never paid proper royalties per the agreements.



by shushtari on

once again I agree fact I have, personally, had my own proof presented to me that the brits and carter and french were directly involved in bringing the mullahs in .....

we used to live next to the widow of general badrei, and she recalled that her husbad, general abdolali badrei, head of the imperial guards was feverishly working to kill khomeini in a coup d etat....they had the howitzers in the foothills of tehran pointed at alavi school where that piece of crap was staying.....unfortunately, under direct order from huyser and carter, an AMERICAN SOLDIER assassinated general badrei right there in his fact I saw an article on the web that the imperial guards even saw this that an american soldier was running out of gen badreis office!!!!

this is just one example of how the brits and americans were bent on destroying iran...


if only the shah had the cojones to cut the head of khomeini and bomb the crap out of 'feyzeye goh' in qom..... 


to Daijan Napoleons of IC: the game is over

by anglophile on

This is for real chaps LOL


Never forget the most critical thing of all

by FG on

Political legitimacy doesn't come from one's family line or from a self-invented doctrine like the one in Iran today.  In the end it comes from the people.  Once the latter have been totally alienated it becomes clearly apparent both inside a country and to all other nations.

In 1979 the Shah, for whatever reason, lost that mandate as irreparably as Assad and Khamenei today.  It's a case of "no going back" and "no outside power can save such a ruler no matter how hard they tried or DIDN'T TRY.

When it's over, it's over for such regimes.   Foreign nations have no choice but to recognize that fact and perhaps try to avoid more bloodshed. Hence they urged any already lame duck ruler to go.  If he didn't, his downfall was certain in any case.   As for Khoumeini's revolutionary tribunals following the second coup, do you think the Brits, or Carter, or the French saw it coming any more than Iranians?   

Hindsight is great.  It can be hard to grasp that people can be as barbaric as the mullahs so why would people anticipate it?  Within and outside Nazi Germany, many folks never believed the stories of methodical extermination camps (not just for Jews) which proved all too real.  In fact, some Jews stayed because even they doubted the "rumors."


Can someone please explain

by BacheShirazi on

And when North Sea oil wound down, the Brits told their dogs in Iran to
look the other way, while the set up shop in Azerbaijan and started
stealing Iranian oil from the Caspian sea ...


Can someone explain the Caspian sea issue concerning how it's split? I coudn't really find much online, but I hear people often saying Iran is being robbed and the government isn't doing anything about it.


A more detailed explanation please? 


The Brits

by FG on

Why do you think I'd love the Brits or see them as Angels?  Never said that.  They've crossed people before when it suited their interests. 

Stilll, as imperialists go, if I had to live under a foreign conqueror, I'd take the Brits over the Dutch, Belgians or French and especially over the Tojo's Japan, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR.   It's not a simple case of "one colonialism is the same as another."  That argument exemplifies the fallacy of degree.   Turning to ancient history, I'd rather be conquered by Cyrus the Great or Agustus or Alexander the Great than Mongols or Assurbanipal (the Assyrians).  Who wouldn't?

As to efforts to get the Shah to leave, you omit the historical context.  Such efforts occurred when, as in Assad's case in Syria at present, it was ALREADY CLEAR he was going down and everyone saw its inevitability.  As in Syria, it was in any case a matter of time.

As you admit, the revolution had wide popular support.   That's the thing that caused his ouster and that's something "foreigners" could not create.  

Given the context you CAN legitimately argue that the USA, Brits and France encouaged him to leave--as they and others urge Assad to leave.  You cannot in either case turn that around to argue they caused the situation the Shah was in then or Assad was in now.  The causes of each regime's unpopularity, then and now, justified or not, were obviously totally domestic.

I don't see why you get so angry at such at that evaluation of events.  Again I urge you to consider the historical CONTEXT in which the missions you bring up (which no doubt happen occurred). Those missions were a rationale response to a crisis in progress and not the CAUSE of that crisis which seems to be what you claim.




Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

On the british

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


If you have any delusions on what they are really about ask the Irish. Now there is no way to blame treatment of Irish on Islam. Although I am sure the ultra-right wing on IC will try. Here read it:


Basically the "Angelic" Britons deliberately presided over deaths of a million Irish. Next is  deliberate pushing of opium on China. But to a closed mind fasts matter not. Ayatoilet jan you are not going to get anywhere with this group.




Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Ayatoilet Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Don't get upset I know you got very good point. Many people do not have the full picture. I may disagree with you at times but you are much closer to the mark. We have a big problem with people.

The problem with many people is lack of knowledge coupled with being too sure. Instead of doing research to find out what is really true people just repeat what they think. It makes them feel good and superior but does not help anyone.


Sorry FG - I should have said British are Saints!!

by ayatoilet1 on

It is surprising how uninformed you are! Shocking really. I can only explain it if you are a Brit or American with your head in the sand....probably obese and ignorant at the same time.

Look for real facts, I suggest you read Ducth Heyzer's biography or Sullivan's biography or even just one of the three october Surprise books by Gary Sick, Robert Perry or Barbara Honeger where they go into extensive details about how the Islamic Republic was brought to power and secretly maintained in power and that the Mullahs betrayed Carter for Reagan and how the Iran-Iraq war actually started. Huyzer explains how he went to Iran on a mission to get the Iranian army to betray the shah and how Carter wanted the Shah toppled (how the Shah was funneling cash to Nixon and the Republicans etc etc.). The Brits were front center in the midst of all this (as ussual). And had their own reasons for hating the Shah; and in fact (since I lived in the UK) I met some old folks while working in an old people's home who had worked in the British secret services in IRAN who went into elaborate detail on how the shah was toppled for me. One of them was actually a Canadian who worked with the Brits in Iran and he recounted in explicit details meetings with the Shah and what they did to foment the "revolution" and bring in the Mullahs. There are countless details of how the Brits "knew" very specifically the whole timetable of the Shah's toppling and even minutes of the Guadeloupe meeting with Carter, Calaghan, Giscard Destain and Helmut Schmidt where they agreed to cooperate to topple the Shah.

If you read all this FACTUAL evidence...and even spend some time with people directly involved in the "Mullah's Coup" - you would NEVER EVER say the Brits, Americans, French were NOT directly involved.

Now I admit that the people of Iran wanted their freedom, and that the "Mullah Coup" took advantage of the people sentiment. And that Khomeini and his entourage then (people like Yazdi and Rafsanjani etc.) lied. And people like Yazdi are on record as working directly for foreign intelligence.

My comments are not Xenophobic or even maliciousl they re statements of fact. I am not a monarchist, I am not a lefty, I am not a Mujahedeen -- simply an observer recounting REAL FACTS.

The real mythmaking is being done by you. The myth that the Brits are saints or angels or walk on water like Jesus Christ. The cheap shots are the ones you are taking and accusing honest, decent people like me of propaganda.

In this digital age - the truth does come out. And it might hurt, but it is the truth. I can only say F**K You and all the lies you represent. And to all Iranians - remember the Brits have been sticking it up Iranian *sses for over 100 years.

The least we can do is to open American eyes to the lies and deciet of the Brits and how they too (Americans) are geting it stuck up their *sses too - by the brits. America spends 3.7 Trillion dollars on two wars, and over 100,000 troops - the Brits send in 10,000 troops to Iraq and guess what the Brits walk off with the two largest oil fields in Iraq. And the brits lock in the world's second largest oil reserves....for almost no money down. Briliant - meanwhile Americans too - are *ucked. BP was directly responsible for the two largest oil disasters in the U.S. - the exxon valdez (alaska - yes BP was a majority owner of the Alaskan Oil fields and was directly responsible for handling any incidents, and never sent in the crews to deal with the disaster - which led to a huge spill) and deep horizon(mexican gulf - which you should know about). BP has been the worst operator of refineries and pipelines in US history. Millions of people in America have lost their lives and livelihoods because of their negligence. BP is directly responsible for a repressive dictatorship in Azerbaijan. BP stole Iranian oil for over 50 years and never provided accountability for the oil they stole ...never paid royalties on time or on proper accounts to the nation of Iran - despite clear contractual obligations from 1922 onwards.  BP is the British government - and the British government is BP - look it up!

Our day will come. The world will wake up to their deceit and lies. We want prosperity and enterprise - but we don't want thieves and liars masquearading as Oil executives, and Politicians. In this new age only win-win, high quality and high integrity business and political operators will succeed. Its all open now .... we can find out in an instant. Our day will come. And you can not cover up for them. 


Total mythmaking by Veiled Prophet

by FG on

Re: The Islamic Republic was in fact heavily promoted by the British; French and USA.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any of those three supported the ORIGINAL revolution--the one that overthrew the Shah.  Why would they?  It began as a popular revolution with overwhelming support of the Iranian people.  An outside power who resisted that would really be behaving like an imperialist. That's the irony in your argument.  What I think you are saying these Western powers should have done--intervening to save the Shah against an obviously popular revolution--is to suggest they should have behaved imperialistically.  Actually they did the opposite.

The first revolution in Iran was a broad movement with popular support.  The second was--like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia--a coup within a coup by the mullahs and their supporters.  Like the Bolsheviks they enjoyed a great advantage in planning and discipline. 

To suggest we supported this 2nd coup is even funnier.  So we arranged the Embassy takover and the seizure of 50 American hostages for a year just because we loved the mullahs and wanted them in power.  

And please don't bring up oil as a motive for supporting the mullahs.   It would have been in the interest of any ruling faction to sell oil and we'd still have to pay for it. No one was going to give it away free to westerners upon taking power.   Doing so with a democratic government would have been, if anything, far more advantageous than doing so with the mullahs for non-economic (polical) reasons.

Speaking of who enjoyed widespread popular support, even the mullahs had it after their coup for quite a few years.  Remember how many voted for the current constitution?  Remember how many attended Khomeini's funeral.  Just as he conned Jimmy Carter and other westerners by stressing human rights and Savak crimes before leaving Paris (mullah strategists knew well what appealed to western minds) he later would con Iranians as to what they were getting into.  There's no doubt in the early stages they beleived him and by the time they caught on to the mullahs' mafia-style nature (duing Khamenei's rule) it was too late to get out.

What you can't swallow, as monarchists, is that the Shah was UNPOPULAR with a majority of Iranians by 1979 and the revolution was POPULAR.  Whether or not that is fair, I can't say, but a fact is a fact.  However, to demand foreign powers just walk in and prop him up against the popular will contradicts your own nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric. 

To Ayatoilet: "You Are Right!  The Brits are Angels.

Never said that. You are setting up "straw man argument" in which one party assigns a ludicrous position to a another party (one the other party never took) then proceeds to hammer away at the ludicrous position.

I confess I did poke huge holes in your "evidence" for the thesis that the Brits ousted the Shah and replaced him with mullah rules.   Don't blame me if your "evidence" was questionable.  No legitimate court would allow it.  The Brits--never much of a land or air power to start with--had about as much power as Monaco to impose their preference over the clear will of the Iranian people by 1979.  Your thesis ignores that self-evident fact.

Any arrangement between BP and Azerbaijan involving Caspian Sea oil at the expense of Iran is a totally separate issue from 1979 or any IMAGINARY British role in that revolution.  There is no reason I can see to suppose such an arrangement would not have existed even had the mullahs never taken over.  In essence, one thing has no necessary connection to the other.

The monarchists here seem to despise the mullah rulers as much as I do, as most Iranians do and as most Arabs do, including many Islamists and including even the thuggish Ahmadinejad who also supported the embassy attack yesterday (In Mahmoud's case, as in yours, they seem to be despised not for the crimes they commit but because they are obstacles to his own ambitions).

I see the xenophonic and twisted arguments you make regarding events in 1979 as every bit as mendacious as so many regime claims.  That in turn suggests a desire to replace one tyranny (the mullahs) with another (the monarchists) that would rely on the "same old, same old" propaganda-based tactics, cheap nationalism and heavy handedness to support a new group of thugs.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Ayatoilet Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


You are right. The problem is that anger at IRI blinds people at British actions. It appears that people are not able to realize you may have two bad guys. The Islamic Republic was in fact heavily promoted by the British; French and USA.

The British are stealing Iranian resources and the Republic of Azarbayjan is a joke. But if Iran had a better government it would make it harder to rip Iran off. Hence it benefits BP to keep IRI in power. 

Yes Mullahkosh you bet the British are powerful specially in media.  My family was very close to them. We got told by a Lord that Shah was out a year before it happened.  My father said "British have no power; what do they know". That cost us a ton of $$.


FG - You are right, the Brits are Angels

by ayatoilet1 on

Remember, two wrongs don't make a right. Just cause the Japanese abused the Koreans doesn't mean the Brits have not abused Iranians. And really, Iranians do want to get on with their business, and its the Brits systematically, underhandedly undermining Iran and Iranians.

I showed you numerous examples how the regime in Iran has been playing into British regional strategy like BP oil extraction from Iranian sections of the Caspian Sea, like British infrastructure in Dubai...with a sanctions and containment policy on Iran playing into British sources of revenue.

Accept it or not, the Mullahs serve British interests. That's it.

You call it a leftist cry (btw I am NOt a leftist). You call it a nationalistic cry f***ing what? It is what it is. You simply can not deny the facts. Like I said, the Brits have been sticking it up Iranian a**es for over 100 years. And likely will continue to do so.

And you speak to anyone, they've been sticking it up palestinian a**es for over 60 years with the creation of Isreal. They shafted so many regions of the world ... places like Iraq, West and East Africa with their colonial policies ... "straight line maps" dividing tribes, destroying nations ... all in the name of their mining interests or oil interests etc. Its simply undeniable.

Now if you want to deny it - its up to you. But the facts are the facts. Right now after the rounding up of the CIA spy group in Tehran last week ...the Brits have more spies in Iran than the Americans do. Your so called budget limitations are laughabe ...Iran plays a strategic role in protecting something like 35% of Britains GDP coming in via the 3 million barrels of oil coming out of Azerbaijan and close to 1.5 Million Barrels coming out of the fields in souther Iraq (where Iranian influence is very strong). Not to mention all that revenue coming out of Bahrain and Dubai going through the British banking system.

Budget limitations or not they need to have a full picture of whats going on inside Iran - and you only get that with agents on the ground.

I am not saying we should stop trying to bring democracy to Iran. I am not saying we should be paralyzed by British influence. I am just stating facts. AND above all reminding everyone that the Brits are NOT natural allies for freedom fighters in Iran.... just look North to Azerbaijan, and look at Aliev (and his family) and you'll realize that the Brits won't hesitate to put up a dictatorship anywhere they have financial interests. The sex parties BP threw for Aliev made the front page of the SUN (tabloid) in the UK.

And my guidance to those ethnic groups seeking separation from Iran using western cash is, don't think you'll get democratic governments that look too different to Azerbaijan or even the IRI in Iran. It'll be a worthless fight...for nothing.

Our best bet is to simply know the facts and then act accordingly. We can still move on, and make Iran a better place....but the Brits are not good or the right partners in that endeavor. They are in it for a win-win result, they are only in anything for themselves alone. As they so elegantly put it: they don't give a flying f*ck about Iran or Iranians. That will never change.  

The first step in attaining Iranian liberation is to simply recognize the truth. Then we can move forward. Then, and only then, we can take positive actions.


Response to Ayatoilet

by FG on

I'm not sure how much of your grievances against the Brits are legit (probably some) and how much are irrational as in some of the "evidence" you offer against the French as well. It's like worrying about something that happened years ago, say $50,000 lost in a bad investment, and thereby preventing you from getting on with your life and becoming happy once again.

If you think British colonialism was bad, read about what the Koreans endured under Japanese occupation.  It's far worse.  On top of that Koreans suffered a brutal war in the early fiftiers.   People in SOUTH Korea were eating the bark off trees as late as 1955.  Koreans also tend to suffer strong prejudices in Japan.  If they spent all their time harping on it or demanding compensation instead of getting on with business, they'd still be broke today.

 You write as if Britain were still a major power and could act as it pleases. Those days are long gone.  Peoples who harp over old grievances and seeking to continue feuds end up like the Balkans after Tito.  Imagine if Mandela had been like that in South Africa. 

RE:  The issue of Khomeini flying into Tehran on an Air
France jet.

And this is your "proof" that the French wanted Khoumeini in power? 

The Shah was ousted.  Khoumeini was very popular at home and wanted to return.  Are you saying the French should have arrested him and, if so, on what grounds?  You may have lived in a western nation but you still don't seem to understand that democracies can't act arbitarily or they wouldn't be democracies, would they?

Ah, they paid for his ticket.  More "proof!" Maybe it's as simple as the French faced a "fait accompli" and had to make the best of it, like the USA dealing with the Soviets re: eastern Europe at the end of the war.   Maybe the French hoped Khoumeini's promises of toleration and democracy were real and not designed to con European liberals.

So why not pay for his ticket if it helped promote good will.  If most Iranians didn't know what was intended and the Embassy seizure hadn't reveal it yet, how were the leaders of other countries to know.  If telepaths were available and crystal balls actually worked, you might have a point.

RE: Khomeini was recieving monthly cash
payments from a fund managed by the British government on behalf of the
Shiite Ulama established some 100 years ago in India (when they ruled

You are suggesting the Brits should have broken their own laws by not honoring a business contract.  Who would invest with them afterwards if they couldn't be trusted.  Again you don't seem to grasp that democracies must play by the rules and can't do whatever they want.   You actually cite this as "proof" malicious conspiracy.

RE: how come th Brits have maintained steady diplomatic relations with Iran for over 30 years and Americans have not.

How many embassies do you think the demonstrators should have seized?  All of them?  If only one, which makes a lot more sense?  You also fail to note that the originally seizure was not directed by the mullahs, who hesitated at supporting it originally--only jumped in later to seize an opportunity.  Finally, why would the Brits support the mullahs and a wild theocracy anyway. A democracy would likely be easier to deal with.

RE:  BUT NOT A SINGLE BRITISH SPY has ever been caught, killed, imprisoned etc.

And that "proves" a conspiracy?  You clearly suggest the Brits, strapped for cash, had a ton of spies and the mullahs deliberately caught none.   Also, when you count the number of spies caught from other countries are you counting REAL spies or the large numbers of journalists, human rights workers who got picked up while visiting and charged with "spying?"

RE:  Then tell me that the Regime in Tehran - the IRI - is independent and not aligned with British interests.

Ah, that must be why the conservatives in Parliament rage against Britain every day and call the BBC a "nest of spies."   And why break into the British Embassy under your theory.

You seem to have allowed your hatred of Britain, some for personal reasons, to influence your theories.   To posit a secret British/mullah alliance you offer the strangest "evidence" as "proof" while skipping over strong evidence to the contrary (cited just above).

SIDE NOTE: I'm reminded of how, during the Cold War, anti-American leftists would cite US diplomatic relations with dictators as "proof" of supporting them.  My answer: "By your argument we 'support' the Soviet Union since we've had relations with them since the 1930's.  It made no difference since i was arguing with confirmed fanatics.


The Good News & the Bad News

by ayatoilet1 on

The good news is, I am not running for any office. Please don't compare me to Sarah Palin.

The bad news is, us Iranians. have been getting it up the *ss from the Brits for almost 100 years. When you have a ratified treaty (called the Turkmenchay Treaty) in effect for over 200 years, ratified by numerous governments on both sides dividing up the Caspian 50/50 between Iran and Russia; and then BP starts exploiting 3 Mn Barrels of Oil from Iran side (and puts up a puppet dictator in Azerbaijan; throws sex parties for him...) and scre*s both can call it funny, stupid, peculiar, up or down - but I call that getting shafted. Nothing you say or suggest will change the basic facts.

Then there is this slight issue of Khomeini flying into Tehran on an Air France jet, with the cost for the flight paid for by the French government. And another slight issue that Khomeini was recieving monthly cash payments from a fund managed by the British government on behalf of the Shiite Ulama established some 100 years ago in India (when they ruled there). And if these simple facts are not enough ...then ask yourself how come th Brits have maintained steady diplomatic relations with Iran for over 30 years and Americans have not. And Israeli, American and Russian spies have all been "caught" in Iran, killed, imprisoned, released etc. BUT NOT A SINGLE BRITISH SPY has ever been caught, killed, imprisoned etc.

Then tell me that the Regime in Tehran - the IRI - is independent and not aligned with British interests -- and I'll be the one laughing - and quite frankly looking at you like you're smoking something.

I blame the Brits directly for Iran's demise....we're the fools for not simply recognizing it. They're still fuming about Iran oil nationalization. Its not Iranians that haven't forgiven the Brits, its the Brits that haven't forgotten about Iran's nationalization.

They hate us; and they are out to *uck us. See it for what it is. I went to college there. We're nothing but as they put it a bunch of "wogs" and almost equivalent to a bunch of "pakis" as they put it. As far as they are concerned we're fair game for exploitation. We're sub-human like a bunch of ants to be steped on. I know. I really know - first hand how they feel about Iran and Iranians.  


Silly post

by FG on

The mullahs do the same thing when they claim "foreign agitators" are behind all the populace's discontent.  They can say their conspiracy theory is true.  Surely you know otherwise.   You also must have noticed that every dictator--with no exceptions--makes that same claim when his people boil.

Foreign nations and the CIA, Mossad or whoever probably WISH they were that omnipotent.   You know they aren't.

Obviously the Iranian populace was quite discontent in 1979 or the revolution would not occurred.  If some in the Shah's faction failed to grasp that--and still do--they are no different than the faction around Khamenei who can't grasp how unpopular they've become.

There is NO evidence--none--that the West was behind either of the dual revolutions that occurred in 1979, especially the second.  (Yes there were two and I gather you blame us for both). 

The first was a spontaneous uprising by many segments of the population.  The second was a well-planned coup that benefited when opportunity fell into its hands with the attack on the US Embassy.  Pay attention to how the mullahs used anti-western rhetoric, just as you do, to win folks over from that point.  And didn't it do the intended job?

Give some credit to the way the Shah's opponents used propaganda to sway opinion abroad and at home.  They exposed Savak's brutality.  Khamenei lied consistently while in France about favoring a relatively democratic government.  If Iranians fell for it, why shouldn't foreigners?  He fooled Jimmy Carter.  We were all victims of mullah lies from 1979 to now. Yet you translate our victimhood into malice. Does the humane Carter strike you as a calculating Khamenei-type? 

Previously I've never had anything against he Shah's son and would have favored the idea of democracy mixed with ceremonial monarchy as in England.  It could serve as a binder.

However, I've read so many xenophobic posts like yours from the Shah's supporters I have second thoughts.  Do the monarchists intend to  replace one dicatorship again?  If not, who promote so much xenophobia and--above all--why use conspiracy theories that make no sense.

Anyone who stokes up nationalism and OLD grievances, either imagined or real, cannot to be trusted.  I don't care who it is.  That includes American counterparts (Minute Men/Tea Party types).   Every country has them.  It's the cheapest kind of populism.  As Samual Johnson said of such behavior, "patriotism is the last refuge of a scandal." 

In the last presidential campaign, Sarah Palin liked to brag that she represented the "real" Americans, meaning mainly cranky older white people of the sort that idolized Joe McCarthy, voted in droves for George Wallace, spent their Sundays listened to ranting ministers with funny hair and odd suits assuring them that black folks were descended from Cain, watched Fox News exclusively and--on long trips--kept their radios attuned to right-wing nut cases supported by the gun industry, big oil and coal, the AMA, etc.  

I always wanted to ask Sarah where her comment leaves the rest of us--the college educated, the minorities, most people on the East and West Coast (excluding Orange County, California)?   Are we the unreal Americans.  The irony in all this is that I'm living in Arizona (land of crackpots) though I'm transplanted from Pennsylvania.


shushtari are right on

by shushtari on

khomeini had a british flag on his ass LOL


damn those brittish are so powerful

by Mullahkosh on

They are so all mighty! They can do all this to Iran without most of us even realizing it. I think if this is the case, we should just give up, and while we are at it, why not go ahead and bend over as well? give it all to the British I say...give it all..


damn those brittish are so powerful

by Mullahkosh on

They are so all mighty! They can do all this to Iran without most of us even realizing it. I think if this is the case, we should just give up, and while we are at it, why not go ahead and bend over as well? give it all to the British I say...give it all..