Did the Shah's Savak offer covert aid to the Shia Cleric establishment against the Iranian Bahai Community?

Did the Shah's Savak offer covert aid to  the Shia Cleric establishment against the Iranian Bahai Community?
by faryarm

Did the Shah's Savak offer covert aid to  the Shia Cleric establishment against the Iranian Bahai Community?

Exposure of Documentary evidence since the Islamic revolution of 1979 spports this.

see video: 

also see more indepth documnetary evidence in below:



more from faryarm

Thankyou VPK, your view is based on thinking

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

if its not democratic, then its a dictatorship.

So when one or a few people has all the say.  If that were true then you couldn't call Hitler a Dictator, which he was, because he came to power based on many people having a say in his favor and keeping him there with excitement, he had a majority votes, Khomeini also could not be considered a dictator, because he had a majority of people that had a say and chose him and agreed with him.  Can you see that this is wrong.  These are 2 dictators that don't fit your defiition over the 10 years or so they enjoyed leadership many people had a say the average person got their say. How about mussolini, you get my point.

So Dictatorship is infact more complex than what you are saying in principle and you are doing a great injustice if you call a guy wearing a white hat a guy wearing a black hat.  One is a criminal, dictator, black hat.  The other is a leader, white hat.

This subject cannot be looked at through the prism of if its not democratic, then its a dictatorship. So when one or a few people has all the say, it's a dictatorship.  Lets go over what 2 factors absolutely must exist together to make one a Dictator, 1) It can only occur when absolute power is present.2) the power must be used to break laws and agreements

Hence when khomeini took around 10,000 people that had served their prison sentences and ordered them to be detained and all exectuted that fulfils both 1) and 2) Had total absolute power & acted unlawfully. Its even more complex than this, but this is the most black/white way to explain it.

Dictatorship.  In a company may have a president that gets the final say, but are there share holders which can replace him, then does he have the capability to act above the law.  Companies are not dictatorships VPK based on the real definition, not yours. 

Militaries on the other hand are run like dictatorships.  I realize you and DK have no idea how badly you are tarnishng the character of the late shah, his dignity, his freedom, his character, by calling him a dictator.  You are essentially calling him a criminal and based on your explanation I can see that you were not aware of this, not sure about DK.  You must think I was crazy for going after you the way was.  A dictator is a criminal.  Shah was no criminal. 

Shahs hat was as white as they come, he was not suppressing Iranians VPK, Irans masses were enjoying having freedom for the first time in centuries. the possibility to enhance their lives, to get education & to grow and change, to defend themselves to create a middle class (all from starting as the most backward and deprived society in the middle east in 1930's). Don't take Mash G's comments seriously, he's a comedian.  Iranians honestly had more choices during shahs time, a greater ability to choose than at any time in the past 300 years. Yes Shah cared about Freedom Very Much.   


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dictator vs Tyrant

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


My definition of a dictatorship is when one or a few people has all the say. Average person of population do not get a real vote. The dictator may at his or her discretion take views in account but does not have to.

A tyranny has very negative connotations. It implies abuse and mistreatment. I do not think Shah abused people hence he was not a tyrant. Plus democracy may be a tyranny. Have you heard of tyranny of the majority. A majority white nation may vote for having blacks as slaves. That is when a democracy becomes a tyranny. Basically dictatorship and tyranny are independent. You may have one; the other; or both.

Most companies are dictatorships. Where the CEO has the final say. But many are generally not run as tyrannies. Yes there are some which are run by tyrants. Others are not.  Hope this makes my position obvious.


VPK? Mash G

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

What is the difference between dictator and tyranny???? You say Shah was a dictator, but not a tyrant????

I'm getting dizzy.  Dictator/Tyrant/Despot are all in the same line.  Ie you cant be a tyrant and not a dictator/despot too they are used interchangeably. 

Do you realise that autocracies can have dictators and can also have liberal leaders????? Do you realize that just because a country is not democratic doesn't make the leader a Dictator. As for MASH G, you are beyond saving, just continue typing away.  "Shah destroyed one of the most vibrant/advanced democracies in the world." LOL I can't stop laughing at that comment, it's great, you are a professional comedian. We were such an advanced democracy Jefferson lived in Iran to learn from us. lol! 

What was the white revolution, in 1965 between shah and the people all about?  The Shah pursued individual freedom for Iranians and put an end to feudalism. Was Feudalism was the fruit of our advanced democracy in 1953? I can't stop laughing at that one.


Your dad was right Amir Parviz

by divaneh on

You should not respond to divaneha but you can think about what they say. With respect to this being nonsense, between your claim and the evidence, I will pick the evidence.

Darius Kadivar

MG Jan thank you I'll take that as a compliment ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Then I'm the solemnest king who ever lived.


May I OFFICIALLY knight You in return ?


King's Speech: Albert meets Lionel


Mash Ghasem

I nominate DK as the founding member of "Naneh Agha" committee

by Mash Ghasem on

Naneh Agha like you (or vis versa) has very weak memory.

Angosht mikonom ay angosht mikonom, hishky nemitoneh mes ma ....!

صمد در راه اژدها



Just spoke with daddy Divaneh

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

He doesn't even know the name of your IC handle and after reading your comment to him he said, "Ba Divaneha javab dadan eshtebahe" LOL I'm not sure if how he knew your handle.  On Sabety's religion, I don't think its appropriate to comment on the truth on that subject as I might get quoted and having spoken with Hamid his older brother, i'll just leave it that its his personal business, also to Requote this is total NONsense, anyone that worked with the shah or knew how he behaved would know it's just purposely fabricated bs.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear DK

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Thank you I agree that dictatorship and Bahai treatment are different. I also appreciate your input and you are very welcome to interfere.

The Shah may have been a "dictator" but "democracy" is also one of those "words" we Iranians like to drop in whenever they are running out of arguments. It's So Convenient to blame everything on the Shah's regime and refuse to look at the social and cultural realities of our society in those years.

Once again I agree 100%. If democracy is going to mean Sharia law I prefer the Shah and autocracy! Many people think democracy is a panacea for all problems. It is not. Given the situation Shah may have felt he had no choice but autocracy.

The shah's regime was autocratic but it was not a tyranny. 

Right and that is what I have been saying. I mentioned on another blog Shah gave us 38 years of peace. In return I got attacked and dumped on. I Believe Shah wanted the best for Iran and went about it his way but was no tyrant.

Darius Kadivar

MG & MK Jan's C'est celà Oui ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Mash Ghasem

DK's Amnesia and "social and cultural realities of our society"

by Mash Ghasem on

Shah destroyed one of the most vibrant/advanced democracies in the world on behest of western oil companies, and in the process made all kinds of concievable and inconcievable compromises  to maintain his powe:

As far as  Bahai's, starting with that SOB Kashani to his more recent off-springs the current SOB Hojatieh.

Of course Rastakhiz was also just a bump in the road, and Stalin and Hitler were no models for such "Party Building."

Amnesia is a byyyatch!


DK I couldn't make the point any clearer

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Of course he was not a dictator!

Divaneh, I spoke not with Daddy, but with important Bahai's themselves.  Its nonsense. Aren't you glad?

Masoud Kazemzadeh

excellent blog

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Faryarm,

Excellent blog. 

The Shah was an opportunist.  He did a lot of immoral and unethical things to be in power.  Khomeini and his supporters, as well as those in Hojjatieh, were genocial fascists.



Darius Kadivar

VPK:Bahai's treatment has little to do with Pahlavi dictatorship

by Darius Kadivar on


I don't share Amirparviz views on you which is unfair but Bahai's treatment has little to do with Pahlavi 'dictatorship' ( a word Amirparviz seems to dismiss) 

Otherwise might as well blame "democracy" for the way Kurds are being treated by Turkey today !


Turkey and Iran Strike Kurdish Targets in Iraq - NYTimes.com (18 Aug 2011 )


Then Bazam Begeem Takhseereh Saltanateh ?


Ghassemlou Against Monarchy 


The Shah may have been a "dictator" but "democracy" is also one of those "words" we Iranians like to drop in whenever they are running out of arguments. It's So Convenient to blame everything on the Shah's regime and refuse to look at the social and cultural realities of our society in those years.


You cannot put the challenges faced by regimes in the region be it in the past during the Shah's rule or today for other regimes in the region by comparing them to how they would be dealt with in the most perfect democratic societies in the western world where democracy has been the norm and implemented enduringly in the daily practice for several centuries.

Hence what you see took place in Libya or Syria would be impossible in the western societies we are lucky to live in.

Would it have been better if the Shah was a democrat ? Yes but was it possible ? That is the real question and we already know that the answer is less obvious than what most people claim it to be.


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


History is not just about dropping in a document and presenting it as an irrefutable proof. It's about perspective.

This is the same type of corny cheap shots made against the Shah by boiling his personality and policy towards women on one or two provocative interviews he gave to Barbara Walters or Oriana Fallacci:


WOMEN KNOW YOUR LIMITS: The Shah's Post Mortem Apologies to Barbara Walters and Oriana Fallaci

It doesn't correspond to THE TRUTH it corresponds to A TRUTH !

Do you see the difference ? 


American CBS TV network airs Fake Tapes on Shah's Speech (1979)

The Truth is often in between. I do not believe in Black and White when it comes to judging a person or a regime however horrendous. But the truth is often Grey and Time and distance allow to give some perspective when it comes to judging a given era. 


In otherwords it reflects one aspect or particular contradiction in the system or the individual one wishes to denounce but it does not DEFINE that person or system of government.

The shah's regime was autocratic but it was not a tyranny. To claim we were living in a totalitarian regime or something even close to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy is absurd.  

My problem with our community is that we lack Perspective and refuse to look at the Big Picture for One doesn't need to forgive something deemed wrong but one can at least try to be balanced and honest about it. I don't see this Balanced methodology in any of the comments we here regularly on the Pahlavi Era. It's always Black and White. 




PS: Don't want to interfere in your differences with Amirparviz since you were kind enough to accept not to interfere between me and Simorg, so please let me know if I should stay away. Although I don't think there is any animosity between you as there was at the time between me and Simorg 


PSS/ I would call the Shah a dictator in political terms after 1953 but in practice I would say that the Imperial regime was more of an 'autocracy' than a pure 'dictatorship' as we usually understand it. As such it had little in common with let's say South American dictatorships or banana republics of the 1970's.  


Did your daddy really say that Amir Parviz?

by divaneh on

Someone has written a fully documented case about the issue and you counter that with what your daddy say? For a person who comes with the childish comment that "what Bakhtiar did was against the Shah's will and Shah removed him for that", asking the daddy must be the best way of knowing the truth.

So you think Shah was not aware of the violence against Bahais, he was not aware that Falsaf's ceremons encouraging violence against Bahais were broadcasted by the Iran national radio, he was not aware that they were burning Bahais houses, that they were destroying their place of worship. Guess what Amir Parviz. You are wrong, you have no knowledge but plenty of blind bias.

You think Sabeti was a Bahai? You are wrong again. He was born in a Bahai family but left the Bahai faith and according to some became a Muslim. Now if you may consider that your dad may not know everything here is a link for you to look. You will find some other name in there too. It is referencing 61 other publications from respected publishers.


And if you don't like reading, here is an interview with Mohammad Amini the well know Historian. Listen to all parts


The truth is very simple. It is not a black and white world and no one is blameless. Shah did not have any anonymity towards Bahais but victimised them to appease Akhonds and to divert people's attention whist he was repealing the gains of the constitutional revolution.


VPK You say Dictator and I honestly disagree, not politics...

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Dictator ...I think Saddam, i think Stalin, i think Franco, I think khomeini when I hear dictator.  I associate it with absolute power + illegal acts + a personality that is the exact opposite of what the shah was by as learned by people that had to work with him, charicteristics to be exact namely... a selfish, meager, barren person ( we know bades on a life time of his record that he was an extremly generous, high minded, fruitful person and concerned with individual freedom, this is very important to know about him, before you label him a dictator.)

The reason I bring up these important points is because I read Plato on the subject and this enlightened me as to the difference between kings that are dictators and those that are not.  I also agree with Socrates that Wisdom starts with knowing definitions.  I disagree with people who either 1) Purposely misrepresent the shahs record/history/obviously visible personality and 2) Choose to reinvent the definition of dictator to meet their agenda and never picked up a dictonary or read philosophy on the subject which has many nuances. 

Based on the level of development of iran, our government was not perfect, yet it worked a well as the people we had.  These are the reasons that naming the Shah a dictator by anyone, DK or You is a Red line for me, it concerns me too much that western propaganda is just allowed to work by iranians of differing agendas (some anti monarchists who cheer it on) under he guise of fooling our prodemocratic elements and using them as tools/fools for their agendas, not saying you fall into that category but calling him a dictator certainly makes you an accomplice with DK to the ignorance we allowed to occur in 1979.  If you say A, VPK you need to say B and if you say B you need to say C all the way through to Z. 

Because Iran was not effectively democratic doesn't make Shah a Dictator. That is one of many fallacies your view rests on and that is deeply disturbing. I read this type of logic and it shocks me really, it is not straight thinking.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Amirparviz

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I have defended the Shah many times. Praised him for his accomplishments. For that I have been attacked and insulted. I praised him for giving us 38 years of peace. He did lots of good things but was a dictator.

My family was close enough to know this first hand. The elections for Majlis were a sham and we al knew it. This is not some made up BS it is reality. Given this I would still acept him over IRI any day. But I want to be honest that is all.

If you want to find Pahlavi bashers there are plenty. I am not one of them. You do better keeing your vitriol for them. Not for me who has defended and praised Pahlavi so often. You are going after the wrong person.

Darius Kadivar

Speaking of Arabs Mammad Jan ... Go look in the mirror ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Constitutionalist Student on '79 Revolutionaries Infatuation with Arabs


Keh Khoub Reedeed beh Mellat Az Parchamemoon Gerefteh :





tah tamameh Badbakhtyhayee keh Barayeh Doh Nasle Irany ovordeed !


SARBAZ: Fereidoun Farrokhzad helps child soldiers of Iran Iraq War


So the last person to lecture us Constitutionalists on "Democracy" and "Human Rights" is You Jomhurykhahs ! 

Shab Khosh ! 








Hojabr Yazdani and assassination of Teymour Bakhtiar

by Roger_Rabbit on

As I mentioned before, one of the most outstanding business figures in the last two decades of the Shah's regin was Hojbr Yazdani. There are sources who attest to Yazdani's faith as Baha'ism but then again there are sources who suggest he was being backed y powerful Baha'i figures no less than the Shah's personal phsician, General Dr Ayadi (//www.centralclubs.com/topic-t61696.html). As the question of state-sponsored terror was mentioned on this very blog, I thought it may be of interest to the readers to know that Teymour Bakhtiar's assisantion in Iraq was allegedly linked to the Baha'i backed Hojabr Yazdani (//www.encyclopaediaislamica.com/madkhal2.php?sid=651). As the autor of this blog is basing his lalegations on the IRI-disclosed documents and sources we are safe to use similar IRI-approved sources to dig deeper in to this story. Here is an exceprt from the above source on the Yazdani-Bakhtiar case:     سرانجام ، به ابتکار ساواک ، در 21 مرداد 1349، بختیار ترور شد و پس از مدتی درگذشت . دربارة قتل او روایات متناقضی هست (ثابتی ). در این که قاتل او عامل ساواک بود شکی نیست . ظاهراً در شکارگاهی نزدیک مرز ایران ، نخست فرزندانش را از او جدا می کنند و سپس مأمور قتل ، که از نزدیکان او بوده ، کار را به انجام می رساند. نام علاءالدین لجمی ، منوچهر خسروداد، ایلگون میتاسوییان ( اطلاعات ، 29 بهمن 1359، ص 1-2) و هژبر یزدانی به عنوان دست اندرکاران قتل بختیار مطرح شده است (آل احمد، ص 91). همچنین به دلیل همزمانی ربوده شدن هواپیمای ایرانی از سوی مخالفان رژیم ایران و بردن آن به بغداد، چنین شایع شد که ربایندگان در واقع عوامل ساواک و مأمور ترور بختیار بودند (دعائی ، ص 3). صدام حسین نخست وزیر وقت عراق که از دوستان نزدیک بختیار و هنگام قتل وی در مسکو بود، از قتل بختیار بشدت ناراحت شد ( اطلاعات ، 29 بهمن 1359، ص 1ـ2). شاه سالها بعد مسئولیت ترور بختیار را برعهدة خود و ساواک نهاد (ویلیه ، ص 322).  


Roger Rabbit, good point, I decided to dig on this subject

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

It is fine to criticize the shah, its just the bs, lies and disingenuous comments are what get us nowhere.  It's not whitewashing his record, its just not honestly comparing his record to other countries in the world and giving ARYAMEHR credit for being outstanding.  The reason I know this entire article is one entire complete piece of Horse $@%T is firstly common sense, 2nd speaking with actual people that can tell me the truth.  Saying shah was a dictator like VPK is to go with the view of the worlds media reported honestly on the shah, it is not a sound comment at all.

You say... right to the most important SAVAK personality, Parviz Sabety and his family.  Considering he was the head of Irans version of the FBI and he had tabs on the pahlavi's inner everything, he is the first person to ask, so I did indirectly.  Surprise surprise, since my dad was a professor at tehran university and taught his younger brother who became the minister for mines and industry, his name houshang and since Ilive in london and we know his brother that was the head doctor of tehran hospital, I decided to ask regarding this matter, the answer I got was it is PROPAGANDA.... As in No basis in reality or truth.  Shah was not into religous discrimination and used his powers to fight against religous discrimiation among iranians as hard as he could.

So YES VPK after speaking with bahaii's that speak directly with their brother who was the head of Irans FBI division I can tell you this is purely a CHEAP SHOT.  And even most Bahaii Leaders would agree.  Not that some forces were not giving them trouble, but their freedom was protected and defended daily & on a case by case basis by the Pahlavi's.

So many stupid people, so easy to divide, so many willing to be patsys/the participants of the agendas of others.  Pity. 


With respect Dr Momen proves nothing

by Roger_Rabbit on

He simply denies and dimisses the allegations without providing any concrete evidence (based on hearsay).


You lost your nerves again DK

by Mammad on

I said, "As one of the first acts of state-sponsored terrorism," not "the first," and I stand by it. Since you were caught by your typical rewriting of history about Bakhtiar and Pakravan, you resorted to your typical laat bazi and bad dahani. It will have no effect on me, but it is just another manifestation of why the hallucination of you and your type, restoration of the Pahlavis in Iran, will never be materialized, precisely because the Shah also treated the educated and informed people the way you do, in addition to all other crimes that he committed.

At least you are honest with your laat bazi, although I do not really know what kind of honesty this is! Then again, this is not suprising. All monarchists and royalists hate intellectuals and informed people, because they prevented rewriting of the history by people like you who constantly report on defunct and dysfunctional monarchies - a good measure of your desperation - to the extent that even such terrible regimes as Saudi Arabia and Jordan are used by you to promote monarchy in Iran. 





by Truthseeker9 on



Darius Kadivar

Boro Baba To ham deegeh :first acts of state-sponsored terrorism

by Darius Kadivar on

Definitively not the first nor the last.

‪Scene from Joseph Losey’s Assassination of Trotsky Starring Alain Delon and Richard Burton (1972)



Trotsky's Assassination  (20 August, 1940,)


On 20 August, 1940, Trotsky was struck a fatal blow with an ice-pick by Ramon Mercader, an agent sent to Mexico by Stalin's secret police (the GPU) to murder the exiled revolutionary-alongside Lenin, the leader of the October revolution, the founder and leader of the Red Army, and the co-founder of the Third, Communist International.

Trotsky's assassination was not just a malicious after-thought on the part of Stalin.

It was the culmination of a systematic and bloody terror directed against a whole generation of Bolshevik leaders, and against the young revolutionaries of a second generation prepared to defend the genuine ideas of Marxism against the bureaucratic, repressive regime developing under Stalin.


Take care ANN TELECTUALS ...


A Standup Philosopher


I'm Out !





Why would a Bahaii have any problem with me if..?

by darius on

I f you admit to that you have no interest in politics and theway things are done,I as a politician would be glad to have such a person on my side and as an confidant.

I keep doing all my torutres, killings, corruptions and as a token of  appreciation ,I let you do as you please.

So what is our answers to all those Bahii's that lingered around the court and as government official.Why would they even wanted to be part of court or government official if their faith is against politics?


This is just matter of fairness nothing against our friend Faryam and his faith, we should be fair , Bahaiis  had  a good a treatment during the Shah era and were one of th emost prosperous religious minority.

As far as discrimination goes, Mullah did it to everyone, Armenain, Jews, Caledonaina, assyians and any one who failed to " risheshoon ro charb koneh".They did if in th epast, during the Pahlvai era and  for the future to come, Bahaiis are not the only one who are suffering.





Dear Friends, Please dig deeper...see video

by faryarm on

Dear Friends, Please dig deeper , by first putting away your preconceived IMHO False) assumptions, as 1. Bahai's ran SAVAK, Bahais. did things for the Shah to be hated..etc etc..all sad cases of lack of knowledge and those  fallen prey to IR propoganda and baseless lies, as all sectors of iranian society ave fallen victim and  witness today .



Perhaps the information given in the following video by Dr Moojan Momen at a recent gathering of Iranian scholars of various views can go far in presenting the facts and  creating a better understanding of why so many as we witness in comments here continue to repeat things that in reality are not true.


best regards and thanks to all who contributed here.




Thanks Faryarm

by divaneh on

This is a very interesting blog and I should hopefully get my hand on a copy of the book.

Isn't it funny that people who are throwing cheap shot and baseless accusations at Bahais complain about cheap shots? 


Then how do you explain General Dr Abdolkarim Ayadi?

by Roger_Rabbit on

I am no fan of SAVAK by any stretch of imagination but let me ask our Baha'i friends about the most influential Baha'i figure in the court of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: General Dr Abdolkarim Ayadi - arguably among the most powerful Baha'is in the "mahfel" and closest confidant to the Shah. Ayadi, the Shah's trusted persoan physician,  had the Shah's palse in his hand, literally! He, in collusion with Farah, kept the Shah's cancer secret from him. He was at the Shah's poker table as well as the purveyour of the finest European call girls to his majesty as early as 1950's when his majesty was still married to Soraya. If our Baha'i friends are unware of these facts then they might as well re-examine their "facts". And Ayadi was not the only one. Baha'is under the second Pahlavi had never had it so good, never before. and never since. I can fill up this pasge with the name of Baha'i luminaries who were given ample opportunities to prosper, and prosper they did under the Pahlavi II. From Sabet the industrialist to to General Khademi, the Iran Air boss, to Hojabr Yazdani the billionaire sheep farmer, among other things, to General Saniei and right to the most important SAVAK personality, Parviz Sabety and his family.  I am not suggesting that there was no suppression of the Baha'is under the Pahlavi II, but here is what  our friend Faryar is too shy to tell us: There was a colousion between the Baha'i top brass and the Pahalvi regime to have certain Baha'i activties supperessed to keep the mullahs quiet. It was a well know secret covenent and it paid off for as long as the Pahalvi regime was in power. Just read the IRI-related account of Ayadi's temporary departue from Iran, ordered by the Shah, in 1965, to keep Falsafi, the arch Baha'i preacher quiet. If you accept the letter produced in this blog as authentic you must  accept the IICHS acoount too! //www.iichs.org/index_en.asp?id=643&doc_cat=16 



by Truthseeker9 on




by Truthseeker9 on