Shah & SAVAK

French documentary on Shah's secret police




by cgsg (not verified) on

megaupload search
Hi! i found a lot of songs & clips here, of course if you are using rapidshare premium account http://


General Hossein Fardoust helped change SAVAK into "Dastgah Ettel

by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

Thats right. thats what all the poeple say. at the beginning of 8tioes one could even read the memories of the General as featur in ETTELAAT. The general was not only specialized in High secret Information technic but he was also a skillfull feature writer. I think one can not blame that man. he had not killed any body. he wrote in Ettelaat that he was the chief of Information Department of his majesty for iranian internal questions. In the days as the ISLAMIC REVOLUTION was going on the americans and thier spezial Band, CIA men and so were active. Fardust wrote he was not engaged in thier activities. The Government of the IRI had allready offered all iranian military personal to join. they could work without being dependent on Strangers. The fruits of this Independency get more and more evident. Take KAVOSHGAR, take OMID, take SAEQUE and so on. So also Mr. Fardust changed the side in the right time. The american would not have taken himanyway and his majesty? he did not know where his head is because he was too busy to see what the friends suggest him to do. On january15th 79 said carter, an american peanuts merchant: It is better when the shah goes. he went on January16th. without Fardust but with farah and 4 airplanes full of nice things. We must confess that the ones who left Iran after the Revolution, most of them could not beginn new and the Revolution did not need them either. the fact is that nobody was forced to remain. the situation of that iranian surgeon who was the Army Adviser Surgeon of the palestine occupeying regim in 6-days war. poeple were killed on his order and some were turtured. So he had to go to jail. In jail he got the most modern surgery Department and could not only operate patients but also teach students and postgraduate young physicians. we see the IRI have given every body a chance according to her/his abilities. may be there are some paralelities to imaginative story of "DOCTOR ZGIVAGO". In that story it was the lawyer who did nothing for and nothing against the October happening in Russia and afterwards he got a fine job. Greeting


Arash and Anonymous1

by Setiz (not verified) on

Yeah, there is way too much to say here. Although I had seen lots of movies and articles on nazis, this particular documentary gave me a different perspective as if it was talking about rohollah rather than adolf, from a jobless thug, to a third rate artist (adolf) or mulla (rouhollah), to a vocal charlatan, criticizer, and promiser. The documentary was like a movie about iranian revolution rather than nazi germany, and at each step of the way one could see an almost exact counter-part in khomeini. I saw the dual of defeat of germany in WWI used by hitler similar to 1953 coup used by khomeini: Versailles treaty vs. capitulation, etc.

In one part, the documentary was talking about hitler getting rid of those who helped him rise to power lest they threaten him, almost exactly like what khomeini did with the leftists.

And you are right, jews of germany show up as minorities of iran in iranian revolution (ethnic or religious). Although hitler killed a lot more of them, but that has to be contributed to temporal conditions of germany as well as mild manner of iranians and their close historical ties and comfort with minorities, rather than any good intentions of IRI.

Alas that there was so much that iranians did not know about history and its plans; neither iranian nor international history.


Re: PBS documentary

by Anonymous1 (not verified) on

Then similarities run even deeper than this, in most instances all you have to do is change the word "RACE" with "SHIE'-ISLAM" and you get IR, and vice-versa.

The geo-ideology relations were also very similar. The Nazi's were a group of "Khodi", usually from the eastern frontiers of German speaking east. The ideological founder of Nazi party was Alfred Rosenberg from Estonia (a Baltic German) along with the famous corporal from Austria and several others, all were from the margins of German culture and ancestry. Much the same as the Lebanese-connected IR gang of "Khodis".


pbs documentary

by Arash Kamangir (not verified) on


I fully agree with you that there are many similarities between IR and Hitler's regime . Other examples besides cinema rex are similarities such as Sepah and SS and brown shirts and Baseej and persecution of Jews in third Reich and Bahais in Iran. The list goes on...
At the end the people of Germany had become so desparate and tired ( like in Iran's present). They were totally uninterested in war and the regime and every body was looking just after own's interest( like in Iran' s present).
I make it short and that is why I truely believe that IR can only be crushed by foreign intervention just as it was the case in Hitlers Germany.


Arash Kamangir


Re: Islamic savak

by KavehV (not verified) on

A lot more people need to watch this documentary (though a little long at 1 hour 40min)

Some times it is difficult to believe that so much savagery can be committed by any group against a large population.

For those of us living in the US, thank god for the second amemdment!


US was not blameless but not responsible

by Georgio (not verified) on

for the revolution,



by ali baghi (not verified) on

you monarchists and anti Iranians still don't understand. There was NO CONSPIRACY, the revolution was a predictable and perfectly rational response to Shah's repression. Give the people of Iran some credit. Not everything was done by the British. Have a little self respect.

SAVAK was a CIA creation designed to kill all leftists, rightists, nationalists, anyone who was a threat to the Shah, so that they don't take over and the oil keeps flowing to the west. Iran was not special, it was like that in every US puppet state and it backfired in all of them too.

You are saying Carter should have done what? Nuked Iran? Sent troops to kill the Mullahs? What? Are you crazy or just a traitor?


Mr. Ali, with all due respect......

by Mehran (not verified) on

Your perception is wrong. Although your perception matches those of millions who poured onto the streets and participated in the revolution, but, today, none of them even admit that they were there. Savak was the logical response to the political violence of 1940s and 1950s in Iran. The killings and assassinations of the likes of Mohammad Masud by the Tudeh Party (blaming it on the Imperial Court) or the killing of Ahmad Kasravi by Islamists. Not to mention the inflitration of the army by some more 500 officers as part of the Tudeh Party's secret network within the army, orchestrated and operated by Soviet NKVD. These are historical facts. There are those argue that Savak had excesses during 70s. This may be a valid point for discussion but at the same time, when historical review and analysis takes place the overall mission of Savak cannot be dismissed by these 1979-revolutionary-days metaphors. Those who have something against Savak can find better legitimacy for their cause if they argue their issues on a case by case basis. But, overall, Savak was not the monster that the revolution portrayed it. Since 1979, history has been written by the Islamists, which finds it a necessity to demonize Savak for their own legitimacy.



It is so pathetic to see

by Ali (not verified) on

It is so pathetic to see that monarchists are still trying to defend the reputation of the SAVAK either by calling it "incompetent" or comparing it to other inhuman organizations.

SAVAK was one of the filthiest and most criminal organization ever known to Iranians.

Shame on monarchists.

Ali P.

to: Darius KADIVAR

by Ali P. on

Thanks for the posts.


PBS documentary

by Setiz (not verified) on

Last night there was a 2-hour documentary on rise and fall of the 3rd reich, from early days of hitler to his rise to absolute power. All along, I saw amazing similarities between hitler and khomeini, and between nazis and IRI. I recommend seeing this documentary to everyone, while comparing to the regime in iran. Hitler personally was nobody, just like khomeini, and his main tactic was lying, deceit, and then mass-murder of opponents, and knowing how to manipulate the public opinion, exactly like khomeini did. One can argue that even some of the details are almost exactly the same, like setting german parliament to fire, as in setting abadan cinema rex to fire, etc. Khomeini had the exact pulse of the people in hand, so did hitler (nabze mardom dastash bood); alas that shah did not.

Thanks god that khomeini died before he could bring us to a disastrous ending like that of hitler. Khomeini's legacy has been sufficient to attempt to destroy our country every single day for the past 30 years.


anonymous4now: Very

by mnh (not verified) on

anonymous4now: Very informative information pertaining the unfolding of the events prior to 1978 rebellion. Thanks.


Dear Mnh

by Anonymous4now on

There were many elements involved in the overthrow of the Shah, but the final push, as he was standing on the edge of the cliff, came from his long time “friends” the British, the Americans and the French. 

The Carter administration was largely responsible for the instability in Iran and the fall of the Shah, from 1977 onwards, but the underlying cause was a conspiracy of the Islamists who had been busy plotting since at least 1970, when Chamran, a Berkeley PhD, and many other educated and not so educated Iranians went to South Lebanon, Syria and Libya for terrorist training.  The Leftists and the blatant communist sympathizers had managed to paint the Shah as a servant of the West and in particular the U.S. and the Shah did nothing to shed off the image.  His programs were not publicized and were completely unknown to most Iranians, so much so that the IRI took credit for many of them, and people believed them.  There was so much propaganda directed at his regime that people believed and still do, as Ahmadinejad said, “we had nothing before 1979, and we have everything now”.  The facts are beginning to be forgotten, and as we speak, Iranians believe assembling a car in IRI’s Iran is amazing progress, not knowing that Iran started assembling cars in 1967, and by the mid 70s was manufacturing all the parts, except for the engine, and by 1978, was manufacturing the engine, too.  Despite its astonishing and aggressive growth rate, Iran was portrayed as a nation that was plundering its wealth on military hardware, which, at the height of the Cold War was supposed to buy time for Iran, in case of a Russian invasion, which happened in Afghanistan in 1979, until U.S. forced could be deployed.   By the way, the military hardware and infrastructure came in handy when Iraq invaded Iran, in 1980.    

The Shah indeed had very good intentions, but was a weak and vacillating man and every time he was faced with a crisis he ran away.  May be he knew the psychology of his own people, because I can guaranty that had he not left and defeated the revolution, Iranians would be cursing him now and longing for their idol Khomeini.

Khomeini, on the other hand, was shrewd and deceitful and as soon as he saw the masses on the streets of Tehran who had come to greet him, he became absolutely resolute.  With the same inhumanity that is characteristic of psychopaths such as Genghis khan and Hitler, he established his concept of “government” as he had prescribed in his books.  Had Iranians read the books, they might have laughed at his incoherence and primitive logic.  The Shah had banned his books.    

So in the end, I think, fate brought the Shah, Carter and Khomeini together.  Had any one of them not been present, the revolution would not have happened.   It required the full participation of all three.      


"I am interested in your

by mnh (not verified) on

"I am interested in your country's history and after some previous extensive reading and thought, I have concluded that the Iranian revolution was really masterminded to a greater extent by external forces (US, UK , France), who deliberatly engaged in a mud slinging campaign against the Shah in the late 1970's. They supported Khomeini against him, because they couldnt stand seeing Iran making significant strides forward, eventually being a modernised and westernised strong power and regional player, classic issue of betrayal in international politics.

I think the Shah had very good intentions for Iran, but could have done more to alleviate poverty (social programs) and develop the rural countryside, and shoudnt have spent so much on millitary hardware in 1970s, this would have taken the wind out of the sails of the extremists. However he wasnt a bloodthirsty dictator, but an autocratic monarch who knew that a developing country must first get solid foundation before anything else follows, just like Communist China is doing today (or since 1980) - that makes sense.

You know people in every country can be manipulated as sad as its seems, even in a democracy, because they do not think as critical individuals , but look blindley to leaders and act emotionally, abandoning reason and moderation in its wake...the Iranian revolution showed that very clearly ..... the people wanted someone parochial promising heaven on earth ( but delivering hell on earth) to lead them and werent even willing to give an intelligent and well edcuated man like Dr Shapor Baktiar a chance to govern, yes their .Ironically , and with hindsight some people in your country now look back with regret , and think the Shah regardless of mistakes done wasnt so bad after all, what an irony or may be just plain human nature !

Sooner or later this anachronistic islamic regime will collapse against the tide of secularism (or via US military intervenrtion) sweeping Iran, just hope all mullas get summary execution along with it when it happens!."


"I am interested in your

by mnh (not verified) on

"I am interested in your country's history and after some previous extensive reading and thought, I have concluded that the Iranian revolution was really masterminded to a greater extent by external forces (US, UK , France), who deliberatly engaged in a mud slinging campaign against the Shah in the late 1970's. They supported Khomeini against him, because they couldnt stand seeing Iran making significant strides forward, eventually being a modernised and westernised strong power and regional player, classic issue of betrayal in international politics.

I think the Shah had very good intentions for Iran, but could have done more to alleviate poverty (social programs) and develop the rural countryside, and shoudnt have spent so much on millitary hardware in 1970s, this would have taken the wind out of the sails of the extremists. However he wasnt a bloodthirsty dictator, but an autocratic monarch who knew that a developing country must first get solid foundation before anything else follows, just like Communist China is doing today (or since 1980) - that makes sense.

You know people in every country can be manipulated as sad as its seems, even in a democracy, because they do not think as critical individuals , but look blindley to leaders and act emotionally, abandoning reason and moderation in its wake...the Iranian revolution showed that very clearly ..... the people wanted someone parochial promising heaven on earth ( but delivering hell on earth) to lead them and werent even willing to give an intelligent and well edcuated man like Dr Shapor Baktiar a chance to govern, yes their .Ironically , and with hindsight some people in your country now look back with regret , and think the Shah regardless of mistakes done wasnt so bad after all, what an irony or may be just plain human nature !

Sooner or later this anachronistic islamic regime will collapse against the tide of secularism (or via US military intervenrtion) sweeping Iran, just hope all mullas get summary execution along with it when it happens!."


Iran: Carter's Habitat For

by Anonymousp (not verified) on

Iran: Carter's Habitat For Inhumanity
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.


Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
More on this series


When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.

Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.

This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.

According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Kho-meini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."

The mullahs hated the shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society. Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.

Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow. And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.

On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."

Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.

When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."

Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.

Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.

According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

The shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the shah permanent asylum. Carter's response was: "F*** the shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."

In October 1979, the shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.

If the shah remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.

Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.

Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.

It was Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon. And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.

The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.

And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."

Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.

The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."

Quite simply, we concur.


More on the manufactured

by Anonymousp (not verified) on

More on the manufactured revolution of Iran via Carter et al:

By Chuck Morse As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the world's most oppressive regimes, would greatly contribute to the creation of the Marxist/Islamic terror network challenging the free world today.At the time, a senior Iranian diplomat in Washington observed, "President Carter betrayed the Shah and helped create the vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America." Under the guise of promoting" human rights," Carter made demands on the Shah while blackmailing him with the threat that if the demands weren't fulfilled, vital military aid and training would be withheld. This strange policy, carried out against a staunch, 20 year Middle East ally, was a repeat of similar policies applied in the past by US governments to other allies such as pre Mao China and pre Castro Cuba. Carter started by pressuring the Shah to release "political prisoners" including known terrorists and to put an end to military tribunals. The newly released terrorists would be tried under civil jurisdiction with the Marxist/Islamists using these trials as a platform for agitation and propaganda. This is a standard tactic of the left then and now. The free world operates at a distinct dis-advantage to Marxist and Islamic nations in this regard as in those countries, trials are staged to "show" the political faith of the ruling elite. Fair trials, an independent judiciary, and a search for justice is considered to be a western bourgeois prejudice...more


Too much hype

by MRX1 (not verified) on

Savak was third rate bloated organization that did not do much internally to crush the opposition. externally they were quite good in obtaining info. had they been an effective organization and had they eliminated thousands of islamo fascist and commi cockroaches we will not be in this situation today. Such an ineffective organization that kept all the so called revolutionaries alive and well fed! despite all the bogus rhetoric savak turns out to be the best friends of anti shah and liberal idiots who hated shah!


"Former KGB agent and

by kjh (not verified) on

"Former KGB agent and Soviet
by Anonymous3 (not verified) on Wed Feb 13, 2008 01:05 PM CST

"Former KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov explains how the KGB worked from within American universities to demoralize our society in a generation."

The manufacturing of "useful idiots:" a first-hand explanation of how and why they did it, Willi Münzenberg's old weapons of the Cold War are still working.

The Revenge of Marxism


اسامی قربانيان

Islamic savak (not verified)

اسامی قربانيان کشتار زندانيان سياسی در سال ۶۷


Watch the movie "A few

by Islamic savak (not verified) on

Watch the movie "A few Simple Shot" about the Iranian Political Prisoners:

Crimes of IRI:


The dead of 17 shahrivar

by Anonymous Iranian (not verified) on

I visited behesht zahra a few years ago, and the cemetary is actually sectioned off for various eras. The plot which has the tombs from that incident were less than a 40 (forty) tomb stones. Of those tomb stones the majority seemed to have died of old age as they were mostly in their late 60s and 70s. the whole thing was a myth. in fact i wish they had fired on the thickest parts of the crowd and killed thousands, so we would not be at the point right now. there's a reason why Batabi was arrested after his picture came out on the cover of the Economist holding up a bloodied t-shirt. the idea that people are being massacred is a powerful one, and the regime realizes it.


Roya Johnson sounds like an puppet

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

and so does her dubious "US Alliance for Democratic Iran". Let her release the income sources for this group and maybe we can start trusting it. Otherwise, we have to assume she's on the $75 Million club.

No thanks!


Question of Numbers, Emad

by Islamic savak (not verified) on

Question of Numbers, Emad Baghi
Cyrus Kadivar

Rumours, exaggerated claims by the leaders of the Islamic revolution and a disinformation campaign against the fallen monarchy, not to mention Western media reports that the imperial regime was guilty of "mass murders", has finally been challenged by a former researcher at the Martyrs Foundation (Bonyad Shahid). The findings by Emad al-Din Baghi, now a respected historian, has caused a stir in the Islamic republic for it boldly questions the true number of casualties suffered by the anti-Shah movement between 1963 and 1979.

In the aftermath of the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, ordered the creation of the Martyrs Foundation with the sole purpose of identifying the names of the so-called "martyrs" and provide financial support for their families as well as those who had sustained injuries in the fierce street battles with royalist troops. The necessary funds were immediately raised from the assets seized from the high officials in the Shah's regime, many of whom had been executed after summary trials.

For many years the Martyrs Foundation collected the names of the victims of the anti-Shah revolution classifying them by age, sex, education, profession and address. The files were kept secret until 1996/7 when a decision was made to make public the figures on the anniversary of the revolution. At about this time, Emad al-Dib Baghi, was hired as a researcher and editor of the bonyad's magazine "Yad Yaran" (Remembering our Comrades) to make sense of the data. By the time his work had finished he was told that the names were not to be made public. The reason given was that to pursue the matter would run contrary to the statements made by the late Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors who claimed that "60,000 men, women and children were martyred by the Shah's regime."

Emad al-Din Baghi who left the Martyrs Foundation to write two books on the subject claims that the authorities felt that releasing the true statistics would simply confuse the public. So, officials continued to stick to the exaggerated numbers. During a debate in the Majlis at the height of the US hostage crisis, an Islamic deputy claimed that giving in to America would be an insult to the memory of "70,000 martyrs and 100,000 wounded who fought to destroy the rotten monarchy." In fact, by continuing the myth that so many people had been killed, the regime was able to buy a certain legitimacy for its "noble revolution" and excesses.

"Sooner or later the truth was bound to come out," Baghi argued. In his opinion history should be based on objective findings and not baseless rumours which was the root of the anti-Shah hysteria and street demonstrations in 1978 and 1979. The true numbers are fascinating because contrary to the official view they are quite low and highly disproportionate to the hundreds of thousands murdered in the last 24 years in the Islamic republic.

The statistical breakdown of victims covering the period from 1963 to 1979 adds up to a figure of 3,164. Of this figure 2,781 were killed in nation wide disturbances in 1978/79 following clashes between demonstrators and the Shah's army and security forces. Baghi has no reason to doubt these figures and believes that it is probably the most comprehensive number available with the possible exception of a few names that were not traced.

During the years separating the arrest of Khomeini on 5th June 1963 for instigating the riots against the Shah's White Revolution and his return from exile on 1st February 1979, most of the 3,164 victims were in Tehran, Rey and Shemiran and 731 were killed in riots in the provinces which constitutes 14% of the country. Most of the casualties were in central Tehran and the poorer southern areas. Of this number 32 "martyrs" belong to the 1963 riots who were killed in 19 different parts of the Iranian capital. All were male and from southern Tehran.

Despite this revelation all officially sanctioned books in Iran dealing with the history of the Islamic revolution write of "15,000 dead and wounded". Such wild figures have found its way in Western accounts.

Another myth is the number of those killed on Friday, 8th September 1978 in the infamous Jaleh Square massacre. On that day the Iranian government imposed martial law in Tehran after troops had fired at several thousand anti-government demonstrators in the capital. The opposition and Western journalists claimed that the massacre left between 95 and 3,000 dead, depending on widely varying estimates. Historians agree that the bloody incident was to be a crucial turning point in the revolution. Baghi refutes those numbers as "grossly inflated."

The figures published by Baghi speaks of 64 killed among them two females – one woman and a young girl. On the same day in other parts of the capital a total of 24 people died in clashes with martial law forces among them one female. Therefore, according to Baghi, the number of people "martyred" on Black Friday is 88 of which 64 were gunned down in Jaleh Square. These statistics are closer to the figures announced by Dr Ameli Tehrani (executed by the revolutionaries) who served in Prime Minister Sharif Emami's government. The Shah's officials repeatedly spoke of 86 people dead and 205 wounded in clashes.

But at the time nobody in Iran was prepared to believe the government version, says Baghi, himself an ardent revolutionary in those troubled days. Instead rumours turned into facts and made headlines further weakening the Shah's crumbling regime. Opposition leaders quoted figures as high as "tens of thousands" and agitators spread stories that soldiers had fired on the people from helicopters piloted by Israelis. Michel Focault, a leading French journalist, who covered the Jaleh Square wrote of "2,000 to 3,000 victims" and later increased the figures to "4,000 people killed" adding that the demonstrators had no fear of death.

The number of non-Muslims who died for the revolution was deemed by the Martyrs Foundation as "too insignificant" to be included in the list. Many of them were die-hard Marxist guerrillas who had fought running battles with the Shah's secret police known as Savak. In the 1970s the Shah's regime faced many threats from so-called Islamic-Marxist terrorists who carried out assassinations of top officials, kidnappings, bank thefts and bomb attacks on cinemas. Savak was given special powers to deal with this "terrorist" threat and appeared successfully ruthless in its "dirty war." Savak's crude brutality received a lot of criticism in the West. Amnesty International reported cases of illegal detention and torture.

But how many were killed? Baghi is methodical in the way he states numbers. Firstly, he claims that the total number of guerrillas killed between the 1971 Siahkal incident during which armed Marxists attacked a police station in a Caspian village and the February 1979 insurrection is 341.

The figure 341 is made up of 177 persons killed in shoot-outs with the Shah's security forces; 91 were executed for "anti-state activities"; 42 died under torture; 15 were arrested and "disappeared", 7 committed suicide rather than be captured, and 9 were shot while escaping. From among the guerrilla groups who died fighting the imperial regime the Marxist Fedayeen Khalq organisation suffered the highest losses. From the total figure of 341 killed, 172 were Fedayeens (50%); 73 Mujaheddin Khalq (21%); 38 fringe communists (11%); 30 Mujaheddin marxists before changing their ideology to Islamic (9%) and 28 Islamists (8%).

For completion sake, Baghi has added 5 other names to his long list. Four of them (Sadeq Amani, Reza Safar Herandi, Mohammad Bokharaie and Morteza Niknejad) were executed by firing squad after a military tribunal found them guilty of assassinating Prime Minister Mansour in 1965. The fifth name belonged to Reza Shams Abadi, a member of the Imperial Guard, who opened fire on the Shah as he came out of his limousine at the Marble Palace. The assassin was shot down by the king's bodyguards. By adding these five names to the 341 we get the figure of 346 non-demonstrators killed between 1963 and 1979.

In addition to the 32 demonstrators killed in the June 1963 pro-Khomeini riots two other persons were shot dead in the following weeks in an undisclosed part of Tehran. On 2nd November 1963 a certain Mohammad Ismail Rezaie was murdered in jail and on the same day Haj Mohammad Reza Teyb was shot by firing squad at the Heshmatiyeh army barracks.

The mysterious death of the famous wrestler Gholam Reza Takhti in 1967 was attributed to Savak but Baghi has established that Takhti committed suicide. Unfortunately, Baghi makes no mention of the Islamic philosopher Ali Shariati and the Imam's eldest son, Mustapha Khomeini. Both died of heart attacks in London and Najaf respectively. At the time of their deaths there were many rumours that they had been eliminated by Savak agents but subsequent evidence proves the opposite. Nevertheless, the negative effect on public opinion was tremendous and played a major role in eroding support for the Shah's regime.

In any case, by adding Takhti's name the total of those killed for underground action against the Shah's regime comes to 383 which added to the 2,781 "martyrs" would mean that 3,164 Iranians lost their lives in the revolution against the monarchy and not 60,000 as the Imam had stated. In time, other historians may take up the task of finding the truth about the countless people executed or eliminated during the brutal 24 years rule of the mullahs. But that will only be possible in a free Iran and the findings may prove to be a greater shock.

August issue "


Savak was incompetent and

by Islamic Savak (not verified) on

Savak was incompetent and lazy:

They can't claim one mass grave ,stoning or one secret dungeon or secret prison to their credit. They were totally useless.

The 1988 Iran massacre: crimes against humanity


By: Roya Johnson As a former

by Islamic Savak (VEVAK, SAVAMA) (not verified) on

By: Roya Johnson

As a former political prisoner, I have been asked on many occasions what has kept the mullahs’ regime in power in Iran for twenty five years. After all, the overwhelming majority of Iranians loathe them; their oil-driven economy is in shambles, with a majority of the population below the poverty line or very close to it. Internationally they are condemned as the most active sponsor of terrorism and major proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. So, what is their secret?

There are several reasons for their longevity. Iran’s geography, its oil and natural gas resources, and the European Union’s policy of engagement are among them. In this article, however, my focus is on the main factor: the unbridled, systematic, and highly organized suppression of Iranian citizens and dissidents. Iran’s democracy movement must bring this structure of terror down before genuine change can be realized.

As a young student activist, I spent three years in the women’s ward of one of Iran’s prisons simply for engaging in political activity to promote democratic rights and encouraging others to get involved. It was in prison where I saw first-hand how the mullahs shield their tyrannical rule behind walls of suppression.

In Iran, a unique mixture of religious authority and demagoguery, combined with a bottomless coffer, and topped with unbounded capacity for savagery, has created the horrific machinery of terror and fear, which has served to preserve the ruling theocracy so far.

Similar to Europe’s age of inquisition, Iran’s apparatus of suppression legitimizes its barbarity under the cloak of religion. It has turned a sacred and compassionate religion into a tool to sanction killings, torture and destruction. Mosques and Friday prayer congregations have become instruments for spreading hate and vengeance.

Incapable of leading a nation of 35 million toward democracy, prosperity and progress, Khomeini-led clerics quickly realized after the 1979 revolution that they could hold-on to power only through a police state. They Set-up such organizations as the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Islamic Revolutionary Courts, the paramilitary Bassij force, and other agencies.

My time in prison was marked by unimaginable savagery of the prison officials and visiting mullahs towards prisoners who challenged the mullahs’ political and ideological legitimacy, and their claim to be God’s vice-regent on earth, by calling for popular sovereignty. They therefore were condemned for “waging war on God.” This legitimized their torture and execution.

Female prisoners like me were brutalized even more. The mullahs’ misogynous worldview goes through seismic jolts when they see women standing up to them. Many of my childhood friends ended up in the prison. Despite undergoing ceaseless physical and psychological torture, including rape, they remained defiant to the end. Many of them were snatched from our prison cells in the middle of the night and sent to the gallows. Some were buried in unmarked graves and at least two were pregnant when they were executed.

Relatives of political prisoners are denied access to universities, employment, traveling abroad and anything which requires government approval. Many relatives have been imprisoned just for sympathizing with their loved one’s political views or with the democratic opposition. Some relatives are even executed. In my cell, two teenage sisters were detained simply because they had refused to appear on television and denounce their activist brother, who had already been executed. Both were executed a few years later.

Torture is also used for made-for-TV confessions about how the opposition organizations and activists are basically corrupt and worse than the regime. The mullahs seek to sow fear, confusion and doubt in the minds of people in order to undermine the quest for a regime change. This also explains why the mullahs continue to flog, amputate limbs, gouge out eyes, hang, and stone people to death in public.

Despite such pervasive, systematic all-around suppression and tens of thousands of political executions, Iran’s ruling mullahs have failed to silence Iranians. Iranians continue to challenge the regime through demonstrations, strikes, uprisings and other means. But as long as the mullahs’ machinery of suppression is in place, the regime will continue to crackdown, kill, arrest, and do whatever is needed to put down dissent.

On their own, the mullahs will never abandon the suppression of Iranians, close down their torture chambers, send away the firing squads, and dismantle the gallows. Therefore, Iran’s democracy movement, which rightly seeks the toppling of this regime as the necessary first step to establish a secular democracy in Iran, must be empowered to tear down this wall of suppression. When that happens, the world would see how fast the mullahs’ regime would crumble.

It is not enough just to applaud Iranians’ courage and their aspirations for a democratic government. Defending and safeguarding the human rights of Iranians and all Iranian dissidents must be the main component of any policy in support of Iran’s democracy movement. Thousands of political prisoners who have died in the hands of mullahs and hundreds of others who are in their dungeons right now deserve this recognition.

Roya Johnson is vice president of the US Alliance for Democratic Iran.

Darius Kadivar

FYI/Iranian blogger Sina Motalebi speaks about his arrest

by Darius Kadivar on


Iranian journalist Sina Motalebi about blogging:

Darius Kadivar

Revolutionary Justice

by Darius Kadivar on


SAVAK HQ seizes after victory of Iranian revolution, Feb 79

Tribunal of General Mehdi Rahimi 1979 :

Ibrahim Yazdi ( Mr. Green Card)  interviewed about his responsability in the execution of Pahlavi Era ministers and gererals:

about Hoveyda:

Darius Kadivar

Few extra notes to Parham's correct translation

by Darius Kadivar on

The Anti Shah Demonstrations were most of the time not to say ALWAYS supported if not encouraged by the Far Left Wing parties in Europe thoughout the Cold War. The most noteable  anti Shah Demo that made headlines because of the spectacular nature and dramatic consenquence for some of the demonstrators dates back to 1968 during the Shah and Shahbanou's state visit to Germany. The event led to demonstrations and fights between pro Shah and Anti Shah demonstrators and the German Police interfered and a German student Benno Ohnesorg 

was shot by a German police Karl-Heinz Kurras who was in civil clothes. This tragic event led to what became known as West Germany's May 68 :

The tragedy of Ohnesorg's death used as a further pretext to Bash the Shah's regime. It was however clear that Berlin a divided city between East and West was also an ideal and symbolic place to demonstrate against the Pro US Shah government. The demonstration was clearly an event manipulated by Soviet and Eastern Bloc sympathizers and some of the leaders had actually penetrated West Germany as political dissdents but were agents for East German government.

The ideology of many student mouvements in the West was a confused melting pot of anarchism,pacifism, Trotkism and romantic allegience to the idea of communism and international revolution and Anti Americanism due to the lingering Vietnam War.

By the end of the 70's however the power of persuasion of these mouvements had ebbed particularly with the overgrowing dissillusionment with the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan and also the nuclear race between East and West. So pacifism and Human Rights became the new crusade for most good intention but often badly informed students with the creation of Amnesty International by Sean MacBride a former IRA activist (later 1974 nobel Peace Prize for his work for Amnesty) focused on denouncing dicatorial rule both in East and West. However the impact of Amnesty was much more influential in attacking controversial Pro US regimes like Pinochet's Chili or Iran's Shah than attacking any Pro Soviet or Communist regime since no one could truly penetrate the secret services of the Soviet Bloc before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. So paradoxically most of Amnesty International reports were more efficient in destabilizing ( for good or bad reason's) US allies in the Cold War opposing the Soviet Expansionism than Pro Soviet allies just as if not more brutal Secret Services.

The footage of the anti shah demonstrations by Students clearly show banners of the Communist Party and other left wing groups to which the Iranian protestors have joined in the demo. The Bearded young man who speaks in German and translated in French claims that he and his friends do not belong to the Communist party but an Anti Fascist and anti dictatorial alliance against the Shah's rule. The term "Fascist" unlike "Nazi" was and still is a very widely used terminology in the Left Wing Rhetoric for a specific reason. The Fascist ( pronounce FASSIST) derived from the Italian Duce Mussolini's mouvment that started prior to German Nazism. The Focus on Fascism rather than Nazism ( or even direct reference to both doctrines ) comes from the fact that  most of these "Stalinist" mouvements of the 60's and 70's were trying to avoid mentioning the fact that in 1the break of WWII the Soviet Union and Hitler signed a non aggressive pact justified by Stalin as a reason not to be involved in an International War supported by the Bourgeoisie and the Jewish Lobby. It was considered by many communists in Europe as a pact with the Devil and many sympathizers of the communist ideology were dissapointed. Germany's attack on the Eastern Front and aim of invasions of Russia that led to the heroic resistance at Stalingrad turned Stalin into the "HERO" of WWII.

All this to say that the left wing rhetoric against dicatorships in general was to qualify them as "Fascist" rather than "Nazi" which was a very suitable vocabulary for left wing demonstrators in the height of the Cold War. Particularly also in critisizing the United States military presence for instance in West Germany or opposing nucleare technology as was the case by the Green Parties in most European countries which unlike today were considered as marginals. 

French President Giscard d'Estaing appears at the end of this Swiss Television documentary. He is visiting the Shah in Switzerland at the Airport of Saint Moritz Ski resort. An Irony given that Giscard and former Western Leaders like West Germanyi's Willy Brant, Canada's Trudeau, US president Jimmy Carter and Britain's Prime Minister of the time got together at the Guadeloup G8 conference to agree upon abandoning the Shah and refuse to support his regime.

Nothing can Justify the brutality or methods of the SAVAK but in retrospect much of the testimonies and critics seem particularly thin. Firstly because the Students studying in Switzerland for the most belonged to well off family's and could not be considered as belonging to the so called Proletariat. Studying and living in Switzerland was and still is a luxury compared to other European States. Secondly non of these students seem to have been hurt but investigated. The reports with pictures to which Jamshid refers too at at 0:55 obviously corresponds to arrested people ( students or activists) but little is said about the reason's for which they were arrested.

Swiss was one of the major clients of Iran's Oil and also a major Armement export to Iran. This is even mentioned in the documentary. The interesting aspect of this documentary is actually the fact that it remains quite neutral not to say embarrased in having to justify Switzerland's dependancy on Iranian export and imports compared to most reports that followed when the Revolution started and in its aftermath upon the shah's departure.

Shortly after this documentary and in the few months before the Revolution another interesting documentary by the Swiss TV ( 4 PARTS) was to show life in Iran under the Shah in a relatively positive light but without ignoring the tough questions including Human Rights

The Shah seemed to be more open to speak about it more openly and less tensely to critics aimed at him and his government in this regard. Probably also because he may have been reassured by his allies support at the time. Most of the time he was very paranoiac towards many such critics by foreign journalists because he felt ( probably with good reason) that they represented what his Allies of the time were hypocritically trying to criticize his reign but benefit from his Oil exports. He also seemed to acknowledge that there may have been unnecessary brutality in the past . "On a peut etre eu la main trop lourde dans certains cas" aka " we may have been too firm with some prisoners in some cases".

He expresses regret but also that the destiny of Iran and that of the West are dependent on one another.

The report ends with photos and articles on Human Rights violations in Iran during his reign.

I wonder if today's regime in Iran would ever accept to admit its own crimes in the past 30 years or slightly even accept responsability as the Shah did towards the end of his reign ? ...